A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely the fact that the Defendant received a total of 2 million won in cash from G and a total of 70 to 800,000 won in the market price as a loan, and there is no possibility to recognize the quid pro quo between the above received money and gold, and the Defendant’s duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the determination of whether or not the consignee actually borrows the money from the accepter when the accepter accepts the money from the accepter, not from the accepter, shall be made after comprehensively taking into account all objective circumstances revealed through evidence such as motive, process of delivery, and method of receiving the money from the accepter; relationship between the accepter and the accepter; position and career of the two parties; necessity of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter; possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter; the amount and method of borrowing the money; economic situation of the accepter and the amount of borrowing the money; whether the accepter’s interest was provided; maturity period and interest agreement; possibility of compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 2011); and whether or not a public official has a special relationship between the accepter and the beneficiary’s private interest and interest in the performance of his/her duties; and whether or not a public official’s private interest exists.