The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) asserts that the defendant's punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor argues that the above punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The crime of this case is an act of deceiving the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, which is a victim, to issue a guarantee by means of deceiving the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund to prepare and submit a false contract for a construction project by abusing the guarantee support system. On the basis of this, the act of this case is ultimately obtaining pecuniary benefits by making the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund pay the amount equivalent to KRW 772 million by subrogation in the amount of money equivalent to the amount of KRW 72 million.

On the other hand, in the case of voluntary auction of real estate owned by the defendant (Tgu District Court WW, X) the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund has been distributed KRW 533,345,628 as a collateral security, and has been considerably recovered from damage. Since then, the defendant entered into a installment repayment contract with the victim on September 2, 2014 on the remaining amount of damage and made efforts to recover the damage of the victim, such as additional payment of KRW 20,000,000 as a result, etc., the defendant is aware of the crime of this case, and the defendant is deeply divided into his mistake, without any history of criminal punishment against the defendant, and taking into account various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, criminal law and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is too unreasonable to sentence the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The judgment of the court below is accepted.