A. The court below, even though the defendant's receipt of money by mistake of fact was five million won or more, the court below accepted eight million won or more by the defendant.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in determining the assertion of misunderstanding of facts.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, D, from the prosecution to the court of the lower court, “D”

9.6. In order to obtain credit guarantee guarantee from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the Defendant remitted 3 million won to the Defendant as gift and entertainment expenses for employees of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant demanded 6 million won to the executives of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation under the pretext of personnel management expenses for the employees of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, but the Defendant remitted 2 million won due to shortage of money. However, D’s statement on the background, method, etc. of the instant crime is considerably specific and natural, and there is no mutual contradiction, and is also consistent with D’s investigation report (report on the detailed statement of transaction in the post office account in the name of the suspect) (304 pages of evidence record).