A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that there was no mistake in the fact that the Defendant, at the request of the Director-General of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office, knew that he would make himself difficult to prosecute or suspend the execution.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 30,200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts can be recognized as having been delivered under the pretext of solicitation of a public official in charge of investigation and trial as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, on the ground that "the chief of the prosecutor's office is well aware of the victim's office, and the prosecutor's office will make it difficult for the victim to receive a summary indictment or suspended execution without any intention or ability to release the victim B by solicitation of the public official in charge of investigation and trial as stated in the judgment of the court below." The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the victim submitted a written withdrawal of a complaint and the Defendant appears to have also paid the victim’s attorney-at-law fees.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant under the pretext of solicitation of the public officials in charge of investigation and trial; (b) the nature of the crime was bad; (c) the Defendant was punished for fraud; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the process and consequence of the crime of this case; and (c) various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is deemed that the lower court’