All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants’ instant indictment under the misapprehension of the legal doctrine was filed by the prosecutor by abusing the power of prosecution.

(b) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the charge on Defendant A’s maternity and the charge on Defendant B’s perjury is not included in the facts charged in the instant case, since Defendant A was demanded from Defendant F to pay KRW 50 million in cash in terms of E attorney fee, and Defendant A made a false statement that there was such fact although he was not actually paid. As such, the Defendants’ statements on the following facts are limited to the circumstances.

The evidence list Nos. 64, 64 (Examination of Suspected Examination of Defendants in February 15, 2017), 90 (Examination of Suspected Examination of Defendant A in April 14, 2017), 92 (Examination of Suspected Examination of Defendant A in April 19, 2017), 24, 48, 62, 73, 74 (each prosecutor's protocol in relation to F), and 50 (Protocol of Statement of Prosecutor in relation to F) are illegally collected evidence and inadmissible.

No. 1-3, 4, 5 and No. 2-2 of the year of Defendant B’s annual statement in the annexed list of crimes committed by Defendant A of mistake of facts, and (3) the partial statement was not false, and even if it was false, there was no intention to make a false statement by mistake.

In addition, the defendant A had no purpose to harm the F.

The reasoning of the lower judgment is inconsistent with the reasoning of the lower judgment.

The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unfair sentencing (i.e., Defendant A: six months of imprisonment with prison labor; and (ii) Defendant B’s fine of three million won is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that Defendant A made an accusation against the F on or around September 2010, Defendant A filed a complaint with the F to the effect that the F acquired 50 million won from Defendant A in the name of E attorney fee, while the F transferred F to E an attorney-at-law the amount of non-cash cash stored in the State machine and returned to find it immediately.