The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant reported a transfer to secure livestock pens rent, commission fee, etc., and the Defendant did not intend to receive compensation by unlawful means with A, but did not err by misapprehending the facts of the facts charged in this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the following circumstances in the column of “judgment on Defendant B’s assertion”, may recognize a public contest relationship with the Defendant and A.

The above argument was rejected after the judgment.

In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the court below, i.e., AA, at the court of first instance, had been entrusted by the Defendant around 2010, raised by the Defendant at the request of the Defendant at the court of first instance, but the ownership of Korea was transferred. The reason why the ownership was transferred was that the report of transfer was made to the effect that the Defendant was made for the purpose of securing the commission fee for the next time because the period of considerable time was spent until the Defendant was entrusted with the raising of Korea, and the entrustment fee was paid. However, it is difficult to view that the report of transfer of Korea between the Defendant and A was made with the above statement in the court of first instance. Rather, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not pay the entrustment fee to A at the time of transfer of Korea from Korea, and that the Defendant did not actually receive the entrustment fee after the declaration of the court below was seen to have paid the entrustment fee after the issuance of the judgment below, and that A was the most true acquisition, and the Defendant was paid the entrustment fee to A under the condition that the Defendant would not pay the entrustment fee to the Defendant.