The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and a fine of fifty thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on September 17, 2009, nor did the Defendant met F and K at a N hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) and did not receive KRW 50 million from F on the job.

However, at the end of September 2009, immediately before the end of the year immediately before the end of the year, after receiving a cosmetic from F, it was lost in the taxi.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty solely with the statements of F, K, etc. without credibility, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an imprisonment of 4 years, a fine of 50 million won, and an additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

The court below's judgment that changed the date and time of the crime in this case to "(22:00 on September 27, 2009)" in "(20:00 on the same day)" and the subject of the judgment is changed by this court's permission. Thus, the court below's judgment is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still a ground for appeal and it is subject to the judgment of this court.

Judgment

A. In a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the Defendant denies the receipt of money or valuables and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables, in order to acknowledge guilt only with the statement of the person who provided the money or valuables, the admissibility of the evidence, as well as the credibility of a reasonable doubt should be determined, and when determining credibility, the content of the statement itself is reasonable, objective reasonableness, and before and after.