A. There is no fact that the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, told D that “I wish to borrow real estate E (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) as collateral,” and that “I would not obtain a loan of KRW 50 million or more from the National Bank.” There is no fact that I would say D that “I would not be a way to obtain a loan of KRW 100 million or more.” and that D would be able to obtain a large amount of loan of security because there are many people who want to obtain a loan of KRW 50 million or more with real estate consulting.”

However, the Defendant received 6% of the loans under the name of the consulting fee (re-building profit, future trends, etc.) on the instant real estate and the consulting fee on the instant real estate mortgage loan, and accordingly, notified D of the highest amount of the loan to the community credit cooperatives.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not mean the promise to receive money and other valuables with respect to intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of executive officers and employees of the financial company, etc., and in handling matters belonging to the duties of executive officers and employees of the financial company, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 3 million, the additional collection of KRW 931,814) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defendant's assertion under the title "a judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part, and compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.