The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (A) and the fraud of Article 1-1 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not receive money under the pretext of loan brokerage from financial institutions by deceiving the victim.

In regard to the fraud of Paragraph 1-b of the facts charged, the defendant does not have obtained money by deceiving the victim.

There is no fact that it receives money under the name of the bank's employees or court employees for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embrymists) in the indictment No. 1-C and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Emb

The authority to execute funds is delegated by the injured party with respect to the embezzlement of Paragraph 2 of the facts charged, and the defendant's embezzlement is not the amount.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, additional collection 37 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that all the facts charged were denied by the lower court, and the lower court introduced that ① the victim was introduced by I as a person who would cause the Defendant to obtain a loan by denying the financial right.

As consistently stated, E andO’s statements are consistent with this, the actual defendant was paid KRW 10 million from the injured party through I, and each letter written between I and I at the time included the phrase “loan brokerage”, and the consulting service contract written between the defendant and the injured party also includes “financial lending business”, and thus, the injured party’s credibility is acknowledged in the above statement in light of the following: (i) the circumstance and name of the payment of money; (ii) the circumstance and name of the establishment of K (State); (iii) the circumstance of the establishment of K (State); and (ii) the circumstance of the establishment of K (State); (iii) the victim’s arguments as to the acquisition of the transfer contract; and (iv) the credibility is recognized in accordance with the consistent and reasonable reasoning of the victim’s arguments.