All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing): The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months) is too unreasonable.

2. The first and second judgments of the court below on the defendant's discretionary judgment were sentenced respectively, and all the defendants appealed, and the court decided to hold a joint hearing of all the above cases.

The first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because each crime of the first and second judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there are grounds for reversal ex officio as seen above, and the judgment below against the defendant is reversed in accordance with the above Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and without

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act for the selection of criminal facts (a fraudulent point) and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement) - Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the following reasons:

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes are as follows: (a) the Defendant took part in the crime of taking over money by borrowing KRW 224 million from a financial institution twice through the abuse of the loan system by sharing roles with many accomplices; and (b) the Defendant took part in the crime of taking over money by borrowing KRW 224 million from a financial institution. This is merely causing damage to the loan applicants who actually require the above loan system, which is planned and organized, and the nature of the offense is heavy.

In addition, it is not possible to receive a letter from the damaged financial institution so that it can take part in the judgment of one party, and the damage is not recovered properly.

And the defendant is the victim who is a partner.