All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that, in light of the degree of his participation, Defendant B was punished as a co-principal for each of the crimes of this case, it was unreasonable, but withdrawn from the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance.

Defendant

A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (i) Defendant A's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) committed as if it were M, which is the actual owner of the land N and O in Yeonsu-gu Incheon (hereinafter "each land of this case"), and it is reasonable to take part in taking part in obtaining a loan of KRW 1 billion from the victim's monthly Saemaul Fund as security.

However, in view of the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A participated after the completion of the criminal activity plan by the accomplices who led the instant crime, including G and H, the fact that Defendant A took part in the crime plan to the extent that the detailed part of the criminal activity plan was carried out only by the accomplices, the degree of his participation is insignificant in light of the overall criminal plan and the process of the implementation thereof, and that Defendant A was not carried out by the direct share of the constituent elements of the crime, the degree of his participation is merely aiding and abetting to the extent that it facilitates the conduct of the accomplices who led the crime.

D. As stated in the judgment below, Defendant A, as of the time when preparing a loan transaction agreement, loan consultation and application, collateral security contract, superficies contract (hereinafter referred to as “the loan-related document of this case”) in M’s name, as set forth in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, issued a forged M’s seal imprint certificate and a resident registration certificate to T which is the chief of the office of the certified judicial scrivener, and conducted as if M.; however, Defendant A did not directly prepare the specific items of the loan-related document of this case, nor did he confirm the contents thereof, and there was no delivery of the loan-related document of this case to T, and thus Defendant A forged this part of the private document and the superficies.