The judgment below

Of them, the part concerning the crimes of paragraphs 1-A, 2, and 3 of the 2016 order 8938 ruling is reversed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the crime of paragraphs 1-A, 2, and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below at the order of 2016 High Court Decision 8938: 1-A, 2, and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and imprisonment for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the crime in the instant case No. 1-1(a), (2), and (3) of the 2016 High Order 8938 as indicated in the lower judgment, this part of the crime was committed by deceiving the victim F who trusted himself/herself as if the Defendant could repay a short-term loan, thereby obtaining a total of KRW 49.5 million pecuniary benefit by inducing the said victim to guarantee the loan, and submitting at will the F’s signature and seal to obtain a loan from the lending company to the joint guarantor column of the joint and several surety agreement, etc. In so doing, this part of the crime is an offense that is not less favorable to the F or the lending company.

However, prior to the crime of this part, the Defendant seems to have committed a violation of the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces in 2000, and was detained for more than five months from October 5, 2016.

Since F had been stated to the effect that F would allow some of the joint and several suretiess to the defendant, it seems that F would have been able to think that F would be able to permit it again by misunderstanding the purport.

The instant crime shall be considered in relation to the relationship between the previous crime of fraud and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and the equality in the case of concurrent crimes

The defendant is the most responsible for supporting the elderly, who is a person with hearing disability, and social ties are maintained, such as those who want their wife against the defendant.

In addition to these various circumstances, sentencing guidelines are not applied since the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of crime, etc. are concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Conditions for the Punishment, etc. after the crime.