The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant: mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing;

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) In light of the records of this case, it is recognized that the victim, who operated the officetel event, was not issued the “interest guarantee” of the construction necessary for the loan execution in the course of promoting the real estate trust business, as the defendant asserted.

(2) On the other hand, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim, who is an employee of a credit service company, is willing to help the victim by arranging or introducing a loan of business funds of KRW 85 billion at the request of the victim, and trust it on March 12, 2013.

3. When paying a total of KRW 5 million on March 13, 201, the victim paid KRW 5 million to a security deposit for losses that may arise due to the use of a loan even though the loan was implemented, and where the loan was not performed in itself, the fact that: (a) the Defendant introduced I to the victim; (b) the Defendant issued a letter of loan guarantee for KRW 85 billion to the victim on March 21, 2013; (c) the Defendant issued a letter of loan guarantee to the victim on March 21, 2013; (d) the taxation data for the said company did not appear in the sales from 2010 to 2013; and (5) the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 5 million to the victim even if the loan was not implemented (the contact is not made on the other hand, but on the other hand, I did not contact).

In light of the above facts, the fundamental reason why a loan of KRW 85 billion has not been implemented is not that the victim has not been issued a “interest guarantee” from the contractor, but that has the ability to implement the loan of KRW 85 billion from the beginning.