A. Defendant 1) The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant merely received KRW 18 million from E, and did not receive KRW 18 million, and did not receive KRW 10 million as a solicitation. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court asserted that: (a) the Defendant received the money given from E as a solicitation to a tax official; (b) the amount of money received from E as a reward for forging a private document, tax treatment, etc.; (c) however, it is excessive in terms of consideration for the above nominal name (the instant real estate transaction agreement forged by the Defendant, stating each of the items in the form of the transaction agreement previously used and sealing the seal of the seller and the purchaser at will; and (d) it seems that there was no need for special skills or efforts under the aforementioned Article, etc.; and (e) the amount actually paid by the Defendant to a tax accountant as a proxy is not more than KRW 300,000,000,000 won, which was paid by the Defendant to a tax accountant as a 300,000 won; and (A) according to the transaction statement in E’s account (A) that was issued by the Defendant, KRW 10,000,000 won was withdrawn in cash.

5.7. Departments

5. 8. Two times, each five million won was withdrawn, and this was delivered to the Defendant, on April 29, 2014, KRW 10 million and KRW 3 million in cash. On May 2014, 201, it corresponds to E’s statement that an additional cash amount of KRW 5 million was given to a police officer in early May 2014, ③ from the standpoint of E at the time, it appears that there is no other reason to deliver the amount of KRW 18 million to the Defendant from the standpoint of E, and ④ by E, the lower court.