A. The Defendant did not misleads the victim of facts or deceive the victim.

In addition, since the victim intended to pay the amount equivalent to 15% of the loan due to loan increase, even if the defendant knew that it was the full use of the loan, the amount equivalent to the above was paid to the defendant to obtain the loan, so the victim caused mistake.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, first of all, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the Defendant also made the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail with detailed explanation. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

Next, according to the argument that there was no mistake in the injured party, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the injured party had intended to pay money to the Defendant at the time of the injured party's request, but on the other hand, it is recognized that it was based on the injured party's belief that the injured party should be granted a loan to the employees of the financial institution, so it is not necessary to pay a loan increase to the employees of the financial institution, and even if the injured party received the loan, if he knew that the injured party would use the loan individually, he would have not paid a considerable amount to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant made a false statement to the victim that the victim should pay the loan to the employees of the financial institution for the loan.