Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s mistake of facts: (a) Defendant A was investigated by Defendant B, etc. on or around October 201 by committing a crime that allowed Defendant B, etc. to resell a housing unit sale right held by Defendant B to AU through AW; (b) proposed the allocation of fines, taxes, etc. to be borne by Defendant B, etc., who reselled AW and AU according to the practice of the resale business of the resale right; and (c) paid KRW 3 million with the consent of the above proposal and the payment of the said amount; and (d) did not receive money to AU in order to make a smooth resolution of the case to the police; (b) the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) by the lower court (one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part against Defendant B), Defendant A accompanied Defendant B to request money on the pretext of a police solicitation by finding AU, and Defendant B did not restrain Defendant A’s speech and behavior; Defendant A stated in the police and the prosecutor’s office that both Defendant A and B knew that she would have known that she would have known that she would have given money to her; and Defendant A would not make a solicitation to the police for the investigation of Defendant B as well as there is no reason for Defendant A to make a solicitation for the police for the investigation of Defendant B, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with the Defendant A and requested AU to make money on the pretext of a solicitation against the police. 2) The sentence of the lower judgment against the Defendants in unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 5 million won of fine: 5 million won) is too unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, AU, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, there was a lack of resale of the right to sell housing to Defendant A through AW around June 201, and in this regard, the police investigation is conducted.