All judgment of the court below on B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant .

A. In addition, Defendant A did not have been lent with the intention to not complete payment from the beginning, and there was no intent to obtain money from the Defendant since it was sufficiently sufficient to repay the money at the time of lending.

B. The sentence of the lower judgment (Defendant A: 2 million won; Defendant B: KRW 2 million; KRW 700,000 of the lower judgment; KRW 2 million of the lower judgment; KRW 700,000 of the lower judgment; KRW 2 million of the lower judgment; and Defendant C: 70,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant B’s ex officio, this court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case by the court below against Defendant B. The court below’s conviction against Defendant B is in a concurrent relationship with each other under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As to the concurrent crimes of which the court below found Defendant B guilty, one punishment should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on Defendant B was no longer maintained.

B. In this case, the issue is whether the defendant, at the time of borrowing the money from various unregistered credit service providers, the victims, expressed that the victims would file a complaint with the investigation agency by using the fact that they are unregistered credit service providers at the time of borrowing the money, and whether the victims would not have paid the money.

The loan of this case is more than KRW 8 million in total, and according to evidence, the amount of the defendant's property at the time of borrowing is sufficiently exceeded, and even if the remaining defendant's obligation is assumed, the amount is not much much. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant did not have the ability to repay at the time of borrowing of this case.

However, in full view of the following facts duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant from the beginning to the victims.