The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as to the land E (hereinafter “instant land”) purchased by the injured party, talked with the victim that he/she will conduct appraisal and loan business through F, the Defendant’s prior owner F, and actually conducted the appraisal of the instant land through F. However, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that the instant land constitutes a development restriction zone and the relevant land cannot be said to have been appraised by the injured party due to the high voltage cable’s passage. Although the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to request the appraisal of the said land or arrange the loan, the Defendant would arrange the loan by having the victim conduct an appraisal by raising the appraisal price through the Vice-Chairperson, a foreign appraisal corporation, even though it did not have any intent or ability to arrange the loan.

There is no fraudulent fact.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the part of the assertion of facts, the lower court recognizes that it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain a loan of KRW 8 billion to the victim by obtaining appraisal of the instant land at 12 billion due to the high appraisal price with respect to the instant land, and by obtaining an appraisal of KRW 12 billion from the State’s appraisal corporation, but it is thought that the Defendant received the advance payment from the victim to be used for most personal purposes. As such, it can be acknowledged that the victim could have obtained a loan of KRW 8 billion by deceiving the victim as if he would be able to obtain a loan of KRW 12 billion by taking advantage of his friendship with the State’s appraisal corporation and obtaining an appraisal of KRW 12 billion by taking advantage of his friendship with the State’s appraisal corporation.

Therefore, it is true.