All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: (a) did not provide 700,000 won to I for the purpose of winning the president of the instant credit cooperative at the election of the president of the P Saemaul Bank (hereinafter “instant credit cooperative”) (hereinafter “instant election”); (b) did not provide I for the purpose of winning the election of the president of the instant credit cooperative; (c) Defendant A convicted Defendant A of the part of Section 1-g of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “I-related part”) as evidence; and (d) did not err by misapprehending the fact that the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) could commit the instant crime, and thus, the punishment should be reduced or exempted in accordance with Article 87(1)1 of the Saemaul Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “instant provision”). However, the judgment of the court below which omitted it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor (in respect of Defendant A), who was sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant A

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant A guilty of the relevant part of the grounds for appeal is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts,

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is rejected.

① Prosecution consistently received money from Defendant A under the pretext of requesting support from the instant election, from the prosecution to the court of original trial.

Around 3 to 4 p.m. prior to the election of this case, Defendant A was called as an empty door door in the first floor of the building of Defendant A.