The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The Defendant issued a loan bill in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) operated by D with D in the name of the Defendant, and issued a loan bill in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) with D. However, there is no fact that D, victim E, or F conspired to commit deception or participated in D’s deception.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine, or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant had the intent to repay or the ability to repay on or around February 2018, which was the date of committing the crime in this part of the facts charged.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) In the case of accomplices who jointly process at least two persons in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes" 1), there is a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intention to jointly realize a crime, it is established a conspiracy of conspiracy between several persons in order or impliedly and through the process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). As long as such conspiracy was conducted, even those who did not directly participate in the act of the other accomplices, they shall be held liable as a principal offender for the other

Therefore, fraud.