All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The amount paid to Defendant A1) to Defendant B is not a price paid for an illegal solicitation, not for public relations expenses.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) received money from Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) upon the request of the misunderstanding of facts to select a company it operates as an online marketing agency, but received KRW 6 million, not KRW 13 million.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the additional collection of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of fact 1) Defendant A’s assertion that the amount of money paid to Defendant A did not constitute an illegal solicitation. However, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A’s assertion that the money paid to Defendant A was not the price for the illegal solicitation; (b) Defendant A’s receipt of money from the other companies without giving the other companies an opportunity to undergo the pressation; and (c) Defendant A entered into a contract by providing an opportunity to undergo the pressation only with the company operated by Defendant A; (b) the price for the service was set in favor of the company operated by Defendant A by the agreement to pay in advance; and (c) Defendant B led to a conviction of the fact that Defendant A received money from Defendant A in return for the illegal solicitation, it is reasonable to deem that the money paid to Defendant

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

2) Determination as to the wrongful assertion of sentencing is recognized as having no previous convictions for Defendant A, the crime of forging private documents, etc. finalized in the judgment of the court below, and the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

B) However, the fact that Defendant A denies and does not reflect the crime, the fact that it is not good to commit the crime by granting money in return for an illegal solicitation, the fact that it was not agreed with the victim, and the fact that the damage was not recovered.