The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The punishment of one deliberation (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

2. The Defendant, while running a loan brokerage business without registering the lending business, had the victimized companies provide loans to the lending companies by suggesting false workplace, club staff, contact information, etc. by using vulnerability in small loan transaction procedures that are conducted conveniently on the premise of credit in the non-faceh condition, and used a mobile phone opened in the name of another person in the process. The Defendant used a mobile phone opened in the name of another person in the course of the crime. The fact that the crime is not good, the sum of the Defendant’s defraudation exceeds KRW 19 million, and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the lending companies is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in the appellate court, the defendant deposited KRW 3,00,00 for a business love loan company and KRW 3,000,000 for a business community company and KRW 3,000 for a loan company, respectively, and deposited KRW 29,90,000 for the fraud victim company from the first instance trial through additional deposit. Although the whole amount of the loan was treated as the fraud by participating in the loan process, it seems that a large number of actually the loan holders have continued to pay the loan by making a full payment of the loan or a normal payment of interest, etc. However, it is confirmed that the sum of KRW 3,30,000 has been repaid by the first instance order. Ultimately, it is difficult to conclude that the loan was repaid or impossible for the defendant to fully repay the loan in this case.