The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, additional collection charges of 90 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflects the fact that the defendant actually acquired profits, which is 90 million won out of the amount received, the financial institution does not seem to have suffered damage due to the crime in this case, that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime, and that there is a family member to support the defendant.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the amount received as the crime of this case includes the cost for handling affairs, such as supervision of construction and preparation of various authorization and permission documents, in connection with the land development project of this case. However, in light of the records, there is not enough materials to acknowledge the above assertion, so it is difficult to consider such circumstances as favorable

However, the crime of this case receives money under the pretext that the defendant mediates matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions. Such crime is unfavorable to the defendant, such as that it damages the social trust in the purchase of the fair performance of duties performed by the officers and employees of financial institutions and disturbs the sound trade order in the financial market, and that the amount received is a large amount of KRW 140 million, which is not less than 100 million, and in particular, the defendant extended a loan exceeding the amount of the appropriate amount of the loan based on the adequate appraisal and assessment in a manner that lowers the appraised value of the land through a business contract.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).