A. misunderstanding of facts D has not obtained prior consent from the Defendant, and even if the Defendant did not hold a claim of KRW 32 million against the Defendant, it is true that he/she received payment of KRW 32 million by deceiving C as he/she consented that the Defendant would be able to receive directly the part of the Defendant’s claim for the construction price from Section B (or C).

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged in this case that the defendant mispers the defendant's statement that D had credibility, and the defendant's false facts. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There is a question as to whether D’s claim of KRW 32 million against D was established or not, and whether D consented to the Defendant’s payment of KRW 32 million from the construction cost to be received from B, and whether the Defendant’s statement is more reliable or not. (2) First, the credibility of D’s statement is examined as to the credibility of D’s statement, and D’s claim and loan claims against the Defendant from the time of the first investigation as the Defendant to the lower court, from the time of the first investigation as the Defendant, to the time of the lower court, and with the Defendant’s consent, are consistently stated as to the circumstances such as the transfer of KRW 32 million from the construction cost to be paid by B to the Defendant and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant.

In addition, the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, that is, D remains the defendant among the construction cost as the introduction fee for the construction work.