The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The Defendant asserts that the punishment imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1 of the judgment of the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the prosecutor acknowledged the fact that the defendant had by deceiving Q and AD as stated in the annexed crime list No. 3 and No. 5, the defendant had taken over the use of pumps and AD, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have taken over the pumps by deceiving Q and AD, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) The prosecutor asserts that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles. The

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was changed to F Co., Ltd. on February 8, 2010 while the Defendant acquired D Co., Ltd. (Representative E) from October 13, 2009 and worked as representative director.

On July 2, 2008, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Busan-gun and D Co., Ltd. (Representative Director E) on the condition that “G area drainage work (a total construction cost of KRW 1.5 billion)” shall be paid 18% of the construction cost ($ 230 million) to E. The Defendant performed the construction work on a lump sum basis.

In addition, on November 22, 2010, the Defendant concluded a contract for the “Road Works in front of H Elementary School (total construction cost of KRW 160 million)” in the name of Jinju-si and F Co., Ltd. and continued construction.

On October 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim Q Q, who operates AC, stating, “The G District Drainage Works ordered by the Busan-Gun Office, will be paid immediately if the pump is leased.”

However, on February 24, 2009, the Defendant did not receive KRW 300 million from E due to the settlement problems in the process of corporate acquisition of the corporation with E, among the construction funds received from the Busan Cheong-gun on February 24, 2009.