Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, C, D, E, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's sentence A, B, C, D, and E's unfair sentencing (the three years of imprisonment, the two years and six months of imprisonment, the two years and six months of imprisonment, the two years of imprisonment, the two years and six years of imprisonment, the two years and six months of imprisonment, and the two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In fact, the Defendant was only involved in the crime No. 104, 105, 107 of [Attachment 1] No. 1 in the judgment of the court below among the crime No. 371 of the 2017 High Order No. 371, Feb. 2, 201, and did not participate in the remaining crimes (limited to Defendant D).

The Defendant did not take part in the facts constituting the crime of the 2017 Highest 725 case.

The lower court’s sentence (Defendant F: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and the remaining Defendants against the Defendants;

(a) (1) The same as the described in paragraph (1) is too unhued and unreasonable;

In fact, the lower court acquitted Defendant E on the ground that Defendant E escaped from a public contestal relationship with regard to each of the frauds in [Attachment 1] Nos. 106 and 107 of [Attachment 1] as indicated in the lower judgment among the facts charged in Defendant E’s 2017 High Order 371.

However, according to the records, it cannot be recognized that Defendant E actively made efforts to prevent the above assistant employees from committing any further crimes, and thus, Defendant E deviates from the conspiracy relationship.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The lower court found Defendant A, B, and C not guilty on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to support the fact that the said Defendants participated in each of the frauds listed in [Attachment 2] Nos. 1 and 2 of [Attachment 2] as indicated in the lower judgment among the facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C. 45.

However, it is difficult for the above Defendants to accept the vindication of the facts charged (at the time of the above Defendants’ testimony (the time of the commission of the singishing by means of loan fraud, and the commencement of the crime by means of misrepresentation to the prosecutor’s office from December 2015, the purport that the Defendants did not participate in the time indicated in the above facts charged is difficult, and considering the timing of the Defendants’ participation in the singishing and the method of deception mainly used by the said Defendants.