All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this part of Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A is “Defendant”, and Defendant B is “B”.

1) Although it is apparent that the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million from B on the nature of the instant KRW 60 million and partially repaid it, the lower court clearly determined that the amount of KRW 60 million, which the Defendant received from K of the J (hereinafter “J”) of the Promotion Committee for Housing Area Redevelopment Improvement Project, for solicitation of orders for removal works from the chairperson of the Promotion Committee for Housing Area Development Project (hereinafter “the Promotion Committee”) was clearly erroneous, and therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the value of KRW 60 million, not for the order of removal works through M, but for the order of removal works through M. The Defendant, who has a significant influence on the area of Busan, could receive KRW 60 million from the perspective of expectation that he can receive the orders of removal companies with his assistance, if the Defendant helps and the Defendant, who had been given considerable influence on the area of Busan, would be entitled to receive the orders of removal companies.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the above 60 million won was paid under the pretext of soliciting the affairs of the chairperson of the promotion committee.

3) Although the Defendant paid KRW 60 million to B, the lower court additionally collected the total amount of KRW 60 million from the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine as to additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (B) Joint assertion by the Defendants: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

affairs of the selection of the removal company.