However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to mediate the loan with 10% interest per annum.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim borrow a loan of KRW 15 million from the D Bank, thereby bearing interest equivalent to 17.9% per annum, thereby having the said Savings Bank gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the difference in interest.

2. As to the facts charged of this case, the defendant and his defense counsel suggested that the victim who wants to obtain additional loans at a lower rate than the existing loan, the victim's credit standing was not loans, and the defendant's repayment of the defendant's existing loan due to the loan will take place 10% of the year loan since the next year of the next year. However, the victim could no longer proceed with the year loan because the victim did not cooperate with the highest complaint and did not cooperate. Thus, the defendant's defense counsel asserted that there was no intention of deception or deception against the victim.

According to the evidence adopted by this court, the defendant explained to the effect that it is possible to loan the victim at a 10% interest rate per annum under the control of the lending company, that the victim was granted a loan from the Do bank in the name of his spouse at an annual interest rate of 27.9% per annum, and that the victim, who was notified of the first month interest, was willing to lower the interest rate of 10% per annum until the payment date of the next month interest, is recognized. In this regard, the victim is the victim from the Do bank because the defendant received the loan at an investigative agency at a 10% interest rate per annum.