The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unable to distinguish the market price appraisal for general transaction and the market price appraisal for loan against security, and the victim does not request the issuance of a written appraisal by specifying the Defendant.

Therefore, even if the defendant was issued an appraisal report for general transaction and did not constitute a crime of fraud, the court below found the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence (5 million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant was aware of the difference between the market price appraisal for general transaction and the market price appraisal for a loan; and (ii) the Defendant stated that he applied for a loan to the G Appraisal Corporation, which was issued a written appraisal for general transaction (in the investigation record 50 pages); (iii) the Defendant had requested the said appraisal corporation to conduct a loan on several occasions before the instant case; (iv) the victim requested the Defendant to “the appraisal is required to obtain a written appraisal for the loan from the bank as collateral; and (iv) the G Appraisal Corporation was subject to the verification process to verify whether the requester is a loan for general transaction or a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan for the use of a loan.

Therefore, the defendant formally uses general trade.