Of the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, each of the frauds listed in Appendix II No. 13 and 31 of the crime sight table attached to the judgment below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the judgment of the court below, with respect to each fraud portion listed in the Appendix II No. 13,21,22,27, and 31, which was acquitted in the order of the court below, the court below found that each of the accounts in the name of BG and BH corporation was the cause of the damage incurred by the loan fraud, although comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the amount deposited from the above accounts used for the loan fraud crime of this case was also the cause of the damage incurred by the loan fraud. However, the court below acquitted the defendant on this part without considering the form of operation of the loan fraud office of this case or the characteristics of the crime, and without giving the prosecutor sufficient opportunity to prove the facts. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below that did not recognize a joint principal offender of fraud, the Defendants are deemed to be the joint principal offender of fraud since they performed functional control by installing “Ag (Radio Internet connection device)” and Internet telephone essential for the crime. However, the court below acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. In light of the legal principles on joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the overall sentencing sentencing conditions of the case of unfair sentencing, the court below's judgment against the Defendants in relation to each type of punishment (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of probation, 2 years of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, and 2 years of probation) are too uneas

B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part found guilty of fraud in the judgment of the court below), M opened a call center office on the fourth floor of the Nbuilding in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and had Defendant B carry out the Internet database work.