All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles in the judgment of the court below. Defendant A1 did not know the leased facts of the machinery as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the instant machinery”). Defendant B conspired with Defendant B, and did not deceiving the Defendant’s branch Dong Dubcheon K (hereinafter “victim Nong”). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

In addition, the loan of this case was granted a loan of KRW 1.66 billion with a joint security of real estate and the machinery of this case, and it did not receive a separate loan of KRW 100 million. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized a crime of fraud of KRW 100 million is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A applied for the instant loan upon request of the J, and Defendant A was unaware of the fact that the instant machinery was included in the security for the said loan. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts, on the grounds that Defendant A conspired with the Defendant A, thereby deceiving the Defendant agricultural cooperative of the victim.

In addition, the loan of this case was granted a loan of KRW 1.66 billion with a joint security of real estate and the machinery of this case, and it did not receive a separate loan of KRW 100 million. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized a crime of fraud of KRW 100 million is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendants conspired to obtain KRW 100 million from the victim agricultural cooperative.

1) Defendant A introduced not only the demand of Defendant A to obtain a loan, but also the victim agricultural cooperative.

② Defendant A shall be against the instant machinery.