The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal, or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant merely received KRW 100 million on the condition of withdrawal of auction from G G who intends to purchase a promissory note (No. 11, 2012) with a title to execute the auction and with a title to execute the above promissory note (No. 11, 2012), and did not receive reimbursement from the injured party for the underlying claim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, which determined that the said promissory note was invalidated due to the repayment of underlying bonds.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A prosecutor who has received KRW 4,763,207, which is the last day of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below and received KRW 4,763,207, and acquired KRW 2,381,603 among them,” applied for amendments to a bill of indictment to the effect that he/she reduces the amount of fraud, and this court permitted this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the modified facts charged.

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of specific reasons in the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion.”

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the trial court, became extinct due to the Defendant’s claim for the first auction of this case by receiving the check from the injured party, and the Defendant was aware of this.