Defendant

The judgment of the court of first instance against A and D is guilty, the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant B and E, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) did not receive KRW 10 million from D around May 201, Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by convicting the Defendant of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (water, etc.) on a different premise, on the other premise. The lower court’s sentence against the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, D, and E (unfair sentencing)’s sentence [1] Defendant B: imprisonment of two years, fine of two million won, additional collection of 15 million won, additional collection of 15 million won, Defendant C: imprisonment of four years, fine of five million won, additional collection of 45 million won, imprisonment of the first instance judgment, imprisonment of eight months, fine of four million won, confiscation of 4 million won, confiscation (Evidence 1) and additional collection of 2 million won, and Defendant D: imprisonment of two years and six months, sentence of six months, sentence of six months, sentence of six months, and sentence of imprisonment of two years, sentence of two years, suspension of execution of execution of execution of sentence] of the first instance judgment.

C. Although Defendant CD (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) did not recognize that there was no permission from the competent authorities at the time, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Mountainous Districts Management Act on a different premise. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) by the lower court against the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

In full view of all the evidence, including Defendant A, D,CC, and CDs, Defendant A and D (the fact-finding and unfair sentencing judgment)’s statements, etc., Defendant A and D (the fact-finding and unfair sentencing judgment) and B were acknowledged that Defendant A received KRW 10 million in connection with the loan execution from Defendant D around May 2010 and returned KRW 5 million among them to Defendant D, and received the remainder of five million in full. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby misapprehending this part of the facts charged (the fact-finding of Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and Defendant A.