The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the lower court) has already been aware of the Defendant’s false statement that he/she could re-tender from the victim’s perspective who delivered 200 million won to the Defendant with rain funds, and that the Defendant was also a person who received 30 million won as a re-tender and used it individually.

Therefore, even though the defendant could be recognized that he deceptions the victim and defrauds the 30 million won, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant (as to the conviction part of the lower judgment), the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. As stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 200 million from the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment; (b) did not allow the victim to enter into a negotiated contract with H; and (c) concluded a sales contract with H around June 26, 2006 with the victim, stating that the victim would participate in open tendering, thereby allowing the victim to enter into a sales contract at KRW 71,177 million.

However, the victim, who became aware of the fact that H did not have any material in the auction equivalent to 200 tons and that there was no shots which can be received exhumations, had a mind to receive money from the victim under the pretext that H would compel the defendant to retender a defect in the defense.

The Defendant stated in the indictment of 2006 and the written judgment of the court below in the indictment of 2005. However, since it is apparent that it is an erroneous entry, it is corrected that it is changed to “2006.” under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal

8.21.Around 21.200, the victim will be required to serve as a director by the H executive officer and to cooperate so that the executive officer will be re-satised.