A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) committed each of the crimes listed in the crime list Nos. 5 through 10, and crime list Nos. 5 through 10, and crime list Nos. 2, and crime list No. 3, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, did not have any fact that the Defendant committed or participated, and even though the Defendant retired from the crime after voluntarily closing his lending-related crime from around the end of 2014, the court below convicted all of the charges charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

B. Each sentence of the Defendants (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment, Defendant C, and E: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below at the court below as to the defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the whole charge is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, in collusion with D, C, BC, E, B, B, and F as described in the table of crime Nos. 5 through 10 as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as D, C, E, B, B, and F, by applying for loan of false house lease in the name of D, C, B, E, B, and F.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(A) In relation to D’s loan [No. 5] The Defendant applied for a false house lease loan in the name of D at the time of investigation with an investigative agency, and received a distribution of KRW 6 million out of the loan (No. 1349, 2080). The Defendant’s computer owned by the Defendant is related to D’s documents submitted to the bank when obtaining the above loan.