The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the CDs on telephone conversations between the prosecutor and D are admissible as evidence because they fall under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the above recording file CDs were inadmissible and sentenced not guilty of the defendant, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. First of all, the judgment of the court below, which denied admissibility of evidence, the recording and reporting of the preparation of a record of the prosecutor's stenographic staff (Evidence No. 8) and the recording file CD (Evidence No. 8-1) that the prosecutor applied for a document that is completely identical to the above evidence as evidence on the fifth trial date (Evidence No. 12 and 13). Since the defendant consented to the use of all of these documents on the above date, it is deemed that the above recording and the recording file No. 12 and the admissibility of the CD are

Therefore, the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor that there was a mistake of facts or an error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the application of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act are no longer examined, and the above grounds for appeal by the prosecutor include misunderstanding of facts that the facts charged can be found guilty according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. Thus, it is examined whether the facts charged can be found guilty according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the newly admitted evidence in the trial.

In full view of the testimony of the witness D at the trial of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, such as the recording paper (Evidence No. 12) in which the defendant consented to use as evidence and the recordingcad 1 (Evidence No. 13) in telephone conversations (Evidence No. 13), and the testimony of the witness D in the trial of the court, the fact that the defendant entrusted D with D (hereinafter “E”) to conclude a contract for supply of ready-mixed in the name of the defendant around March 3, 2015, and that the defendant delegated D to D around October 13, 2016.