A. Although the defendant introduced a person who could help the victim when the defendant was unable to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion, and the victim borrowed 47 million won as an audit indication to the defendant, the defendant was deemed to have obtained the above money under the name of a public official's solicitation, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the fraud of this case and the Attorney-at-Law

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, additional collection 47 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of receiving money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or intermediation for the case or affairs handled by a public official constitutes a criminal offense, which requires strict proof. However, in a case where the criminal defendant denies the criminal intent despite recognizing the fact that he received money and valuables, etc., the facts constituting such subjective element should be proven by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts by using the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6033, Oct. 28, 2010). In addition, if the criminal defendant had received money and valuables under the pretext of so-called solicitation funds from the victim, such act constitutes a crime of fraud under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 147 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 207 (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do517, Jul. 27, 2017).