The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and two months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the judgment of the court below 2), the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, which guaranteed the above loan rather than the relevant loan bank, was damaged by the crime of fraud in this case. Thus, the victim of fraud in this case is identical to the Korea Housing Finance Corporation or the Korea Housing Finance Corporation in charge of the loan of national housing, and the victim of fraud in this case committed repeatedly against the same victim under the single criminal intent. Thus, the fraud in this case constitutes a single crime.

2) The punishment sentenced to the first and second instances of sentencing (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months) by the first instance court to Defendant A is too unreasonable (the defendant A also asserted that the sentencing was unfair on the grounds of appeal against the third instance judgment, but this is an argument that was raised after the lapse of the period for appeal). (b) The prosecutor’s first instance court sentenced the defendants to the punishment (the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and the imprisonment of 2 months) is too unafford and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor.

The Court held that each appeal case against Defendant A against the lower judgment was consolidated and tried, and that each of the offenses against Defendant A at the time of the lower judgment against the lower judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the part against Defendant A among the lower judgment is no longer maintained.

Although there are the above reasons for reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles (see the judgment of the court below No. 2) 1) The judgment below and the judgment of the court below, who is the victim of the loan fraud of this case.