A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that he entered into an apartment lease contract with C through BD, and only terminated it, and there is no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with C and D, acquired the loan from the new bank of the victim based on a false lease contract.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) On June 8, 2012, the Defendant, without the ability to pay the sale price, sold in lots 512 Dong 701, Kimpo-si G Apartment-si, Kimpo-si, and prepared a lease agreement with the above apartment in which the lease deposit amount is KRW 120,000,000 without the intention to actually conclude a lease agreement with the above apartment with the Simpo-si, Kimpo-si.

C did not pay the security deposit under the above lease contract to the defendant, and did not reside in the above apartment.

(B) On October 9, 2012, C applied for a loan of the entire loan to the victim’s new bank based on the above contract, and the Defendant confirmed that the said lease was concluded while making telephone conversations with the staff in charge of the new bank.

(C) On October 15, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 74,000,000 from a new bank, which received a deposit of KRW 74,00,000 from the new bank, and transferred the deposit to accomplices. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 14,00,000 from D.

(D) The Defendant led to confession of the facts constituting the instant crime at the lower court.

(2) The Defendant, in collusion with C or D, acquired 74,00,000 won from a new bank based on a false lease agreement by fraud.

shall be deemed to have been.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant sentencing records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.