The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is not true that Defendant B (Definite) obtained a loan from J in collusion with Defendant B (Definite).

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion, the fact that each of the instant fraud amounts to KRW 28,00,000 is higher than that of Defendant A’s assertion is unfavorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and against his mistake, the defendant revoked the complaint against the defendant by LT 300 asset management loans that all acquired the entire claim from the victim second Capital Co., Ltd., and the victim also wanted to take advantage of the defendant's preference by agreement with the victim J.

In full view of the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment imposed by the court below is somewhat unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion and ex officio determination of misunderstanding of facts regarding Defendant B’s determination of Defendant B’s determination of determination of facts is alleged to the same effect as the allegations in the lower court. The lower court, under its title “determination of Defendant’s assertion”, rejected Defendant’s assertion. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s determination of misunderstanding of facts is just and acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit. However, ex officio determination of the lower court’s determination of facts is without merit.

The fact that the fraud amount of this case is 188 million won or more is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, compared to A, the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case.