All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Nos. 3 of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles, and Nos. 1 and 3 of the 6th suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the Prosecutor on G and the 1 and 3th suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the Prosecutor on G are not acknowledged as substantial authenticity, and there is no proof that the statements recorded in each of the above interrogation protocol were made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that recognized the admissibility of each of the above evidence is unreasonable.

2) The fact-misunderstanding that the Defendant, on September 2013, received KRW 30 million from G, as described in subparagraph 1-B of Article 1-B of the facts charged, is merely the name of the borrowed money, not the case cost of an investigation solicitation.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that found this part of the facts charged against the Attorney-at-Law is unreasonable.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service, 35 million won of collection) is too unreasonable.

B. On October 16, 2012, the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) stated in the prosecutor’s office to the effect that G was consistent with this part of the facts charged, and that G did not set interest and time limit for payment at the time of delivering KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and unlike the first prosecutor’s investigation, it was the third prosecutor’s investigation on this part of the facts charged. However, in light of the fact that the investigation agency conducted the investigation by U and J through transaction details, and as the investigation agency stated that G was flick in mind, the credibility of its statement can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, etc. is recognized on October 16, 2012. Since the J is de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, it is difficult to grasp the relationship with the Defendant from the standpoint of an investigative agency, and criminal proceeds belong to a third party.