The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was capable of arranging a loan to the victim, and the victim actually assisted the loan of KRW 1,850,000,000 in excess of the amount requested by the victim to arrange for the loan. Therefore, there was a criminal intent of deceiving the victim or defrauding the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court: (a) the Defendant initially required the victim;

The defendant did not have the intent or ability to arrange a loan equivalent to KRW 1.8 billion, while the defendant is aware of such circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that he received money from the injured person under the pretext of arranging a loan equivalent to KRW 1.8 billion, and that he received money from the injured person and received such money, and thus rejected the defendant's assertion.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, further acknowledged the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant and the victim set the time limit for the Defendant to obtain a loan on January 27, 2015 (the fourth page of the evidence record), which appears to have been due to the victim’s payment of expenses to the Defendant, and the actual loan was deemed to have been made after a considerable lapse of the said time limit; (ii) the victim was a criminal defendant on January 27, 2015 and January 29, 2015, and the victim was working for himself/herself, not for the Defendant, after two to three months thereafter.