The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendant received KRW 200 million from R on November 23, 2010 is not the grounds for the loan, but for the redevelopment and maintenance project association for housing in the J urban renewal acceleration zone (hereinafter “the instant association”) for the purpose of obtaining the order of removal construction works from the U.S. In order to obtain the loan.

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even if the Defendant had expressed that he would not repay the money to R on September 27, 201, even if he had received the money as the original loan, on the grounds that he had expressed his intent to receive the money in return for the offer of the above money. Thus, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, even if it was found that the crime of violation of the defense justice was committed.

2. An ex officio prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment to the effect that the prosecutor changed the attached indictment as in the attached indictment “amended indictment,” and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, since the contents of facts charged and the issue of judgment are substantially identical despite the existence of such reasons for reversal of authority, the reasons for the prosecutor's appeal are still subject to deliberation.

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the revised facts charged is as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. The lower court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge the instant facts charged in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

(1) The key issue of the instant case is whether a KRW 200 million received by the Defendant constitutes a consideration for the provisional contract for the removal of the NUD entered into in 2004, or a loan as alleged by the Defendant. The prosecutor initially arranged the Defendant to prepare a provisional contract for “the relocation management, removal, and remainder disposal” of this case, around May 2004, by arranging the Defendant to prepare a provisional contract.