The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) There is no fact that Defendant A received KRW 3 million from F on June 4, 2009, KRW 500,000,000 from F on the end of June 2009, KRW 3.5 million (hereinafter “fact 1”), Defendant A directly prepares a domain and directly prepares it to F (hereinafter “fact 2”).

Therefore, although Defendant A did not make a false statement contrary to his memory, the court below found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts as to June 4, 2009, the fact that Defendant B received KRW 3.5 million from F on or around June 4, 2009, KRW 1 million on or around June 2009, KRW 4.5 million on or around July 21, 2009 (hereinafter “the fact that Defendant B received KRW 4.5 million on or around July 21, 2009), and that Defendant B stated that “I would know about the fact,” and that the contract would have been made well by means of a currency with H (hereinafter “the fact that Defendant B received money from F”), there is no fact that Defendant B made a statement that “I received money” (hereinafter “the fact that she was in fact”).

Therefore, although Defendant B did not make a false statement contrary to his memory, the court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the legal principles, Defendant B was in a co-offender relationship with F, L, K, etc., and thus, there was a possibility that criminal prosecution or public prosecution may be instituted or that a judgment of conviction may be rendered pursuant to Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, Defendant B is the Changwon District Court Decision 2010Ma2389, hereinafter referred to as “2010 Godan2389, hereinafter referred to as “the case”).

At the time of testimony, such testimony shall be made by the presiding judge.