All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the deception and conspiracy of defraudation, and there is no fact that Defendant A and this case were conspiredd to commit the crime. 2) The lower court determined that the P or T land in the original state (hereinafter “instant land”).

) The building and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”)

(1) The value of the instant land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was recognized as the same amount as KRW 2,807,750,000, which was the successful bid price of May 4, 2009.

(B) The value of the instant real estate should be determined as of July 5, 2007, which is the time when the crime of fraud was committed. (B) The amount distributed to the person holding the provisional seizure in the auction procedure of the instant real estate should be deducted from the amount of fraud.

C) On July 18, 2007, the Defendants are Spoi Mutual Savings Banks (hereinafter “Spoi Mutual Savings Banks”).

300 million won borrowed from U.S. Corporation (hereinafter “U”).

(D) Therefore, the lower court, without considering the aforementioned circumstances, found the defrauded amount as KRW 957,750,000, inasmuch as it was used to repay the existing debt.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion against Defendant A reflects his mistake by recognizing all the facts charged of the instant case.

Defendant

A agreed with the victim, and the victim was compensated for the loss of KRW 200 million from the defendant's side.

Since the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the criminal record of Defendant A as stated in the first head of the judgment of the court below, the case of judgment and equity should also

In this case.