Defendant G is reversed.

Defendant

G shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Defendant

H’s appeal.

A. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only mediated victims to have a bill discount, but did not participate in distribution (the bill was divided and circulated by discount). A person who has overall control over and led the instant crime is BH, and the Defendant was only included in BH’s tag, and the lower court erred by deeming the Defendant as the principal offender, and thereby making an sentencing. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant H1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant and the victim of the legal doctrine obtained the discount of the bill from G as an electronic bill, and with the said funds, approximately KRW 2.1,10,000 square meters (per approximately 6,40,00 square meters) located in Chungcheong-gun and seven buildings on the ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The provisional attachment on the above real estate was resolved and the above real estate was planned to obtain a loan by providing the above real estate as a security to a financial institution after the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future. In this regard, there was no need to provide the above real estate as a security, and the victim did not confirm the market price or security value of the above real estate at the time of bill discount. Accordingly, there was no deception by the victim regarding the provision of the above real estate at the time of bill discount. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the victim and the defendant provided the above real estate as a security to raise funds to repay the borrowed money by issuing S Electronic Bills and lending money from G, and by interpreting the meaning of the "security" under the agreement between the victim and the defendant (the court below erred by deceiving the victim at the stage of bill discount) or by erroneously interpreting the meaning of the "security" under the agreement between the victim and the defendant.