2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake.

While the defendant suffered economic difficulties, he received proposals from accomplices and took part in the crime of this case.

The victim bank that implemented the loan without verifying the relationship between the right to the apartment provided as security and the occurrence of the crime of this case and the expansion of damage shall be liable to a certain extent.

It seems that there are no profits actually acquired by the defendant due to the crime of this case.

There is no record of punishment for the accused, except for punishment by a fine on two occasions due to the crime of this kind.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, in collusion with E, K, and J, the crime of this case is committed by deceiving the victim bank about the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 780 million with the preferential repayment right, and by deceiving the victim bank with regard to the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 780 million with the preferential repayment right, and the crime of this case is committed and the crime is not committed.

The defendant, as if he was the actual purchaser of the apartment that was provided as security, confirmed that the lessee of the apartment in the victim bank was in excess of the free lessee, and played an important role in the process of deception.

Despite the name of KRW 633,50,000 as a result of the instant crime, the damage was not completely recovered except that the Defendant deposited KRW 10,000 at the lower court.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, taking full account of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, balance of sentencing with E and K, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case.