The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, believed that F would actually work at H in the operation of the victim and introduced the victim to F, and did not deceiving the victim in collusion with F as stated in the instant facts charged.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant denied the same criminal facts in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of fact. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “F introduced F to three business places operated by the victim, as employees, and did not inform the Defendant of the fact that F received the advance payment from other business places for the purpose of guarantee, i.e., the Defendant denied the Defendant’s intention to obtain the advance payment from the first business establishment with the advance payment received from the second business establishment, and he paid the first advance payment with the advance payment received from the second business establishment, and i.e., the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “F shall pay the advance payment from the second business establishment with the advance payment received from the last business establishment,” and that the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s assertion that F did not have the intent to do so at the business place operated by the victim, in light of the records, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant’s assertion that F did not have the intent to accept the advance payment from the other business places for the purpose of guarantee by the victim and that the Defendant’s argument that F would have the Defendant’s intent to keep the victim.

B. We examine the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing.