All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) Illegal sentencing for Defendant C: The lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution of one year’s imprisonment) is too heavy.

2) Defendant E’s misunderstanding of the facts (guilty part of the judgment of the court below) was not arranged by D to obtain a loan guarantee from the Credit Guarantee Fund through A, who is an employee of the Credit Guarantee Fund, and in return, the Defendant did not receive five million won from A.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months) is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part not guilty against Defendant E) at the time of Defendant E’s loan guarantee for M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) upon Defendant E’s solicitation, Defendant E is merely an employee of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and thus, Defendant E’s solicitation to receive a loan guarantee from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund for M constitutes “mediation for another’s business.”

However, the court below did not constitute "mediation for another person's business" on the premise that Defendant E is an employee of Defendant E.

This error is wrong.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the wrongful Defendant E in sentencing is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the assertion of the above facts, and the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, acknowledged that the Defendant arranged the Defendant through A, a member of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, to obtain a loan guarantee from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and received KRW 5 million from A in return, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation.

If the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment is just and acceptable, and contrary to this, the defendant's assertion that it might be inside the court.