The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant B’s H Credit Union (hereinafter “HF”)

In accordance with the internal regulations, self-evaluation is conducted, and accordingly loans of October 22, 2008 (hereinafter “first loans of this case”) shall be granted.

As a result, the act of breach of duty cannot be seen as an act of breach of duty. On the other hand, Defendant A merely intended K to obtain a loan from Defendant B, and did not submit a public offering on Defendant B’s act of breach of duty. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: two years and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of four years of execution, Defendant B: imprisonment of two years and six years of suspended execution, and a suspended sentence of three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) An application for a loan was made on the premise of the initial sale price, not the actual sale price, but the mistake of facts, and JJ shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

(2) In light of the fact that the sales contract contents of the commercial building in this case and the water color process of the buyer was not properly notified, and thus, the appraisal report was prepared based on the sales price as above and the judgment on the collateral value was completed, and that the loan was made due to the mistake that the party in charge of the instant sales contract or the president of the instant commercial building could be activated, the first loan in this case by the Defendants’ deception was made, and each of the loans (hereinafter referred to as “the second loan in this case”) dated September 7, 2010 and October 15, 2010 by the Defendant Company A’s deception.

Although recognizing that the decision of the court below was made, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below. 2) The sentence against the Defendants on an unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. On October 22, 2008, the prosecutor made ex officio determination 1) violation of the Special Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Defendants at the trial of the court.