The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was able to ask Eul to obtain a loan as security of D lending and did not intervene in the process of lending D only. After the loan was executed, the Defendant sent the passbook to which E was deposited to the place where D was in contact with D, thereby having the Defendant receive the fee of KRW 15 million from D and offered convenience to E by receiving the fee of KRW 15 million from D, and during that process, the Defendant only received KRW 2 million from D and arranged to do so.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The Defendant paid fees for the instant loan of unfair sentencing to E, and the Defendant borrowed and failed to recover KRW 63 million due to friendly relationship with D, etc. In depth, it is against its own behavior. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the penalty of KRW 160,000,000,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, money and valuables shall be given to the mediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions under Article 7 of the Act on the A

The term "financial institution" is an act such as accepting money and valuables under the pretext of intermediation and solicitation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions, and it does not necessarily require specific specification of the officers and employees of financial institutions who are the other party to mediation. However, at least it is necessary to accept money and valuables under the pretext of mediating between the officers and employees of financial institutions who are eligible to become the other party to matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions, and it is not premised on this premise.