The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 13, 2012, Defendant B, regardless of the intermediation of the loan business, concluded that Defendant B would borrow KRW 30 million from Defendant A, and around that time, he received KRW 25 million from Defendant A, and received KRW 5 million from Defendant A on February 7, 2013. However, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the relevant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (reconciliation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the said Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended sentence, and additional collection of 10,200 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of six months, one year of suspended sentence, and one additional collection of 5,051,30 won) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected the Defendant B’s above assertion on the following grounds: (a) as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the part of the financial interest equivalent to KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, in collusion with the Defendant A, received financial interest equivalent to the interest accrued on the loan; (b)

Examining the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the court below's fact-finding and its subsequent measures are justified, and it cannot be said that there were errors of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as pointed out by Defendant B.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B's assertion is based on the lack of reason.

(2) On February 7, 2013, Defendant B received KRW 5 million from Defendant A on February 7, 2013, the fact that Defendant B received KRW 5 million from Defendant A on February 7, 2013 is sufficiently recognized based on relevant evidence, but Defendant B could be recognized as the receipt of KRW 5 million, not until that time, out of KRW 30 million, he/she borrowed prior to the fact.