The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The Defendant did not instruct the Defendant B to alter the content of the transfer household inspection.

② The Defendant did not instruct Defendant B to deceiving the Victim Nong by using the details of perusal of the transferred household altered, nor did the Defendant intended to obtain the excess amount of loan from the Victim Nong. Dog.

③ The Defendant participated in the loan process of this case.

Even if there are some of the facts charged in the instant case, it is only responsible for the loan incurred at T branch.

(4) Even if the Defendant had altered the details of the transfer household inspection.

Even if the No. 3 of the victims confirmed and loaned the content of the transfer household on the date of the loan, the crime of fraud against the No. 3 of the victims cannot be established.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of the facts as follows: (a) the Defendant altered the content of the perusal by the occupying household, which is an official document, without the purpose of uttering; (b) thus, the crime of altering and falsifying the official document cannot be established.

② The crime of fraud against the No. 33 of the victims is not established since the No. 3 of the Act did not confirm the details of the perusal of the transferred household on the date of the loan.

2) The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor tried to examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and in all part of the facts charged by the prosecutor, “The Defendants were sentenced to two years and six months by imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Gwangju High Court on May 31, 2016, and the same year.

9.8. Each person for whom the judgment has become final and conclusive.

The judgment of the court below should be added to the defendants, and the defendant's application for changes in the bill of amendment to the indictment added to "Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law to the defendants, and the judgment of the court below is changed by this court's permission.