The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A’s money provided to Defendant A was KRW 300,000,000, not KRW 5000,000, but the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the charges against Defendant A on the ground of the 3 and 4-time statement protocol by the police against B without admissibility of evidence. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of a six-month suspended sentence) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the part of the judgment below regarding Defendant B before determining the grounds for appeal against Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant B.

Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor may be used as evidence only when the defendant who was the suspect or defense counsel admitted the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial.

In accordance with the above provision, the term "when it is recognized" means not the meaning that the contents of a suspect interrogation protocol are written as stated, but the contents of such statement are consistent with actual facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5040, Jun. 24, 2010). If a document or a document recorded in a suspect's statement is prepared in the course of investigation into an investigative agency, even if it is done in the form of a statement, a written statement, or a written statement, or a written statement, written statement, or written statement, written by the pertinent investigative agency, it cannot be viewed differently from the written statement of suspect interrogation prepared by the pertinent investigative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6548, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.). The above provision is not only a case where the written statement of suspect interrogation prepared by an investigative agency other than a prosecutor is used as