Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.

seizure.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not participate in the loans under the name of theO, and Defendant A did not fully know whether the loan under the name of Y was made with the request of AY, and only issued a certificate of personal seal impression with respect to the loan under the name of Y, but did not fully know whether the loan was made. As such, Defendant A did not participate in each of the crimes of this case. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing ( Imprisonment with labor for three years and 12 to 22) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C’s punishment (a year of imprisonment and confiscation of No. 1 to 4) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

F The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant F is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is not necessarily required to communicate explicitly or explicitly, but it is sufficient to acknowledge implied communication, and in order to recognize implied communication, there must be at least the same interest among accomplices, and there should be common consensus to the extent that they allow each other’s act while pursuing the same result. Specifically, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the lending of O’s name was stated “AZ” as the mobile phone number in the application form for the lending of O’s name. However, Defendant A was in possession of a cell phone device using that phone number (as to this, Defendant A was issued with AY’s request, called “Y Department”).

Defendant A made a statement that Defendant B and F did not know at all, but in the pocket book.