The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable for Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) to be sentenced.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Any agreement prepared between E Information Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) on the payment of the construction cost of KRW 1.2 billion (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is authentic, and is not prepared in a false manner to obtain a bill discount from the victim.

B) The Defendant was unaware of the victim, and was unaware of whether Defendant A received a bill discount from the victim and received a discount on any condition, etc. C) E concluded a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) to purchase factory land and buildings, and was in progress with the bank lending procedure. The Defendant was unaware of the impossibility of the said loan, and the Defendant was fully able to obtain a loan in light of the credit rating of E at the time, etc., at the time, at the time. However, the Defendant’s personal use of the discounted discount amount, but the said money was settled by the representative director in the form of a bill discount. (2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. As to the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, there are many records of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime, and there are two times the records of punishment for suspended sentence due to the same crime, and the intent of the Defendant’s reflectivity is unclear, etc. that are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant intentionally committed the crime in this case and did not have a strong degree of deception, that the profit gained from the crime in this case is less and the degree of containing the crime in this case is not significant, and that there was an expression of intent not to punish the victim by agreement with the victim in the past.