All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and one year and six months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendants recognized their mistake and reflects, Defendant B appears to have paid both the Workers’ Living Stabilization Fund and unemployment benefits out of the money obtained through deception, and the Defendants had no record of criminal punishment for the same crime before the instant case, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the Defendants, along with other accomplices, processed false documents and acquired public funds, such as the National Housing Fund, Workers’ Living Stabilization Fund, unemployment benefits, etc. to provide a loan for the loan of funds on a planned and systematic basis. In the event that damage is not recovered from such crime, the loss ultimately would be covered by the national tax, and thus, the damage resulting from such crime may return to the people. Therefore, it is very poor in the nature of the crime and the possibility of criticism is very strict punishment.

In addition, the Defendants served as “a false tenant” in the crime of fraud of the loan of the fund of this case, but the contribution to the completion of the crime was not reduced, but the Defendants did not seem to have made any effort to recover damage, and all the Defendants appear to have actively participated in each of the crimes of this case, and other all the sentencing conditions appearing in the arguments of this case, including character, conduct, age, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, degree of participation in the crime, equity in punishment among the accomplices, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.