All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts has received KRW 80 million under the pretext of the judgment by H, but there is no fact that the Defendant received money in excess of this. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the instant facts charged on the premise that the Defendant was guilty of the charge under the premise that he was paid KRW 147 million on the basis of only H’s statements that were difficult to believe. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one hundred and forty million won of fine, and one hundred and forty-seven million of penalty, additional collection KRW 147,00,000) is too excessive.

B. Defendant B’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment for a term of six years, a fine of 104,000,000 won, and an additional collection of KRW 84,000 is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as that of the above mistake of facts. The lower court rejected the above assertion on the ground that H’s statement that he gave KRW 147 million to the Defendant is sufficiently reliable, with respect to the existence of objective data, amount of money to be given, the timing and circumstances of the commitment to the Defendant to pay rewards to the Defendant, and the adequacy and rationality of the amount of money to be given, etc., and that H’s statement that he gave KRW 147 million to the Defendant was sufficiently reliable. 2) In the case where the issue is whether to give or receive the money was raised, the Defendant’s statement that was considered as the recipient of the money was denied, and there was no objective material evidence, such as financial material to support this, etc., the admissibility of evidence of the person’s statement should be admissible, and when determining credibility, it should be reasonable, reasonable, objective, objective, and consistent with the content of the statement, and in particular, it should be a human being of the crime.