The judgment of the court below is reversed.

2.(a)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and a fine not exceeding twenty-three million won.

B. The defendant is above.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The confession of misunderstanding of facts by the defendant is not reliable because it is due to the reliance on D, the prosecution's lectures, seizures and associations, and the confusion of memory.

D The B viewing rooftop claiming that the Defendant provided money is open to the public and is not a place to receive money and valuables. As such, D’s statements as a whole are inconsistent with objective evidence, there is no credibility.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant received total of KRW 12 million from D on seven occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Form D, based on the confession of the Defendant without credibility and the statement made by D.

Since the year 2016, the Defendant made a total of 12 overseas travels from the Nos. 1 and 3 of the crime sight table Nos. 1 and 2 of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "crime sight table Nos. 1) and around February 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "crime sight table Nos. 3) are contrary to common sense to demand D money for overseas travel.

In particular, in the case of around February 2017 (crime Nos. 3), in light of the content of the message sent and received between the Defendant and D around that time, it cannot be said that the Defendant met D prior to departure of the Philippines.

The Defendant first received KRW 2 million in the investigation agency as dental treatment expenses, and later made a statement that he received the amount of KRW 2 million as dental treatment expenses. This is due to an error based on a coercive investigation and does not actually receive money.

Since dental treatment that the defendant received around March 2017 to April 201 is in full part, it goes against common sense that the defendant received five million won as the name of dental treatment around that time.

Since the Gangwon-do travel expenses in No. 5 [S. travel expenses] was withdrawn from the employees, the defendant cannot be considered to have received KRW 1 million from D for the travel expenses of employees in Gangwon-do.