All the judgment of the court below (excluding the acquittal part of the first judgment) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; 2 years of suspended sentence; 1 year of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The first instance court found the Defendant not guilty of the loan fraud part of the pertinent facts charged on September 13, 2008 on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. However, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the loan fraud part of KRW 200 million on September 12, 2008, which was charged with a single comprehensive crime, and did not separately sentence the Defendant not, and the second instance court found the Defendant guilty of all the relevant facts charged.

On the first judgment of the court of first instance, only the defendant appealed, and both parties appealed on the second judgment.

In a case where only a part of the inclusive crime is found guilty, if only the defendant appealed against the conviction and the prosecutor did not file an appeal against the judgment of innocence or dismissal of prosecution, the part other than the conviction by the principle of no appeal shall also be transferred to the court of final appeal, but the part already deviates from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be judged in the final appeal even to that part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). This also applies not only to the court of final appeal but also to the appellate court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is judged only on the judgment of the court of appeal of the first instance which only the defendant appealed, and the judgment of the court of appeal of both parties appealed.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court tried at a concurrent hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence is to be rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below

4. Conclusion.