A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) requested D to lend a loan of the cargo vehicle (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) indicated in the facts charged to be used for C (hereinafter “C”) for a stock company M with his spouse; (b) received the loan from the victim; and (c) remitted it again; (c) however, D arbitrarily consumed the instant loan from the victim due to the repayment of the debt; and (d) in collusion with D even though the Defendant had no intent or ability to purchase the instant cargo vehicle from the beginning and provided it as a security for the loan, the Defendant did not obtain the instant cargo purchase money from the victim by fraud on the ground that he received the instant cargo vehicle from

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by deeming that the Defendant conspired with D and acquired the victim’s loans. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) Since 2014, the Defendant operated C with his spouse M in the name of in-house director, and D was engaged in the business of arranging automobile security loans to automobile buyers, and the Defendant and D were engaged in a business transaction related to the purchase of freight.

D At the request of an applicant for a loan to a installment loan financial institution as collateral, and if the loan is made, it has been mediated by paying a loan as the price for the loan and establishing a security right to a loan institution after purchasing a motor vehicle.

Dor C This means the F on May 25, 2016, through D, providing loans to the victim as an agent.