The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. As to the crime No. 1-B in the judgment of the court below, with regard to the fact-finding of the facts in the judgment of the court below, the amount that the defendant received in relation to the officetel construction in Jeonju City (hereinafter “officetel construction”) is not KRW 10 million but KRW 6.5 million, and with regard to the crime No. 1-C in the judgment of the court below, the amount that the defendant received in relation to the YGGGG construction (hereinafter “ apartment construction”) is not KRW 65 million, but KRW 25 million.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized that the defendant acquired KRW 10 million from the victim in connection with the officetel construction and acquired the 65 million from the victim in connection with the apartment construction. Thus, the defendant's above assertion of mistake of facts is not acceptable.

1) In the first police investigation, the Defendant stated that the victim received 3.5 million won related to the officetel construction and 25 million won related to the apartment construction (Evidence Nos. 3, 22, 23 of the evidence record). The Defendant stated that the victim received 6.5 million won related to the officetel construction and 65 million won related to the apartment construction (Evidence No. 68, 71 of the evidence record), respectively, in the court below found that the Defendant received 10 million won related to the officetel construction and 65 million won related to the apartment construction, respectively, in the trial of the court below, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent. On the other hand, the Defendant stated that the amount of KRW 10 million related to the officetel construction and the amount of KRW 65 million related to the apartment construction and the amount of KRW 65 million related to the apartment construction.