Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

seizure.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts) 2-B of the facts stated in the lower judgment.

Although there was a fact that the Defendant conspired with B about August 12, 2013 that he copied 5 mobile phone terminals (the original criminal facts in the judgment) from August 2, 2013, the Defendant did not participate in the act of reproducing 439 mobile phone terminals from October 22, 2012 to June 13, 2013 (the original criminal facts in the judgment).

B) With respect to the loan of KRW 200 million from the corporate operating fund received under the name of the O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”), the victim bank was aware of the fact that the 200 million won loan, not the O, and since AB actually repaid the principal and interest after receiving the above loan from the NA, it does not constitute a fraud loan. (C) Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the above charges on the ground that the defendant conspired with E and G on October 22, 2012 to June 13, 2013, and the fact that the defendant acquired the above 200 million loan by deceiving our bank.

2) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) Defendant B1 was aware of misunderstanding of facts ( partial relevant to the crime of fraud as set forth in Article 2-A(a) of the original judgment) by E around August 2013. As such, the Defendant was merely aware of F through the introduction of E around August 2013. Therefore, there was no fact that he was a participation in the crime of fraud in the total amount of damages inflicted by F, etc. up to June 2013, which was committed by the said time prior to the said time.

A was pronounced not guilty of the above part of the crime on the ground that the facts of conspiracy with F are not recognized in the original judgment, and A's.