The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows.

In other words, the Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and reflected the mistake.

A defendant has no record of criminal punishment, except for a criminal punishment imposed once on the defendant for a crime of dual punishment.

The majority of the fraud amount of this case is the benefit acquired by other accomplices, and the profit actually acquired by the defendant seems to be a relatively small amount.

In addition, the husband of the defendant has deposited 10 million won in the court room.

However, there are the following disadvantageous circumstances for the defendant.

In other words, the crime of this case is a fraudulent act using the housing charter loan system with public funds for the stabilization of the housing of low-income workers in collusion with multiple people, and there is a need for strict punishment due to its poor nature.

As such, in the case of the planned fraud crime through which many people recruited, the defendant had the role of deceiving the victim as a false tenant, and without the role of the defendant, it cannot be said that the degree of the defendant's participation is somewhat weak in that it is impossible to complete the crime of fraud of this case.

In addition, the actual performance of damage was not made up to the trial.

In addition to the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines for fraud [the sentencing guidelines for types 2 (type 100 million and less than 500 million won) (type 2 (type 2 (type 100 million and less than 500 million won): From June to 6] and the fact that the lower court has sentenced a sentence that is lower than the above recommended sentence by deviating from this, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

The defendant's ground of appeal is justified.