Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, and Defendant C.

A. As to Defendant A (i) the mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the provisional shareholders’ meeting of this case was not held on May 9, 2013, and the defendant made a complaint to the effect that the above documents were forged because K et al. did not affix I on behalf of the documents, such as the minutes of the provisional shareholders’ meeting. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that he did not dismiss K et al., thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

As to the fraud of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B and C to commit the fraud, since Defendant A was not involved in receiving the instant machinery as collateral, and thus did not conspired with Defendant B and C to commit the fraud, it erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by Defendant B (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C (i.e., mistake of facts) Since Defendant A was unaware of the fact that the amount was more than the amount that Defendant A would have obtained by forging a name plate, Defendant A would not be able to obtain a loan, the public offering and intent cannot be recognized

In addition, since T would not receive the loan of this case at the time when T demanded the loan fee, it shall be deemed to have been attempted, and even if not, it is not so.

Even if the original loan exceeds KRW 50 million, it is clear that the loan should not be granted any more, and thus, fraud is not established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant C guilty of the charge of fraud is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too vague.