The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not receive golf connection as stated in Section 1-b. of the facts constituting the crime as D, and the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below 1-C. of the court below.

There is no money (110 million won) as described in the subsection.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, took each of the statements in D's investigative agencies and the court of the court below as they are, and the defendant committed the crime No. 1 in the judgment below against D.

(b).

It received golf lives and money such as the statement in the subsection.

The judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Although the Defendant received each marriage congratulatory money from D, F, and H as stated in the judgment below, and 5 million won as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was a golf-friendly relationship with H along with H, it was conducted at the level of personal friendship or friendship unrelated to the Defendant’s work, and it was not an illegal solicitation as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus the acceptance of the above golf and marriage congratulatory money does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty on this part of the charges by deeming that the above number of golf and marriage congratulatory money, etc. constituted a crime of breach of trust. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of breach of trust or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violation of trust.

3) In a case where the Defendant received golf connections from D and H as stated in the lower judgment, and it constitutes a crime of misappropriation as stipulated in Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act and additionally collects an amount equivalent to the golf expense borne by D and H for the Defendant pursuant to Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act, the lower court should additionally collect the amount equivalent to the golf expense, namely, the golf expense actually borne by D and H, i.e., the amount equivalent to the golf expense calculated at the quasi-member price, despite having to do so.