All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A (hereinafter “victim”) borrowed KRW 2 million from the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) in the name of operating expenses for his/her father around September 17, 2012, and KRW 1 million in the name of memorial expenses around September 29, 2012. However, as stated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant A obtained money from the victim as a part of the street funds for operating the on-site restaurant, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (the Defendant A is a fine of KRW 3 million, and the Defendant B is a fine of KRW 6 million) on the grounds that the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following facts or circumstances recognized by the records, and ① the victim introduced Defendant A himself at a restaurant located in the investigation agency and the court of the lower court at the early June 2012, 201, as the head of the IM comprehensive development headquarters, at the restaurant located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yang Jae-dong, Defendant A was awarded a subcontract for the construction of the Hyundai Steel Complex with the old construction and the Hansan Construction. At the same time, it would be possible for the said department at the construction site to be able to use the site restaurant for the victim’s operation, and if so, it would be able to request the site manager to pay the cost to Defendant A, and thereafter, it would be 3 million won in total.

The purport of “A” is that the court below made a statement to the same effect as the victim, ② G and H made a statement in the court below’s trial; ③ the victim, G and H’s statement do not seem to have any special circumstance to suspect credibility; ④ Defendant A borrowed KRW 3 million from the victim; however, Defendant A and the victim did not have any loan certificate at that time, and Defendant A paid interest to the victim or repaid money.