All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) merely delivered the content to the victim as it is, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim. (2) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of Defendant B in this case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the macroscopic evidence.

B. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, except in exceptional cases where the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, (i) B appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and discussed that the defendant would receive money from the victim; (ii) the defendant, not himself, was aware of the victim at the time when receiving KRW 30 million from the victim; (iii) the forest resale business in the astronomical of this case was difficult before receiving KRW 30 million from the victim; and (iv) the defendant also stated to the effect that there was a little statement about such contents.