The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the instant crimes is an organized and planned loan by taking advantage of the system for lending employee's house leasing funds for homeless workers through the relevant documents, such as a false employment certificate and lease agreement, and the crime is heavy in light of the method and frequency of the crime, the scale of damage, etc.

On October 10, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to suspended execution on the grounds that “AJ had prevented the Defendant from committing a crime under AJ by facilitating the commission of a crime with knowledge of a crime in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Acts, while making an investment in real estate to many and unspecified persons,” and each of the instant crimes committed during the trial.

Considering these circumstances, the criminal liability of the defendant is heavy.

Since the sentence corresponding to it is inevitable to declare it.

However, it is necessary to fully consider the following circumstances in determining the specific punishment against the accused.

The court below made a argument that the defendant denies the conspiracy of each of the crimes of this case, but the court below recognized all of the crimes of this case, and seems to seriously reflect his mistake.

The Defendant, who prepared a lease contract, etc., was relatively passive in each of the crimes of this case.

Property gains directly acquired by the Defendant from each of the crimes of this case are also significant compared to the total scale of the crimes.

shall not be deemed to exist.

A punishment needs to be determined at the same time in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code, which are criminal records of aiding and abetting violation of the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts in the judgment of the court below.