All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution, community service, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months, and two years of suspended execution, community service, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty of the reasoning of the judgment below) Defendant B delivered KRW 6 million in cash, not the check returned by the Defendant A, to Defendant A again. As such, the Defendants, who received the above KRW 6 million with intent to obtain unlawful acquisition and intent separate from KRW 20 million, was sufficiently recognized as having received the above KRW 20 million.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was acquitted on the following grounds.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant B seems to have returned KRW 9 million out of the total amount of KRW 15 million in breach of trust as stated in the judgment below and exchanged the remainder of KRW 6 million in cash from Defendant A.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that Defendant B provided a new property separate from the amount of 20 million won in breach of trust as stated in the judgment below in order to obtain a written consent for the establishment of a ready-mixed factory on January 8, 2016, and that Defendant A received the new property with a separate intention and intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, to the extent that it can be excluded from reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Defendant B is the Defendant.