Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Defendant B and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for six years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud in the case of 2012Dahap545), Defendant entered into a contract with the victim K, L, and CO on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “A”) in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “H”) with the content that the Defendant provided the victim K, L, and CO as collateral and borrowed construction cost, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) provided the victims with M/M of Busan Dong-gu and N site 82.4m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The victims entered into a contract with the victim to pay KRW 2,00,000 to the victims after constructing

(A) The Defendant is a joint project with the content of the real estate development project, and in this context, the term “joint project with a branch state” refers to a project with such content. The Defendant received the instant M land from the victims as collateral and received a loan of KRW 950 million from the Gyeongnam Bank to use it for the construction cost in the name of R in the name of the Gyeongnam Bank. As such, the Defendant cannot be said to have obtained the said loan by fraud.

B) As to the alteration of private documents in L’s name, the uttering of altered private documents, and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion and damage, etc. to joint property), among the judgment of the court of first instance (1.B. of the judgment of the court below in the case of 2012 Gohap545).

(C) Of the judgment of the court below 1, the defendant's act of fraud against AB, AC, AG, and BF in the judgment of the court below as to the fraud against the victim's intent, AB, AC, AG, and BF in the judgment of the court below, although the defendant additionally changed the report of removal or destruction of L's building, it was comprehensively delegated by L. In addition, since the defendant entered the above building after obtaining consent from the victim L to the removal of the land M of this case from the victim L, the defendant did not intrude the building or damage the building against the victim's intent.