A. In a case where a loan to F is granted to F, the Defendant did not have to request the F to pay 3% of the amount of the loan with the fee.

Although the Defendant received KRW 2 million from F in relation to a loan, the Defendant did not receive KRW 1 million prior to the frequency of the decision of the lower court on September 2015, 2015.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment (two years of suspended execution) and fine of six million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by explaining the grounds for determination.

2) Although the appellate court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when it intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination, there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and it should not be avoided without any such exceptional circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017) based on the above legal principles, and there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial, and it does not appear that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is considerably unfair when considering the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower court compared with the evidence duly examined by the lower court, and it does not appear that it would be considerably unfair to view that the lower court’s maintenance of the judgment as it was at the time of the Defendant’s appearance of the first instance court and the witness at the time of the lower court’s judgment.