The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Defendant B) did not receive a total of KRW 65,500,000 from Defendant A under the same name as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below, as stated in the judgment of the court below, received money and valuables from Defendant B as the reasons indicated in the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the punishment of 1 year and 65,50,000 won, additional collection of 65,500,000 won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by the defendant as to the defendant Gap's assertion is that the defendant submitted a false standard loan comparison table with the net profit of each party as stated in the judgment of the court below, or submitted a false statement of tax account for each customer by suggesting transaction performance, or obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to 1.325 million won in total from the victim by deceiving the victim of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation by establishing a pagecom, etc. The crime of this case committed by the defendant against the defendant Eul is very serious in light of the crime's circumstances, contents, means, and methods, and results. The defendant committed a violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. among Specific Economic Crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, and committed fraud, and committed a crime of giving 655 million won in total to the defendant, who is an employee of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant Gap did not suffer active damage after the compensation for each of this case was executed by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation.