The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) that the Defendant received a request from K to receive the excess construction cost, and received a return of the excess paid portion after having paid K more than the construction cost required by him/her, is an acquisition of property in return for an illegal request.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of 98 million won) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor of the ex officio determination shall maintain the facts charged as to the acquittal portion of the court below (No. 1, 5 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below), and the name of the crime is “occupational Breach of Trust” in the name of the crime, and Articles 355(2) and (1), 30, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act are “Articles 355(2), 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for the amendment of the indictment containing the same

As examined below, this Court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary charges due to the addition of the ancillary charges, and found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charges added in the trial. The crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court below, which are recognized in the trial, should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is first examined.

B. 1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Summary of the primary facts charged is the Defendant E from June 24, 2009 to E (hereinafter “E”).

F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) as the contractor;

The selection and recommendation of a working group on the direct management of contractors, while serving as the head of the public service team.