The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The fact that the defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal has received money from the injured party itself is recognized.

However, the Defendant merely served as a intermediary or intermediary to connect the victim to the surrounding merchants upon the request of the injured party for the so-called “dial play” from the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party as the lender.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the appellate court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts is recognized as having received money from the damaged person as the lender, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not

On April 4, 2014, the victim consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, after hearing the statement from the Defendant, that “for three months from the loan of money, and for three months from the beginning of April 2014, the victim would pay the interest of the third part of the month,” and that only the store in the Republic of Korea would have in excess of one billion won, the victim borrowed the Defendant a total of KRW 358 million from April 4, 2014 to August 13, 2015.

The statement was made (No. 43 of the trial record, No. 25, 26, 158 of the evidence records). The victim's statement is reliable because the copy of the process deed, account transaction details, and the copy of the promissory note comply with this.

The victim merely lent money in trust to the Defendant and continued to lend money, and did not know what person the Defendant borrowed from the money (No. 46 of the trial record). The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim, but did not act as a broker to connect the borrower who actually used the money with the victim.

However, the victim does not check the borrower's ability to repay.