The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant: (a) requested the victim D to provide foreign capital loans to an I apartment in Ulsan-gun AC and four lots of land; and (b) received KRW 100 million through F and L Co., Ltd. for consulting expenses; (c) however, L Co., Ltd. failed to secure ownership of the above I apartment; and (d) did not receive the above money with the intent to obtain the ownership of the above I apartment, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. (b) The Defendant did not err by misapprehending the facts of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, after receiving a request for foreign capital loans from the victim D to provide foreign capital loans to P commercial buildings in the Jung-gu AD and the Daejeon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and received KRW 50 million for appraisal expenses; (b) although the victim O did not submit a business plan, etc. necessary for loan procedures, it did not receive the above money by fraud.

B. The two-year sentence of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① The Defendant asserted that from around 2005, the Defendant had been performing consulting services for foreign capital loans in the name of G, but there is no single case in the actual case of foreign capital loans.

(2012 Highest 2493 Criminal Investigation Records No. 304 pages). However, the Defendant, upon F’s introduction, made a false statement as if the Defendant had sexual intercoursed the victim D’s foreign capital loans worth KRW 80 billion.

(2) The defendant is a victim D through F or L Company.