The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Of KRW 800 million remitted to D in the name of E, KRW 200 million is owned by E, and this cannot be deemed as Defendant’s lending act.

2) Even if the above domestic money is owned by the Defendant, since D’s obligee is not the Defendant but E, the Defendant is merely a broker for lending activities of E. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case, including the above money, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) The lower court, based on the evidence as indicated in its holding, recognized all the facts charged in this case, including the details of remittance of KRW 200 million under E, as a lending act

2) In the first instance court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below: (i) it was true that E appeared as a witness and testified to the effect that “E is the money owned by E” among the transferred money in the name of E; (ii) E was indicted for perjury due to the aforementioned testimony; and (iii) the Defendant also testified that he lent money in his name to D (see, e.g., Daegu District Court 2017 High Court 5648, 2017 High Court 5648); (iv) the Defendant was also aware of the fact that he lent money in his name to D (see, e.g., evidence records 321 pages); (iv) the Defendant’s right to claim the transfer of ownership of the above collateral to E; and (iv) the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was not the actual evidence that it was paid to E; and (v) the Defendant did not know that it was a woman under his own name.