All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

A. 1) The Defendant merely received money under the pretext of solving the problem of acceptance of land use, and did not receive money under the pretext of resolving the problem of lien. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the remaining judgment.

2) The Defendant was in the same trade relationship with the victim, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a violation of the law.

B. It is unlawful to additionally collect the portion used as a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (the suspended sentence of 2 years, additional collection of 15 million won in 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the argument of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, that the auditor E of the victim company stated that "the defendant would provide 15,500,000 won to solve the problem of lien and the problem of consent to land use (see, e.g., 58 of the investigation record)," and the defendant stated that "the defendant would receive 14,550,000 won at the intervals of obtaining consent to land use" (see, e.g., 52 of the investigation record), but the amount used by the defendant to obtain consent to land use is merely 1,50,000 won (see, e., e., 1599 of the investigation record), and the defendant made a statement that "the defendant would not have provided witness for the reason that he/she received 14,500,000 won from the injured party after resolution of the problem of consent to land use with the objective of obtaining 15,500,00,000 won for the victim's statement.