(b) Whether an employee of a credit cooperative shall comply with the Act, Decree, rule, articles of incorporation, regulations, and resolution of the board of directors, whether an act in violation of the provisions of the articles of incorporation of a credit cooperative may be punished only where he violates the articles of incorporation under Article 66 (1) 2 of

B. Even though the articles of incorporation of a community credit cooperative provide that "the employees of a credit cooperative shall comply with the resolution of the law, Decree, rule, articles of incorporation, regulations, and general assembly or board of directors", it is merely abstractly declared that if an employee of a credit cooperative, he/she is obligated to comply with the above statutes, etc., and therefore, he/she shall not be subject to the punishment provided for in Article 66 (1) 2 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, even if an employee of a credit cooperative violates the articles of incorporation.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and records, Defendant 2, in collaboration with Co-Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 of the facts charged of this case, violated the provisions on the extension of loan repayment period at the office of Defendant 3 community credit cooperatives around November 20, 1989, and extended loans to Nonindicted 1,750,000 won new loans to Nonindicted 2, 1,64,10 won, and thereby, did not incur damages in excess of the interest rate of KRW 1,64,10,00 to Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 of the above Community Credit Cooperatives Act for the reason that they would incur damages to Defendant 1,664,10 won due to the delayed repayment of loans under the name of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the above Act. Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 of the first instance court on May 20, 199, and thus, Defendant 1 violated the above provisions on the loan repayment period of KRW 1,400,000,000.

In light of Article 38 (2) 2 (b) of the former Act and Article 66 (1) 2 of the former Act and Article 38 (2) 2 of the former Act, the term "order under this Act" means not merely the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also the whole of individual mandatory provisions imposed by the Act, Article 23 (1) of the new Act requires that an officer of a credit cooperative comply with the regulations of the credit cooperative or the resolution of the general meeting and the board of directors; therefore, the above so-called "order under this Act" is a violation of Article 38 (2) 2 of the former Act and Article 66 (1) 2 of the former Act. However, since the duty of good faith of an officer of the credit cooperative is of Article 23 (1) of the former Act and Article 23 (2) 2 of the former Act, the officer of the credit cooperative shall be subject to the order under this Act, the articles of incorporation, regulations and the resolution of the board of directors, and Article 23 (1) 6 (2) 3) of the former Act shall be interpreted only to the extent of the new Act and Article 6 (3) of the Act.

In addition, although the articles of incorporation of the above credit cooperative provides that "any employee of the credit cooperative shall comply with the law, order, rules, articles of incorporation, regulations, and the resolution of the board of directors" under Article 43 of the above credit cooperative's articles of incorporation, it is merely abstractly declared that if an employee of the credit cooperative is an employee of the credit cooperative, he/she has the obligation to comply with the above laws and regulations, and therefore, he/she also constitutes an act of an employee of the credit cooperative in violation of the articles of incorporation under Article 66 (1) 2 of the Act and cannot be punished under the same Article

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)