A. (1) The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that all of the funds paid by the Defendant for mistake of facts was disbursed as activity expenses related to the building authorization and the Defendant did not have the intent to obtain fraud, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts,

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant paid 10 million won to Z on the day of receiving 40 million won for the purpose of the instant building permit from the victim for the purpose of using the instant building permit; (ii) paid 10 million won to AA; and (iii) withdrawn 6 million won in cash and check; and (iv) there are no special circumstances to acknowledge the relationship between the disbursement of these money and the instant building permit; and (iii) the portion of the remaining 15 million won is used for the purpose that it is difficult to recognize the direct relationship with the instant building permit; and (iv) the actual details related to the instant building permit were divided only for 43 million won received from the victim; and (v) the Defendant was considered to have received money from the victim on the basis of the possibility of mere theft under the circumstances without specific plans or capabilities available in relation to the instant building permit. In full view of the circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts as stated in the lower judgment is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant and the victim did not reach an agreement on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant deposited 10,200,000 won for the victim.