The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant above.

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles are merely lending KRW 100 million to S upon request by S to lend operating expenses of the association, not offering money or goods in return for the selection of the executor of the urban environmental improvement project. Even if such consideration is considered as the price for the selection of the executor of the household work, the profits that the Defendant provided to S should be deemed as the amount equivalent to the financial profits that the Defendant borrowed free of charge during the lending period.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor shall maintain the previous facts charged as the primary facts charged at the trial at the court below, and applied for an amendment to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content of adding the ancillary facts charged as seen below (the part to be judged again). This court permitted this and added it to the subject of the judgment.

A written application for permission to amend an indictment submitted by the prosecutor stating that “the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to S without compensation in connection with the duties selected as the contractor of the rearrangement project and offered a bribe equivalent to the amount of KRW 100 million in loan.” However, the above statement clearly states that “an act of providing property benefits in connection with the selection of the contractor,” which is a requirement for the crime of violation of Article 11(5)1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, shall be included in the above statement. Therefore, it is obvious that the above statement includes “an act of providing property benefits in connection with the selection of the contractor.” Thus, it is also deemed that the violation of the Act

As seen later, as additional charges are found guilty, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant can no longer be maintained.

However, as above.