All appeals filed by D and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (3 years of suspended sentence and 160 hours of community service order in August, respectively, and 2 years of suspended sentence and 80 hours of community service order in April: the defendant D’s imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence and 80 hours of community service order in April) is too unfasible and unfair.

B. (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant D introduced Defendant A to Defendant B who was working for a loan by requesting the former Defendant A to determine whether to obtain a loan. Since Defendant D did not participate in the forgery and event of the joint and several surety documents of this case, the remaining Defendants were unaware of deceiving the lending company on the ground of false representation of joint and several suretys.

In addition, since Defendant D has conducted a loan with Defendant A's belief that he/she has the intent and ability to repay the loan, there was no conspiracy to commit the instant fraud, and there was no intention to commit the crime of fraud.

Shebly unfair sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the lower court as to Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, i.e., (a) Defendant A may make a loan to the investigative agency by creating a joint and several surety at the lending office of Defendant D’s work from Defendant D.

I saw that it was in fact

(Evidence No. 46 of the evidence record) and in the court of the court below, the defendant D had a contact that the guarantor will become a sureties at the court of the court below.

Defendant C appears to have been fully aware of the circumstances that the joint and several guarantors were falsely posted at the time of the instant loan. ② At the time of the prosecution investigation, Defendant C knew that Defendant D and Defendant C knew that Defendant C had false suretys without W’s permission.