The guilty part and the innocent part of the reasons shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud on November 14, 2008.

A. In light of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (i.e., violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on November 14, 2008, the court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged since the defendant received KRW 25 million from E as a comprehensive entertainment expense for public officials, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

As to the acquitted portion of the reason for the fraud of November 14, 2008, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, comprehensively considering the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant knew that the plan for mountainous district classification was publicly announced and that it is possible to change the purpose of the use of land if he submitted written opinions according to the public notice. However, in a pro-friendly relationship with the public official in charge, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim E to change the purpose of use of land so that it can change the purpose of use of land, and acquired by deception from the victim for working expenses,

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Defendant shall not be deemed to have committed any act of fraud on May 14, 2012,” and the Defendant shall not be deemed to have committed any act of fraud on May 14, 2012.” In light of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant shall not be deemed to have committed any act of fraud on the part of the Defendant.”

B. The Defendant alleged the mistake of facts that he borrowed KRW 25 million as office operating expenses from E on November 14, 2008. However, despite the fact that he borrowed it as entertainment expenses for public officials and did not have received a substantial profit from the financial gain, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. The Defendant’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred hours of community service) on both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor.