The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the defendant received KRW 100 million from C on March 25, 2010, for the inspection construction cost, the amount of KRW 50 million was actually used for the inspection construction cost, and the amount the defendant received from K is not more than KRW 20 million, not for KRW 50 million, but for KRW 20 million, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged against the defendant is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First of all, determination of mistake of facts regarding the portion borrowed from C from 100 million won, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the witness C’s statement was specific and consistent from the investigative agency to the court below's trial; the Defendant issued C a plan for the redevelopment project of Changwon apartment; when considering the financial transaction details of the Defendant's account at that time, the Defendant withdrawn the total amount of the above money immediately after deposit of KRW 100 million from C on March 25, 2010; the Defendant did not submit any data on how the said KRW 100 million was specifically disbursed for inspection; rather, the witness C, after the Defendant agreed to operate the inspection with his own money with his will, issued orders at various places for inspection work; and thereafter, the Defendant’s statement that he would have caused the construction work to be paid; and the Defendant’s submission of the above portion of the charges, including the witness or the witness’s statement that he borrowed the above 00 billion won, can be accepted.