The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

8,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of fact received money from the injured party.

However, only the victim gave money to the defendant under his/her own name, and the defendant does not receive money on the pretext that he/she would allow the public official to purchase D with his/her solicitation, or would prevent the imposition of the charge on the person who is responsible for sewerage.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won in imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and one million won in additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and the first part of the first part of the first part of Article 2 of the facts charged in the instant case, “The Defendant applied for the amendment of an indictment with the purport that “The Defendant was a policeman on Nov. 1, 2013,” and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer since the case was changed by this court’s permission.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows.

(1) The F or K husband and wife would ensure that the defendant, who is a reporter for watching and viewing in a manner consistent from an investigative agency to this court, can purchase D sites under a contract with a number of pieces of land operated by the wooden market.

the defendant paid money to him.

The statement, 2) the words that L, as F and K's land, operated by the construction company, would allow the Defendant to purchase D's land by contract from F and K in the investigation agency and this court, and there was a debate with F and K about how to construct a new parking lot building in any form upon purchasing D's land.

The statement, 3. The defendant calls the P at the seat of F and K, and D.