2. Examining the judgment and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, the fact that the defendant partly repaid 21 million won to the victim bank, and that the Korea Housing Finance Corporation as the main victim used the amount remaining after claiming the amount exceeding 3.3 billion won out of the amount of damage exceeding 3.3 billion won, and even considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable (as alleged by the defendant, the defendant did not forge the documents related to his false employment).

Even if the Defendant is liable for the supply of false documents related to employment, and the Defendant took a very core and leading role in the instant employee loan fraud crime, and the Defendant’s appeal is unreasonable on account of the nature of the crime. 3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). (See Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “ October 14, 201” in the 10th sentence of the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is corrected to “ June 29, 201.”