The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and sentencing 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and referring only to “Defendant”, except where it is necessary to specify the names of the Defendants when specifying the Defendants.

The purpose of this paper is to obtain a loan of KRW 500 million from the victim Mdong Cooperative, but approximately KRW 395,815,226 of the above-mentioned mortgage debt of KRW 400 million, and to deduct the loan-related expenses from the cancellation of the right of interest and the incidental expenses.

Although the amount of profit earned by the defendant as a result of the crime of this case using it as a substitute exchange procedure is not more than 100,500,574 won, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that the court below deemed 500,000 won, which is the full amount of the loan, as "the profit amount" under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act").

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (Defendant B: A’s statement, K’s partial statement, and other circumstances revealed by mistake of facts (in violation of the rules of evidence) as follows; i.e., A’s request for the preparation of a written contract that it is necessary for the Defendant to obtain a loan from the Saemaul Treasury;

As consistently stated, A does not have any special reason to make a false statement about the Defendant’s act; ② K was present as a witness in the court of original instance; but K was present for the first time at the court of original instance, K made a statement favorable to the Defendant as a person who worked as a broker assistant for about three years at the office operated by the Defendant.

(3) In light of the fact that the Defendant has failed to explain the circumstances at the time, such as the reason for submitting a false lease contract that lowers the amount of deposit for the submission of the company, etc., the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant participated in the exercise of the above investigation document and the crime of fraud as a principal offender.