The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (a fine of 4 million won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant, in collusion with theJ, was found to have by deceiving C, in light of the economic situation at the time of borrowing the defendant and the circumstances of borrowing the loan, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged (the fraud with C) [2012 high-level 817] J has run an illegal and similar business related to the sale of medical appliances under the trade name of “stock company L” in Article 103 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K Building between February 2009 and August 2009, and the Defendant has worked as an employee of the above company.

At the end of August 2009, J, upon the failure of M to repay KRW 200 million borrowed from M, gave a large amount of obligation, such as receiving demands, and as a result of the de facto default of obligation due to various illegal acts, the Defendant notified the above facts and instructed the Defendant to “inducing money by any means.”

On August 26, 2009, at the above business office, the defendant received KRW 200,000,000 from the victim C (n, 66 years of age) who is the branch of the defendant, "it is necessary to receive KRW 200,000,000 from the representative of our company. 4.5 million, and KRW 2.5 million, if the defendant borrowed KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim, the defendant received KRW 4.5 million from the victim's bank account on the same day and KRW 2.5 million from the next day.

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with J, by deceiving the victim, and by deceiving 7 million won as the borrowed money.

B. According to each of the statements by C and J, the lower court determined that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant for expenses of lending KRW 200 million.