The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there is a large amount of money in a real estate development project, when the Defendant loans money to the victim, then the Defendant was guilty on the part of the Defendant, even though the Defendant could not be deemed to have obtained money by deceiving the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact that he could not be said to have obtained money by deceiving the victim, even though he could not be deemed to have obtained money by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on December 24, 2010, the victim may be found to have delivered KRW 50 million to the Defendant and KRW 50 million to H on January 25, 201, KRW 100 million to the Defendant on January 31, 201, KRW 50 million to the Defendant on January 31, 201, KRW 50 million to H on the Defendant’s joint page on April 28, 201, KRW 30 million to the Defendant on June 29, 201, and KRW 50 million to the Defendant on July 12, 201.

(A) The Defendant and the Victim stated that the Defendant provided KRW 50 million to H on January 25, 201 in the lower court’s trial. However, in light of the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, it appears that the Defendant and the Victim made a mistake on April 28, 201 as to the fact that the Defendant provided KRW 50 million to H on April 28, 201. The victim consistently stated in the investigative agency and the lower court that the Defendant would have leased money to the Defendant by consistently stating that the Defendant would have repaid money after one month, along with the interest rate of KRW 5% if the Defendant leased money while requiring the authorization and permission, design expenses, etc. of the real estate development project.