A. Error of mistake

① Around April 8, 2014, the Defendant merely pointed out that, by finding an I branch of the foreign exchange bank around April 8, 2014, the lending was unreasonable, and there was no statement made to K as stated in the facts charged in this case. ② Even if not, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was likely to damage the credibility of the victims. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant convicted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

1) The judgment of the court below

In the lower court, the Defendant also asserted a mistake of facts identical to the above reasons for appeal, and the lower court consistent and concrete with the contents of K’s statement, and that it is difficult to find any motive to make a false statement as a third party who has no interest with the Defendant and victims, the Defendant’s statement in the court below is highly reliable. As such, the Defendant’s statement in the court below is sufficiently recognized as stated in the judgment of K. Furthermore, it is recognized by the evidence in light of the Defendant’s specific statement, motive and circumstance, the situation at the time, etc., the victims had a plan to promote housing construction projects requiring large-scale funds in the land in this case, and the victims operated each of the above projects, such as raising operating capital, and it is inevitable for the victims to obtain loans equivalent to KRW 3.50 million at the first point of the foreign exchange bank, which is the customer corporation, as real collateral, and that the victims would have been able to receive additional loans at the time of the victims’ repayment of credit and financial disadvantage to the victims, and that there was a negative economic risk of the Defendant’s refusal of credit transactions.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

A) From the investigative agency to the original trial court, K made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was able to borrow a loan in collaboration with K from the branch of the foreign exchange bank’s employees on April 8, 2014. Unless the loan is withdrawn, H, E, and F shall file an accusation with the Audit and Inspection Team of the foreign exchange bank. He, E, and F shall be replaced by fraud. The person is a person who performs funeral services by cutting off the land to those who are not ordinarily engaged in a company business but who have legitimate right at auction. This person made a statement to the effect that “I would like to pay interest to the bank and be able to do so for more than three months.” (Evidence record 269, 336 pages, trial record 462, 465 pages),” and these statements made by K are consistent, specific, and specific, consistent with the explanation on the situation before and after the crime of this case and the crime of this case.”

B) L made a statement at an investigative agency that “Defendant H on May 14, 2014, and F is a fraudulent change. In the absence of repayment of a loan, Defendant would be free from paying off and accused of it as an illegal loan at the audit office of the foreign exchange bank (Evidence No. 303 page).” As such, Defendant had talked to the effect similar to L which was the head of the said bank’s branch at the time of the instant crime.

C) In addition, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency that “the lending of the loan is fraudulent (Evidence No. 119 pages), there is a problem of the lending of the bank at present, and if we leave it as it is, there is a problem of damage to the bank after several years (Evidence No. 352 pages), and that it will be subject to the judgment by inserting an audit into the Financial Supervisory Service or the foreign exchange bank (Evidence No. 353 page of the Evidence No. 353),” and such Defendant’s statement is partially consistent with the K’s statement.

D) The victim F stated that he was aware of the instant crime by hearing the Defendant’s horses from K and its employees (the trial record 540 pages).

E) The circumstance that the victims are customers of the foreign exchange bank does not seem to have any circumstance to make a false statement for the victims who have no particular relationship with K.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

It is recognized that a defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for a long-term fine imposed on him/her. However, it is recognized that he/she has no record of criminal punishment. On the other hand, the defendant denies and does not reflect the crime up to the judgment of the court, and did not agree with the victims. In light of the following circumstances: the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means, methods and consequences of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Therefore, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Un

Judges Yoon Sung-sik