All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts on October 26, 201, despite the fact that Defendant A received KRW 100 million from Defendant A’s representative director C of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), the lower court determined otherwise that Defendant A received KRW 400 million, and thus, the lower court’s judgment erred by mistake of facts.

B. Regarding the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of October 25, 2011, Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant D, Defendant D received KRW 100 million from the representative director C of S and delivered KRW 75 million among them to Defendant A, the lower court determined otherwise, that Defendant D received KRW 100 million solely from Defendant D, and thus, the lower court’s judgment erred in misunderstanding of facts.

C. According to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (i.e., violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of October 25, 201 relating to S, Defendant D's statement, although Defendant A conspired with Defendant D to receive KRW 100 million from the representative director C of S and received KRW 75 million from them, the court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

In full view of the AL, AM, AJ, AI, Defendant D, and B’s statements, golf conference-based statements, golf conference-based facts, and technical explanation materials of AJ’s pocket book, AJ’s digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital digital

Referencely, the AL, AM, Q, AP, Defendant D and B's respective statements, suppers, and the romatic structure through the Defendants, and the fact that the attorney-at-law violated the O-law.