The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court acquitted Defendant B of the charge of receiving KRW 1.1 million in the name of solicitation among the facts charged against Defendant B. However, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B received KRW 1.1 million in the name of solicitation. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine among the facts charged against Defendant B.

B. Sentencing of the lower court’s punishment against each of the Defendants (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution; additional collection of KRW 74 million; Defendant B: imprisonment in 10 months; 2 years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On February 5, 2015, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Defendant B of this part of the facts charged: (a) made a statement to the purport that it is difficult for the Defendant to engage in activities due to a telephone call to the high-ranking position in the prosecution for the resolution of the instant case; and (b) made it difficult for the Defendant to engage in such activities to change the amount of KRW 1 million; and (c) transferred the fact from E to the new bank account under the name of the Defendant’s J on the same day; and (d) received KRW 500,000 from F to the same account around February 17, 2015.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 1.1 million in total from E and F under the pretext of soliciting the case handled by public officials.

2) The lower court and the lower court’s determination on the deliberation of the lower court are as follows: (a) as evidence that complies with or seems consistent with this part of the facts charged, the investigation report stating that the instant case was remitted with KRW 600,000 to the investigation agency; (b) the investigation report stating that the instant case was remitted with KRW 500,000 to the investigation agency; (c) the statement made by F in the investigation agency; and (d) the statement made by F in the investigation agency; and (e) whether the instant case was not requested by the Defendant B by the prosecutor’s investigator (the assistant judicial police officer) stating that the Defendant “50,000 won deposited on February 17, 2015” was the money having such reasons.