The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) A person who borrows money from a victim with misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not the defendant, but E, and in fact E actually pays interest to the victim.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant acquired the borrowed money from the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio prosecutor requested the court to modify the indictment of this case in exchange for the purpose of changing it, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since this court permitted it to change the indictment of this case.

However, the judgment of the court below is based on the above ex officio reversal, but the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

① The loan of this case appears to have been used for purchasing goods of subordinate multi-stage salesmen belonging to E, E is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, including the fact that it appears to have been used for purchasing goods of the subordinate multi-stage salesmen belonging to E, that it was a creditor, that it was written with a loan certificate stating the above salespersons as the debtor, and a promissory note related thereto, and that E delivers part of the allowances paid to the Defendant as interest (the investigation record page 12-68, the trial record page 72, 75-78

However, in consideration of the following, the defendant acquired the borrowed money of this case.

full recognition may be accepted.

② On July 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that, around July 2015, the Defendant loaned money to E to its employees who wish to obtain multi-level sales membership; and (b) introduced the victims of multi-level job offers to E on August 2015.

The defendant shall directly be the victim.