The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the acquittal portion of the reasoning of the lower judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the payment date of the instant charges could not be attributed to the Defendant’s act on April 14, 2012 solely on the ground that the Defendant retired from office, barring removal of the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to prevent the Defendant from committing the crime, etc.

B. As to the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In determining the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, if one of the public bidders leaves from the public contest relationship before the other competitors reach the commission of the act, he/she shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the subsequent act of the public offerers. However, in the public contest relationship, the deviation from the public contest relationship requires the removal of functional control over the functional act performed by the public offerers by the public contest. As such, when the public contest participated in the public contest led to the failure of the public contest to actively endeavor to prevent the crime, and thereby, he/she cannot be deemed to have deserted from the public contest relationship unless he/she has removed the influence

(2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult for the prosecutor to apply the above legal principles to the effect that the above legal principles should apply to the instant case. However, as seen above, in the instant case where the Defendant was prosecuted for a sole crime, it is difficult to apply the above legal principles to the public-private partnership, which is the content of “public-private partnership crimes” as seen above.

Therefore, on the premise of these legal principles, the defendant makes efforts to restrain crimes.