Defendant

All appeals against the Defendants by appeal of C, M and L and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C, M, or L1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows. (A) Defendant C (1) around May 2010, around July 2010, and around June 201, each part of the acceptance of bribe amounting to KRW 2 million (the first instance court (hereinafter “the first instance court judgment”), and Defendant A’s judgment against Defendant C, M, or L is “the second lower court judgment”).

(2) As to the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C did not receive money and valuables from Defendant A as stated in each of the facts charged in this part, and Defendant A did not pay the investment money to Defendant L and C in order for Defendant A not to pay the investment money.

(2) Regarding the part of acceptance of bribe under the pretext of investment proceeds (Article 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Hun-Ga103, Apr. 1, 2011), Defendant C was aware of the fact that Defendant A was an unregistered credit service provider and was paid a dividend of 40 million won to an intermediate transaction business entity in agricultural products without knowing that he was an unregistered credit service provider, and thus,

B) In relation to Defendant M(1) around February 201, 201, there was no fact that Defendant M received money from Defendant A as stated in the facts charged. (2) As to the part of acceptance of bribe (the first instance court’s first instance court’s 2015 high-class 2 case’s 1-A-2 case’s 2012 case’s 200 million won), Defendant M received money from Defendant A, without knowing that Defendant A was an unregistered credit service provider and without knowing that it was an unregistered credit service provider, and only received money, and thus, Defendant M received money as dividends in relation to his duties. (3) In relation to the portion of acceptance of bribe (the first instance court’s 2015 high-class 22 case’s 1-C case’s 2015 high-class 2 case’s 2015 high-class 2 case’s 1-C case’s 2000 won, Defendant M received instructions from Defendant A’s non-registered credit service provider as well as Defendant A’s witness on a check.