The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The evidence supporting the facts charged of this case contains only the statement at the investigative agency and court of the victim F of the original instance. It goes against the common sense that it prepared and remitted a loan certificate to illegal street funds. The victim initially stated in the complaint that "the defendant was aware of the fact of the victim's complaint and became aware of it first" (in the investigation record 4 pages), but the time when the victim transferred money to the defendant is prior to November 2009, the time when the victim accused E. The witness D stated that "the victim was "I have a person who would know to the Supreme Prosecutor's Office at the time" and that "the victim did not have a person who would know to the prosecutor's office until before the date of transfer." The victim stated that "the prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the original court of 0 years and 20 years before the victim did not voluntarily request the defendant to pay money to the court of this case since 0 years and 20 years before the date of the complaint, in light of the fact that the victim did not have been aware that the victim did not voluntarily requested to pay money to the court of this case.

On the other hand, with respect to KRW 3.5 million on July 27, 2009, there was no borrowing of money under the name of "enrollment", and there was no time to repay the above money.