A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant (guilty portion of the judgment of the lower court)’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant did not actively participate in the operation of the Association D (hereinafter referred to as the "D") and the promotion of the business of G (hereinafter referred to as the "G"), while emphasizing the I's personal network, the defendant received the victim with money from the victim in the name of D event expenses and G business expenses.

In addition, the part that the defendant received money from the victim such as attorney fee, defendant's wife operation fee, etc. is recognized as guilty at the court below and the unity of the criminal.

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Judgment

On November 15, 2006, the summary of the facts charged regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine stated that “A defendant, at the D office located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, Suyang-si, the victim E, “B is the chief director of D, which is a valuable government subordinate organization, and carries out various volunteer activities in Korea and abroad. Foreign capital of KRW 20 shall enter the Republic of Korea as soon as MTN is issued in a foreign country. It is insufficient for the Defendant to complete the work at Singapore. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million, he/she will handle the work at Washington and pay money as foreign capital enters.”

However, it is not true that the defendant did not directly introduce 20 billion won foreign capital, and it does not confirm whether the financial institution in question introduced foreign capital equivalent to the above amount, and even if the defendant merely borrowed money from the victim because he did not have any particular property, he did not have any intent to repay it.

The Defendant is the victim as above.