A. Error of mistake

The fact that Nonindicted Party 1 met Nonindicted Party 2, which was reduced in the detention house, at least twice a week for about one year, was committed by Nonindicted Party 1 from the correctional officer to receive KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 1 had invested KRW 400 million in Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s interview with Nonindicted Party 2. According to the contents of a written statement of performance discovered by Nonindicted Party 1 at the end of June 2006, according to the Defendant’s written statement of performance, there was a ground to believe that Nonindicted Party 1 would have received KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Party 2, so the content of the petition is not false or that the Defendant was guilty even if the Defendant did not have any false perception, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that it was guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Punishments of the lower court (fines 3,000,000) are unlimited and unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, Non-Indicted 1 was accepted by Non-Indicted 2 as the attorney-at-law, Non-Indicted 2 as the representative director, Non-Indicted 2 was appointed, and Non-Indicted 2 gave legal advice to the merger of companies from April 2006 to March 2007. Meanwhile, Non-Indicted 3, who made a complaint with Non-Indicted 2, made an agreement with Non-Indicted 2 on the execution of the above agreement with Non-Indicted 1 as the defendant's agent, and the defendant did not have any relation to the case subject to investigation at the prosecutor's office, and it appears that Non-Indicted 2 paid 30 million won to Non-Indicted 32 in return for the above agreement that Non-Indicted 3's proxy meeting was not carried out by Non-Indicted 1 as the defendant's agent for the purpose of sending out the above agreement, and even if Non-Indicted 2's statement was not carried out by Non-Indicted 1, 300 million won, it appears that the above content of the agreement was self-indicted 1313.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Although the Defendant did not have a criminal record, in light of the fact that the true nature of the crime was poor for the purpose of having Nonindicted Party 1 take disciplinary action, and other various circumstances, such as the motive and background of the crime of this case, the age, character and conduct of the Defendant, and the environment, the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed to be excessively unreasonable, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge final (Presiding Judge)