A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below in its reasoning) that “the defendant was found to have paid KRW 20 million in cash at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency on or around June 2009 or September 2009, but at the time of re-verification, he became aware of the fact that he paid KRW 5 million in the Japanese language at the time of the re-verification,” and the victim’s statement in the court below’s court was credibility. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) by an unreasonable sentencing

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below reasoned that the victim paid 16 million won in cash to the defendant in addition to the remittance of KRW 484 million to the defendant in the complaint. The police reversed the amount that three employees had given 20 million won in cash to the defendant at the location of the victim in Haca in Japan around June or September, 2009, and stated that if necessary, 3 employees may receive a written statement, 5 million won in cash and 1 Japanese employees could receive it if necessary. The court stated that 5 million won in cash was lent in daily currency and 5 million in cash and 5 million in cash could also be submitted with supporting materials. However, since the victim did not submit and investigate the written statement, materials were not exchanged as above, and the exchange of investment money was given and received, and the police did not have any specific reason to believe that the victim was not guilty of the facts charged, the police officer did not have any specific reason to believe that it was 20 million won in cash.