The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) was delegated with purchase of land by the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) and entered into a sales contract with the J as to the H 286m2 and 119m2 of land (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by G with the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the purchase price of which is KRW 52 million, and paid KRW 40 million out of the above purchase price to the J who represented G, and the remaining balance of KRW 12 million was paid directly by the victim to G. As the victim directly paid KRW 12 million, the Defendant received the difference of the purchase price from the victim. Thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of six million won) imposed on the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts comprehensively adopted and examined the evidence, namely, ① the Defendant stated in the police that “The purchase price of the instant land is 52 million won, and there is no money in cash from the victim, and the Defendant did not receive 52 million won, although not having received money from the victim,” and the prosecutor’s office that “no money was received from the victim, other than remittance of KRW 10 million from the victim on May 9, 2007.” (According to the record, there is no such remittance details as above, and on the contrary, it can be recognized that the Defendant remitted KRW 10 million to the victim on May 7, 2007 (Evidence record). The victim stated that he received a separate loan from the victim on May 7, 2007 (Evidence No. 78). 444)” to the purport that each of the lower court stated to the effect that “The purchase price of the instant land was 10 million won.”