The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of four months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, Defendant C: Imprisonment for 6 months, and Defendant D: Imprisonment for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant D of the Prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant fraud committed by Defendant B is very important for the lessor’s cooperation because it is difficult for the lessor to seek a lessor from such type of loan fraud, thereby undermining the operation of the said system by defrauding the loan by abusing “the loan loan system of the National Housing Fund” for the stabilization of residence of the ordinary people, and is a very serious criminal who wrongfully deprived of the ordinary people who need the real deposit money, and acquired the blood through the people who are the source of the deposit money of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, which is the source of the deposit money for the Korean Housing Finance Corporation, and the fact that the crime was committed systematically and is not committed. Therefore, it is necessary to punish the lessor with strict punishment to eradicate such loan fraud.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant is heavily against the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime was not significant; (c) the Korea Housing Finance Corporation deposited KRW 8 million in the future of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation; (d) criminal punishment exceeding the Defendant or having no criminal record of the same kind; and (e) the Defendant’s age, environment, family relationship; (d) circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (e) circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment seems to be unfair due to excessively unreasonable.

B. Although the fact that Defendant C is in violation of the Defendant’s depth of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant is economically unsured, and that the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment for fraud, special larceny, etc. in 2003, but has been 11 years ago, it is recognized that the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data at the trial, and is compared with the lower court.