Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The Defendant conspired with AD, etc. with regard to the criminal facts of the 2, 3, and 4 of the 2015 Highest 7038 Highest 7038, supra, in the first instance judgment of the lower court.

In other words, with respect to the secured loan under the name of U as stated in U as stated in the above facts of crime No. 2, even though the defendant was small in the vicinity of Pyeongtaek-si Office, AD did not know that it was a defendant B, etc. due to the above secured loan, and did not know that the documents related to the secured loan are forged.

In relation to the above criminal facts Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant worked in the same office as E, and the NB office was written, but he did not know that he/she received credit loans with K as a guarantor.

2) The punishment (the first instance court: the imprisonment of one year; the second instance court; the imprisonment of six months and the third instance court; the imprisonment of eight months) that the judgment of the court below rendered on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) As to the facts constituting the crime of the case of 2015 senior 7157, Defendant 5,6, and 7, the lower court did not agree with AD, etc., by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In other words, the credit loan under the name of S in the above facts of crime No. 5 was carried out by Defendant C alone, and the defendant introduced K in relation to the credit loan under the name of E in the above facts of crime No. 6. However, since AD and K et al. carried out the loan without excluding the defendant, the defendant was already isolated from the relation of co-offenders, and as the defendant had introduced N andK in relation to the credit loan under the name of N in No. 7, but the defendant continued the loan without excluding the defendant, the defendant was already isolated from the relation of accomplices.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (two years and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C(unfair sentencing) The sentence sentenced to the defendant by the first instance court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) In the first instance judgment of the first instance court, “2015 senior 7157 senior misunderstanding of facts.”