All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The entire gold that Defendant A received from Defendant A is not a total of KRW 730 million but a total of KRW 500 million.

2) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of suspension of execution, additional collection of KRW 104,584,849) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A received 730 million won from Defendant B constitutes an illegal solicitation in itself.

The price for illegal solicitation acquired through golf travel in the Philippines reaches at least five million won.

The difference between the normal closing price and the amount paid by the defendant A is the price for illegal solicitation borne by the defendant B.

2) The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants in sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, 104, 584, 849 won, and 1 year of suspended sentence in six months) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion, the lower court acknowledged the credibility of Defendant B’s statement, and subsequently borrowed KRW 730 million in total, including KRW 30 million from Defendant B on December 14, 2009, and KRW 430 million on December 24, 2009, and KRW 730 million on December 24, 2009.

The recognition was recognized.

Specific reasons for judgment are as follows.

① Defendant B lent the sum of KRW 730 million to Defendant A.

consistently stated.

Defendant

B initially made a statement at an investigative agency

In September 3, 2015, the Defendants maintained a relatively friendly relationship.

After having been sentenced to five years of imprisonment in the first instance court due to the crime of violation of the defense law, from the standpoint of Defendant B, who was tried by the appellate court, there was no reason to unfash the amount of loans to Defendant A and cause disputes with Defendant A or expand the risk of additional crimes.

AD’s book used by AD from 2009 to 2010 includes the following: “P Company B Chairman” and “O Company A’s Department of Commerce”: (a) 700 million won is lent to AD.

(2) December 2009