The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and C are not guilty. Defendant A’s appeal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "the violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "the violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc.") or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to ① Defendant A merely responded to the receipt of a question or request from J, etc., and requested an excessive evaluation of

② Loans extended on December 6, 2013 (No. 20) by a person (No. 20) was actually loaned under his/her name, not Defendant A, and this part of the facts charged is not guilty.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) It is difficult to expect that Defendant B will confirm whether the loans exceed the loans limit of the same person by misunderstanding the fact that Defendant B violated the law of prohibition of Saemaul, or misunderstanding the legal principles, and examining the loan-related documents against Defendant A on a daily basis, and thus, Defendant B is not guilty of violating the law of prohibition of Saemaul.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) In special circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the violation of the special law (a dispatch) and the violation of the law of prohibition of Saemaul, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, Defendant C was aware of the loan business of Defendant A at the time of each of the instant loans to Defendant A and engaged in the loan business in accordance with the instructions of the former JJ. As such, Defendant C is not guilty of violation of the law of special circumstances (a dispatch) and violation of the law of prohibition of Saemaul.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion of factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Determination on the assertion of intention or conspiracy of violation of the Act (a) by special background, the lower court determined that Defendant A’s assertion of intention or conspiracy was based on the real estate development project conducted by the J and Defendant C, when the prosecutorial investigation was conducted by Defendant A.