The judgment below

The conviction part, excluding the rejection part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and six months.

1. The court below rejected all the application for compensation filed by B and C, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, each of the above applications for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which rejected the application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of one year of imprisonment, 5,458,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (related to the acquittal portion) made a false statement about his personal history, connection, influence, etc. to the victim C, thereby committing himself/herself as if he/she is a person who is capable of resolving the civil petition of the victim, and continuously acquired money and valuables. In light of this, even if the victim simply donated it to the defendant for the purpose of solving the criminal investigation on the Ototobba store, the victim at the time when the victim delivered a notice to the defendant, is bound to be deemed to have been aware that he/she was a person who can solve his/her problem by exercising a considerable influence, and thus, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s disposal act is sufficiently recognized.2) The above punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unjust.

3. Determination

A. On April 25, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant started an investigation into the victim C at the E-Administrative Law Office operated by the Defendant in a metropolitan investigation group and could not be resolved by the President. The pro-friendly Gu is the chief of the South-dong Police Station, and the pro-friendly Gu is the head of the Dong-dong Police Station, which would have been resolved by his/her birth in the Bupyeong Police Station, and falsely speaks as to whether he/she is pro-Japanese’s son’