The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) Of the instant facts charged, the Defendant was in violation of the Act on Interest Limitation and the relationship between the Defendant and C was prior to the instant case, and the Defendant’s direct delivery and lending of cash, check, etc. other than the deposit method to C by bank account, thereby making a loan to C more than KRW 72 million as of February 13, 2012. However, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s loan to C as the principal amount of KRW 34.15 million on February 13, 2012, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Of the facts charged, the Defendant’s sending of the instant text message to the victim was in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which led to the victim’s sending of the instant text message to the victim in the process of avoiding contact, and the content was merely merely a 30-year inter-child relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the content of the instant text message could have caused the victim’s fear. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant only asserted that misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance court, the reason for appeal filed by the Defendant on March 17, 2017, which was submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel, states the unfair argument for sentencing, this is also examined.

The sentence of the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the violation of the Interest Limitation Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below and the evidence, and the following circumstances, namely, C, are revealed.