1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and fines for 12,00,000 won and 1 year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not bear the credit value of KRW 2 million in around 2008 and KRW 3 million in around 2009 with respect to K cafeteria. Therefore, there was no fact that Defendant A demanded a substitute payment with the credit value of KRW 3 million in around 2009, and Defendant B did not have paid the credit value of Defendant A. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of fine, 12.8 million, and 6.4 million additional collection charge) on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts (Fraud part) as Defendant B executed money as stated in this part of the facts charged for the benefit of the victim company, so there is no intention to acquire money, and there is legitimacy for the purpose of execution, so it cannot be considered a crime of fraud. (2) The punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In light of the following: (a) No. 4 of the list of crimes (1) attached to the court below’s judgment on the receipt of bribe and the offering of bribe; (b) L made a concrete statement on the grounds that Defendant B paid the credit value of Defendant A to the investigation agency; (c) Defendant B paid the credit value of Defendant B to the investigation agency; and (d) Defendant B made a statement consistent with L’s statement by paying the credit value of Defendant A to the investigation agency; and (c) there is no reason to make a false statement; and (d) Defendant B or L made a false statement, the statement and L’s statement in the investigation agency corresponding to this part of the indictment

B) According to the list of crimes (Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 15) annexed to the court below's judgment, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant A and L enjoyed amusements from other persons and made Defendant B to pay the drinking value to them. Meanwhile, Defendant B did not drink because it is not good for usual health, and did not drink.