The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, in collusion with C and D, acquired a loan of KRW 100 million for the entire house by means of a false certificate of employment and a real estate lease agreement. The instant crime is that multiple persons conspired to acquire a loan in a planned and systematic manner by using the capital source of the National Housing Fund, which was prepared to stabilize the living environment of ordinary people, and the crime is not less complicated in light of the fact that a large number of persons conspired to obtain a loan in a planned and systematic manner, and the degree of the Defendant’s participation.

On July 27, 1999, the defendant has been punished twice for fraud, including that sentenced to two-year imprisonment for a crime of fraud.

The amount of damage suffered by a new bank (hereinafter referred to as the "victim bank") in the victim corporation reaches KRW 100 million, and was not agreed with the victim bank until the judgment of the party, and the amount of KRW 75 million out of the amount of defraudation was still not recovered.

It is inevitable to sentence the defendant as declared by law.

On the other hand, the defendant shows the attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

The defendant deposited a total of KRW 14 million for a damaged bank in the investigation stage and the trial process of the court below, and deposited a total of KRW 10 million for the first instance.

There is no record of punishment of the defendant for the same criminal offense since 1999.

The accomplice C, who is in charge of false lessee’s station, was indicted in this case and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment on November 23, 2016 (the Decision Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 4123), and appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, but the decision dismissing an appeal on April 20, 2017 was rendered (the Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016No3446). The said decision becomes final and conclusive around that time, and C appears to have failed to recover damage to the affected bank, and the balance of sentencing with C ought to be considered.

The above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, gender, and behaviors.