The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 30 million won, which the defendant received from the injured party as stated in the facts charged No. 1, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, will be bid for auction under the victim's name.

In other words, it is received as a bid bond, and it is expected that the apartment will be awarded at the low price with the head of the auction division at that time.

There is no fact that the injured party did not bid after the time, and there was a substitute for meals or alcoholic beverages to employees of the auction system.

Therefore, even if the defendant made the above vindication after the deceptiveation, it is only the series of deceptive act and it cannot be said that it constitutes a violation of the law of attorney.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of eight months of imprisonment, additional collection of thirty million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement on the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant: (a) Sshacking a "E" vehicle operated by the victim in Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si on a non-hour basis; (b) the victim himself/herself, as a newspaper reporter and his/her former certified judicial scrivener, is friendly with the employees of the Suwon District Court in the Suwon District Court, and the above support auction fraternity, etc., gives rise to high-class information on the auction; and (c) the Defendant makes a false statement on the fact that he/she puts up the apartment out of the auction, and (d) the auction fraternity continues to decrease the successful bid price by some successful bidders; and (e) the said apartment is sold to the head of the auction division at a low price.”

However, not only did the defendant were not qualified as a certified judicial scrivener but also did not have a close relationship with the court employees, such as the court auction division, and even if the defendant received money from the injured party for the purpose of auction expenses or funds for living expenses, it was thought that it was used for his personal debt repayment and living expenses, and apartment as agreed upon by the injured party.