[Defendant A] The guilty part of the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (unfairly unfair) is too unreasonable. The sentence of the lower court (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor, six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the facts of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Defendants, the Defendants received the loan in this case from S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) with knowledge of the fact that the loan documents prepared by S Co., Ltd. are false, and obtained the loan in this case with knowledge of the lack of capacity to perform joint and several sureties, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges,

B) Defendant A’s victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”)

Defendant A is against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “J”).

(2) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, since only used 1.2 billion won as financial intermediary expenses, etc. for obtaining a loan from the Defendants, and it cannot be deemed as execution or consulting expenses for Busan X project. 2) The judgment of the court below against the Defendants of unfair sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Ex officio determination 1) Prior to the determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the part on the provision of KRW 27.5 million in cash (attached Form Nos. 5, 9, 12, 14, and 16) among the charges of giving property in breach of trust against Defendant A is examined ex officio (the Defendant A asserted that the facts were misjudgmentd as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn.

(2) The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another’s business acquires property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and there is an illegal solicitation between a donor of property or pecuniary benefits and a purchaser.