The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

130,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 1) 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 ㈎ 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반( 알 선수재) 관련 피고인은 K로부터 1억 3,000만 원을 차용하였을 뿐, G의 I 주식회사( 이하 ‘I’ 이라 한다 )에 대한 대출을 알선해 준 대가로 위 돈을 받지 않았다.

Loans to G were conducted between J and G, the representative director of the I, and the defendant and the defendant, who introduced J to G, demanded the J to grant a loan brokerage fee, and there is no fact that the defendant demanded the K to grant a loan brokerage fee.

㈏ 사기 관련 ⑴ 피고인은 N과 공모하여 O, P를 기망하여 금전을 편취한 사실이 없다.

In the facts charged by the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, the part concerning P’s statement in the complaint, the O’s statement, and the N’s interrogation protocol, in the court below, consented to the admissibility of evidence by the defendant. Although the victims did not attend the court of the court below and make a statement on the establishment of the petition, the court below acknowledged admissibility of evidence by applying Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to each of the above evidence and found the victims guilty of all the charges on this basis.

However, each of the above evidence was made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Since it is impossible to determine a person, the evidence is inadmissible.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty of KRW 130 million shall be additionally collected in the amount of imprisonment for 8 months, 130 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment at Suwon District Court for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) on June 3, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 29, 2015, and the facts constituting the crime are acknowledged to have been committed prior to the day when the judgment of the first head of the crime stated in the judgment below became final and conclusive.