The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant: The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the principle is to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The Defendant was under comprehensive guarantee of foreign currency payment equivalent to KRW 1.14 billion by deceiving a victim’s national bank in collusion with C, D, and H in order to trade tin tin tin tin with the knowledge that the Defendant was actually a floating company.

After directly taking over J, the defendant, which is a de facto old-age company, took over the debt amounting to KRW 9 billion from the victim's national bank, and acquired it by borrowing KRW 100 million from the Bank of Korea.

Using the institutional licensing point for the post-assessment standard tax return based on the value-added tax, the victim national bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea are big in using the standard certificate of value-added tax and standard financial statements issued through the false declaration of value-added tax return.