The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for six months, respectively.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) are indicated in each of the subparagraphs.

【The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of 7 years, fine of 200 million won, additional collection: 109,700,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to cashier's checks received KRW 100 million

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) Defendant A received KRW 100 million in total from Defendant B on December 30, 2008, 100 million cashier’s checks from Defendant B. However, Defendant A received KRW 100 million in total from Defendant B around October 25, 2007.

In other words, on July 20, 2006, Defendant A lent KRW 200 million to K, and thereafter, on January 5, 2007, Defendant A received payment of KRW 60 million as one copy of a check in the name of Q, which is its birth, from K, and kept it. On October 2007, Defendant A received a request for a loan of KRW 100 million from theO and lent KRW 100 million in total to theO, the mother of Defendant A and KRW 40 million in cash, KRW 10 million, and thereafter, on December 30, 2008, Defendant A received KRW 17 million in total ( KRW 10 million and KRW 7 million in cash) as the loan and interest terms.

She also did not require the public official in charge to approve the completion of the above construction because the construction works for the exhibition sector of the G relics exhibition hall are selected by the responsible supervisor, and there is no authority to approve the completion of the above construction works for the defendant A. Therefore, there is no reason to reduce the amount of KRW 100 million to the defendant A under the pretext that the defendant B attempted to approve the completion of the above construction works. The above KRW 100 million is not a bribe received or given

B. The Defendants in the judgment of the court below also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and as to this, the court below held the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.