The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The ginseng distribution that the Defendant provided as security to the victim by mistake of facts is in the name of F, the Defendant’s wife, but the Defendant actually managed the ginseng farmer in the above ginseng distribution. The Defendant, other than F, was well aware that he borrowed money from the victim.

Therefore, the defendant, who is not F, borrowed money from the victim as the debtor, who is not F, and the defendant does not gather qualification as the agent of F.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized as having borrowed money from the victim because he/she is qualified as the F's agent and thus, the above argument of mistake of facts is rejected.

1. Each letter (No. 2.6 pages of the Investigation Record) prepared and delivered by the Defendant to the victim includes “the borrowed amount of KRW 100 million: F large A, resident registration number I (F resident registration number),” and the seal in the name of F is affixed next thereto, and the Defendant has written the letter as the borrower’s representative.

In addition, each of the above statements indicate that five pieces of ginseng distribution in the name of F are provided as security, and the name, address, and resident registration number of the defendant is stated as a "joint guarantor" who is not the borrower.

② The victim, from the filing of the complaint to the court of the court below, lent money to the court of the court below for the belief that the Defendant obtained the consent from F, and thus, was in F’s name.