A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order and the protection observation of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The Defendant did not have participated in the instant crime.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 5 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, such as the victim G’s police statement (Evidence No. 7 pages of the evidence record), the police statement (Evidence No. 139 of the evidence record), the Defendant’s accomplice B, the police officer, or the prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 571, 615 of the evidence record) consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the Defendant conspired with A and B as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant B is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and is against each of the instant crimes. The fact that each of the instant crimes was committed against the Defendants prior to each of the instant crimes, and that the Defendants did not have any particular criminal history other than

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendants acquired money by inducing the loan from the beginning in order to obtain the victim's loan, and the quality of the crime is not good. Defendant B's participation in the crime of this case is not easy, Defendant C does not oppose the fact that he did not deny the participation in the crime in the trial, and Defendants did not make any effort to recover damage, unlike Defendant A who jointly committed the first instance trial.