Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As indicated in the instant facts charged, Defendant A1 is true that: (a) Defendant A, as indicated in the instant facts charged, took out loans of KRW 9,694,40 from the Victim’s Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service for the purpose of stabilizing workers’ livelihood; (b) KRW 127 million from the Victim Han Bank for the purpose of full-time loan; and (c) February 13, 2015, taking out loans of KRW 178,000 from the Victim Han Bank for the purpose of full-time loan; (b) Defendant A’s 16th to December 17, 2014; and (c) Defendant A’s misunderstanding of legal principles as to the causal relationship between Defendant A and the total amount of loans of KRW 249,235,200 from January 16, 2013 to February 16, 2015; and (d) Defendant A’s misunderstanding of legal principles as to the total amount of loans of KRW 138,2015.7.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of social service, 240 hours of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of social service) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud of relevant legal principles refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be followed by each other in the transactional relationship of property, and that are in breach of good faith and good faith, and it is necessarily required to be falsely labeled as to the important part of the juristic act.