The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the time when the victim I received a successful tender in the second successful bid is around April 2013, and around that time the defendant paid all the amount of the second successful bid to the above victim, the judgment of the court below that judged otherwise (Article 2-A of the judgment of the court below) (Article 2-1 of the judgment of the court below) is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport at the lower court. However, the lower court asserted that ① there is no consistency in the Defendant’s statement regarding the timing of the second successful bid payment to the victim I; ② P, J, andO stated in the investigative agency or this court that the victim was awarded a successful tender at the second successful bid; ③ the amount transferred by the Defendant on April 2013 and the second advance bid awarded by the victim does not correspond to the amount awarded by the Defendant; ④ the amount deposited by the said victim on March 3 and April 2013, 2013, the Defendant received the first advance payment and the second advance payment awarded by the victim; and ④ the amount deposited by the said victim on April 2013, 2013, the victim claimed that the victim was paid the advance payment by his own first advance payment and the second advance payment given by the said victim. This is sufficiently probable, and even at that time, K received the advance payment through the victim.

The Defendant’s assertion was rejected on the ground that it can be recognized that the Defendant did not pay the second amount even if the Defendant was awarded a successful bid at the second successful bid on September 2013, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the J and F did not receive the second amount of money; and (b) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid the second amount of money only to the single victim was difficult to believe.

2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and the F, who attended the first instance court, is the victim I second.