Defendant

All appeals filed by A, D, F, G,Y, and I against the Defendant A and B of the Prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of sentence to the first instance judgment against Defendant A, D, F, G, I, Defendant A, D, F, G, and I (the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the effect that Defendant A, Defendant D, F, G, and I, each of the fines of KRW 10 million on Defendant A and the second instance judgment to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the effect that the sentence to the sentence to the sentence to the effect that Defendant A, D, G, I is unfair.

B. It is unreasonable that the sentence of the first original adjudication on the Defendant A and B (three years of imprisonment with prison labor, five years of suspended sentence, etc.) of the Prosecutor’s Defendant A and B is too uneased.

2. Determination

A. Defendants D, F, G, AY, and I’s assertion are led to the confession and reflection of the instant crime; Defendant D did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime; Defendant F, G did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; Defendant AY, and I did not have any record of crime; and Defendant AY, and I did not have any record of crime, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, by taking into account the fact that the Defendants borrowed money from the name of the Defendants, A and B deceptioned financial institutions under the name of the Defendants, and acquired money of KRW 18.21 billion by deceiving financial institutions, and the amount of damage to the said fraudulent act has not yet been completely recovered until now, the Defendants received money of KRW 50 million, which is less than KRW 9 million in return for lending the name as above, and most of them would have been consumed due to living expenses, etc., most of which are deemed to have been consumed. The fines of KRW 10 million, which were sentenced to the Defendants in the original judgment, are similar to or similar to the amount that the Defendants received in return for the instant crime, and the lower court appears to have been sentenced to a fine by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances asserted by the Defendants, and all other factors of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below is unfair in determining the argument against the defendant A and prosecutor A and B.