The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B for one year and six months, respectively.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The prosecutor - - misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, in full view of the following: (a) Defendant A stated that the Gun's consent was the prior procedure for the establishment of a factory in the prosecutor's office; (b) Defendant A stated that viewing authorization and permission was the commission of the corporation G (hereinafter referred to as "G"); and (c) Defendant A demanded that Defendant A had continuously discussed the change of the site of the factory with Defendant C; and (d) Defendant B and C had consistently stated that the change of the site of the factory was discussed; and (b) Defendant B and C had actively made false statements in advance; and (c) the Defendants agreed to receive KRW 150 million from I for military consent and authorization for viewing; and (d) there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, which did not recognize that there was no functional control over the act because it did not lead the act, even if the Defendants did not recognize the receipt of non-funds funds.

Defendant

The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendants A and B (the Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant B’s imprisonment for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the court below, based on the evidence, found the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, based on the following: (a) even based on the K’s statement, which is the most valuable evidence supporting the facts charged, it is unclear whether Co-defendants, including the Defendant, and Co-defendants, have consulted on what kind of contents in connection with the construction of a factory as stated in the facts charged and shared the act; (b) K itself is the person whose memory is not clear; and (c) the first consistently claims that the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was paid to the Defendant for the purpose of obtaining military consent, is related only to the Defendant A and irrelevant to the Defendant.