The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 8,00,000 won, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s defense counsel asserted that: (a) in the summary of the oral argument submitted after the filing period for the appeal (as of July 24, 2018, the Defendant A’s defense counsel asserted that G’s registration of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (private financial assistance, etc.) and a lending business; and (b) a violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users; and (c) a violation of the Act on the Registration, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (private financial assistance, etc.) a concurrent relationship with

However, this cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal as the argument that was filed after the expiration of the period for submission of the Reasons for Appeal, and even after ex officio examination, each of the above crimes cannot be evaluated as a single act because the form of the act differs from one another, and thus, the above defendant's argument as to this part cannot be accepted.

B Defendant B withdrawn misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date (Defendant A: Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months; Defendant B; imprisonment of 6 months; suspended execution of 2 years; and community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant C’s application for a payment order against the victim Y Co., Ltd. as stated in the facts charged, and obtained the victim’s right to claim for recovery of deposit equivalent to KRW 300 million against the Republic of Korea based on the original copy of the payment order, is merely a mistake of legal evaluation that he/she is a creditor of a loan against Defendant A and exercises a claim for recovery of deposit money on behalf of Defendant A for the victim’s claim for reimbursement against the victim. In addition, Defendant C’s agent appointed the litigation agent on behalf of Defendant C, and carried out the procedure for recovery of deposit money under the direction of X. Thus,

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

(c).