The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A.

A. Defendant A and C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe by Defendant A’s offering of a bribe to Defendant B by demanding the obligees to cause severe damage and lending KRW 100 million to Defendant B for the repayment of the debt, not offering the money as a bribe. 2) The Defendants merely received an application for subscription before the sale declaration, but did not conclude a sales contract. The Defendants returned all the subscription money upon the withdrawal of the subscription. The receipt of an offer in advance by the offerer does not constitute the pre-sale of a building as stipulated in Article 5(1) of the Act on Sale of Buildings due to the general practice in the industry for receiving the MF loans.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. Defendant B merely borrowed KRW 100 million from Defendant A to pay it to Defendant A as the creditor, and did not receive the above KRW 100 million in return for mediating the duties of other public officials by taking advantage of the position of the K Policy Promotion Director. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship with the duties of bribery or the quid pro quo, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. C. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that it was possible to receive the sales agency fee from the trust company with the consent of Defendant A and the misunderstanding of legal principles on the acquitted portion, the cash amount of KRW 120 million delivered by T to Defendant A constitutes an illegal solicitation.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

2. The lower court’s decision on unreasonable sentencing is against the Defendants.