The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) registered the victim’s married G as a recipient of basic living conditions; and (b) promised the victim to resolve the bad credit standing conditions by making the victim’s married G with his/her husband registered as a recipient of basic living conditions; and (c) received KRW 5 million from the injured party; and (d) instead, the Defendant intended to compensate the expenses to be incurred in the course of performing the said duties, in addition to the purpose of paying the said five million won

However, the expenses that the defendant spent during the above process are more than five million won.

G was unable to cooperate with the registration of recipients of basic life, such as not receiving mental diagnosis and treatment, and there was no intention to defraudation against the accused.

2) As to the facts charged No. 2, the Defendant’s submission of a written application to enable the victim’s grandchildren E to benefit from the payment of subsidies for lease of her entire age to a juvenile from LH Corporation was merely a failure to complete the above work on the wind that the victim complained against the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant’s application was approved by the Defendant, thereby receiving benefit from the subsidies for lease of her entire age, and thus, constitutes the implementation of the Defendant’s promise.

Of the 10 million won that the defendant received from the injured party, 2 million won has been returned to the injured party, and the remaining 8 million won has not been returned to offset the expenses incurred in handling the work upon the victim's request by the victim.

3) Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the facts charged in this case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts is based on the victim’s written diagnosis and examination.