The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a sentence as above taking into account the following circumstances: (a) under the circumstances that the Defendant was involved in a planned and organized crime that manipulates the loan-related documents; (b) was committed during the repeated crime period; (c) was committed during the repeated crime period; (d) was committed several times of criminal punishment including a previous offense in violation of the Fisheries Act; (c) the amount of loans was repaid on August 12, 2015; (d) was paid KRW 30 million out of the loan; and (e) interest was paid up to now; (e) the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and Fisheries collected the amount of money equivalent to KRW 87 million from the Agricultural and Fishery Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “FFF”) by the Captain for Q-related loans through auction; and (e) deposited KRW 91 million by the accomplice, and (e) the equity should be considered at the same time with the case of a previous conviction, such as aiding and abetting the violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act, which became final and conclusive.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the court below, the fact that there are family members to support the defendant, and all of the ships of this case are set by the first priority collective security right, and the actual damage of financial institutions is deemed not to reach the defrauded amount of this case, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant committed a violation of discipline without being aware of it in a prison as the case is considered as unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

It is unfair to evaluate or maintain it as it is.