[Defendant A] All appeals filed by Defendant and Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant B] All appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”).

) The relationship in which W was operated with X, the actual operator of W, was limited to the position of the applicant for loan brokerage when seen from the perspective of financial institutions and co-defendant B, and W is limited to W (hereinafter referred to as “Zar”)

(AB) and AB (hereinafter referred to as “AB”)

(2) With respect to the receipt of a loan worth KRW 3.7 billion from Co-defendant B, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges that, in collusion with Co-Defendant B, the Defendant received KRW 300 million in relation to the referral of matters belonging to the duties of executives and employees of a financial institution, in collusion with Co-Defendant B by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although there was no fact that Co-Defendant participated in the act of arranging the above loan of KRW 3.7 billion, or in the act of receiving money and valuables in the pretext of good offices, or there was no fact that Co-Defendant B conspired with Co-Defendant B to commit the act of receiving money and valuables,

B. Defendant B’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of two years of imprisonment, 540 million won and 550 million won) is too unreasonable.

C. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor's 1-misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A conspired with U to receive the price of KRW 3.7 billion from the financial institution by requesting that W be granted a loan from the financial institution, and the head of the Z New Consultation Team C and the head of the AB New Consultation Branch AC receive KRW 3.7 billion from W by requesting each loan. On July 29, 2011, the court below may fully recognize that W received KRW 110 million from X in connection with the referral of matters belonging to the duties of an officer or employee of the financial institution by receiving KRW 110 million from X in return for the loan. However, the court below erred of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.