Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. Defendant A1’s actual operator of the gas station located in Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun (the part of the judgment of the court below in the second instance) is Q, not Defendant A, but the principal agent of each crime in the judgment of the second instance, and Defendant A was engaged in business upon Q’s instructions. Thus, there was no intention on each crime in the judgment of the second instance.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on Defendant T with respect to Defendant T (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) On July 2, 2013, the prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part of the judgment of the court below of the first instance against the Defendants), submitted false documents concerning his occupation with respect to the crime of fraud of W apartment mortgage loan, and Defendant A cancelled after the establishment of the right to collateral security, Defendant A, T, and U did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan, and the above crime is deemed to have been committed as a means of committing the crime of fraud of loan loan under Article 3 of the judgment of the court below, and it constitutes a crime of fraud in light of the fact that

On December 3, 2013, B had no special occupation with respect to the crime of fraud of secured credit by gas stations, and Defendant A did not have the intent or ability to repay, and used it as a tool for other fraud crimes by cancelling the right to collateral security established in gas stations. Therefore, the above secured credit is the starting point for the crime of fraud. In light of the fact that the above secured credit is the starting point for the crime of fraud, this part of the facts charged also constitutes fraud.

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on each of the facts charged, and the first instance court erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence that the first instance court sentenced the Defendants at the first instance court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; Defendant T: one year and two months of imprisonment; U, and V: suspended sentence in August.