The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

(B) 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first offense described in B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., one year of imprisonment for the Defendants A; and Defendant B, as to the first crime as indicated in the lower judgment, eight months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment for the third and fourth crimes as indicated in the lower judgment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds for appeal is against all of the frauds of this case, and the fact that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime in the past, and that the health status is not good is favorable.

However, the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims or endeavor to recover from damage (in the case of paragraph (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the principal and interest of the loan to the victim L corporation was fully repaid, but it seems that the defendant paid out part of the loan from the defendant to the victim L corporation. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.) The defendant, despite being asked by the investigative agency for the crime of this case, was investigated into the China for about three years after leaving the Republic of Korea without being asked by the investigative agency for the crime of this case, the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case including the defendant's age, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too too large, and it is not recognized that the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the Defendant committed the instant fraud in a systematic and planned manner, such as having Co-Defendant A act as a loan broer with the role of a false lessee, and had the record of criminal punishment several times for the same type of fraud and violence crimes, and each of the instant offenses.