The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Inasmuch as the former Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (amended by Act No. 10201, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act”), the same applies.

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending legal principles in finding innocence of violation of the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act among the facts charged in the instant case, even though the crime proceeds belong to a third party, as stated in Article 3(1)1 and 2 of the Act concerning the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, and the act pretending the fact concerning the origin of criminal proceeds means a disguised act that does not exist in relation to the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, or the ownership and the origin of criminal proceeds. 2) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unast and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. First of all, we examine the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant abused the agreement to lend corporate purchase funds from May 2007 to October 2008, and acquired the total amount of KRW 1,182,280,000 from May 2007 to October 2008; and (b) the actual recipient of corporate purchase funds between E and F and H is not the supplier, but the Defendant; (c) the recipient of corporate purchase funds is the Defendant; (d) the recipient of corporate purchase funds, despite being the Defendant, is not F and H, the recipient of the corporate purchase funds, and (e) the fact that the acquisition and cause of corporate purchase funds was pretended by submitting a tax invoice in the name of F and H in the name of F and H in total 25 times as stated in the judgment of the court below, as if F and H were legally acquired through normal real transactions

The lower court determined as follows.

The legislative purpose of the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, etc.