The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (Definite) did not request that Defendant B sent a contact loan to Defendant B, and there was no fact that Defendant B had engaged in a danran bar operated by Defendant E.

B. The prosecutor (unfairly unfair) committed by the lower court against the Defendants each sentence (a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant C, and D: the suspended sentence of each fine of KRW 1 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the principle of court-oriented trials, etc., when comprehensively considering the results of the first instance trial and the results of further examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court's decision as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). In addition, if the witness's statement is consistent in the main part of the statement, solely on the grounds that the statement made by the witness is somewhat inconsistent with the statement made by the witness in the first instance, it does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008).

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, namely, E, L, and Co-Defendant C’s investigative agency and the court below’s legal statement, consistent with this part of the facts charged, are reasonable, specific and reasonable in major parts, and are different.