The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant merely borrowed money from E, and there is no fact that the defendant instructs E to receive money from F in advance, such as the statement in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant was guilty of unreasonable sentencing, in light of the background and degree of the Defendant’s criminal act, the sentence imposed by the lower judgment against the Defendant (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment E on the assertion of mistake of facts refers to a statement in an investigative agency to the effect that, “A victim F (hereinafter “victim”) has a matter of money prior to the example, whether the Defendant could directly talk with the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) and ask whether the Defendant would have leased KRW 5 million by telephone instead of the Defendant (E). It later means that the Defendant would have a scrap metal equivalent to KRW 5 million.” Thus, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he received money from F in advance from F as stated in the facts charged (Evidence No. 61 of the evidence record) by phoneing the victim to the effect that he received money from F in advance, such as the statement in the facts charged, and the testimony was given in court to the same effect.

(75 pages of the trial record) E’s statement to the above purport is reliable in light of the witness I’s testimony at the court of original instance and the record of the record (not more than 66 pages of the record).

In this regard, the defendant was unable to borrow money from E when it is difficult to do so from the investigative agency.

There was no instruction from the victim to E to receive money in advance, and only borrowed money from E.

E The amount of KRW 5 million borrowed to E was used for monthly salary and the settlement of goods prices.

E did not receive KRW 5 million deposited from the victim's monthly wage and the victim's mortgage establishment, and must E establish a mortgage on the vehicle.