A. In fact, Defendant B did not lend Defendant A the name of the registration for her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The failure of Defendant A to be jointly and severally a guarantor for the obligations of the agricultural cooperative loan seems to have been due to the agricultural cooperative to secure physical security by establishing the first priority collective security right with respect to K Mono and its land. ② If the Defendants’ assertion is acknowledged, the amount of KRW 4.35 billion out of the 5 billion purchase price of K Monobs ( KRW 2.469 billion and KRW 1 billion) was borne by Defendant B with the burden of KRW 4.35 billion out of the 5 billion purchase price of K Mobs, and the shares of Defendant A were merely 13%, and the shares of Defendant B were 87%, and Defendant A was led by Defendant A to purchase the KMobs and its land, which led the Defendants to enter into a sales contract with the intention to purchase the above agreement, and thus, the Defendants’ signature and seal were inconsistent with the trust agreement.