The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine), there was no fact that: (a) the Defendant, on April 29, 2011, prepared a bill-related agreement with J (State) on the bill; (b) and (c) written a letter of commitment to (State) R and a letter of performance.

B) As to the violation of Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Defendant did not violate his/her duties or commit deception as stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below, and he/she did not have any intention of deception.

In other words, in order to recover the proceeds of the Victim D (hereinafter “D”), the buyer of G or I (hereinafter collectively referred to as “AX”) has made a pF loan so that the buyer can normally carry out the project. D was a position to support it, and for the completion of the entire project, some of the loans were returned to AX as construction cost.

The fact that the source of the funds paid to AX was the PF loan was reported to the representative director of D, and the large amount of the loans paid to AX was the total amount of KRW 14.95 billion among the loans by the defendant's sole action could not be returned to AX.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (defendant B), the defendant conspired with A to commit the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Instigation).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) Sentencing (as to Defendant A).