The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the act of arranging and receiving money, in spite of the fact that there was no fact that there was an act of arranging and directly soliciting executives and employees of a financial institution in return for a third party, even though the Defendant was aware of a lending institution through a third party and provided convenience to the extent of accompanying the lending procedure. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous determination of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 10 million, additional collection of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the term "mediation" means "an act of mediating or assisting a certain matter between a certain person and his/her counterpart" as to the assertion of mistake of facts. As such, not only a case where a certain person transfers the intent of solicitation to the other party as it is, but also an act of making solicitation to the other party on behalf of the person, and it constitutes "an act of making solicitation to the other party on behalf of the other party." The act of mediation is included in the past or where the act of arrangement is subject to legitimate duties. If money and valuables were received

On the other hand, whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a broker and an employee of a financial institution and an employee shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the relevant arrangement, the relationship between a broker and an employee, the degree of interest, the details and timing of receiving benefits, etc.