The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant, upon the request of C, who is a misunderstanding of facts, allowed C to prepare the lease contract of this case with the defendant as a lessor. However, C was unaware of the fact that it committed a fraudulent act of lending money of the lease.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not conspired with C, etc. to commit the fraud of this case, and did not intend to commit the fraud of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and the judgment

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended execution in October, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts in the court below also argued the same purport as the argument of misunderstanding of facts, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with its detailed explanation. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the above

It is recognized that the defendant alleged unfair sentencing is the primary offender, and that the court below deposited 4.4 million won for the victim.

However, in collusion with C, etc., the crime of this case requires strict punishment by deceiving money by abusing the loan system of house leasing fund for the stabilization of housing of homeless workers, and there is a lot of damage amount.

There is no special circumstance that differs from the original judgment in the case of the party.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.