B. Occupational breach of trust

(c) Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies;

(d) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

E. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

(f) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes

(g) Offering of bribe;

(h) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment;

A

2.(a)(c)(d)(f).

B

3. (a)(c)(d);

C

4.(a)

E

5.(a)(e)F

6.(a)(e)(h) G;

Attorney in charge Z, AA, AB

Law Firm Nguin Q (Defendant A)

Attorney in charge NR, NS, NT, NU, NV, NW

Law Firm AC (Defendant B)

Attorney in charge of NX, NY, NZ, OA, AF

Attorney AG (for the defendant B)

Law Firm OB (for Defendant C)

Attorney OC, OD, OE, OF,OG

Law Firm OH (for Defendant E)

Attorney OI, OJ, OK, OL

Law Firm OM (for Defendant E)

Attorney ON, 00, OP, P

Law Firm OR (for the defendant F)

Attorney in charge OS,OT, OU,OV

Law Firm OW (for defendant F)

Attorney OX, OY, OZ, PA

PB (for Defendant G)

Attorney in charge PC

1429 (Joint), 2011 Highis1486 (Joint), 2011 Highis1565 (Joint), 2012 Highis

11(Joint), 2012, 112(Joint), 2012, 368(Joint) Judgment

Defendant B’s imprisonment of ten years, Defendant A’s imprisonment of five years, Defendant C’s imprisonment of four years, Defendant E’s imprisonment of two and half years, Defendant F’s imprisonment of three years, and Defendant G’s imprisonment of two and half years.

However, with respect to Defendant E and G, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for each of the four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order Defendant G to provide community service for 200 hours. Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C, Defendant C is not guilty of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by issuing N Savings Bank subordinate Bonds on November 6, 2009.

2. The prosecutor's appeal against the violation of each mutual savings bank due to loans to Defendant A and C and each violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) is dismissed.

(a) A prosecutor;

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) According to the facts confirmed in the course of the investigation of the 30 billion won loan portion of the borrower L (Defendant A and C), the payment of the 30 billion won loan and the payment of the 30 billion won loan through CX is limited to 11 billion won out of the 30 billion won loan, and since the remainder of the loan was executed in accordance with the normal order after the approval was made by Defendant A and C, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A and C are not liable solely for the circumstance that the 30 billion won loan and the payment of the 30 billion won loan were made first in the beginning stage of the loan. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant A and C on this part

B) In light of the fact that the part of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act under the credit extension by a large shareholder related to the purchase of stocks and real estate (Defendant C and E) is only Defendant B, and that the loan manager has reported some of the borrowed-name borrowers to the purport that the borrower is "the president (Defendant B)", the person in charge of the loan shall be deemed to have been sufficiently aware of the fact that the actual borrower is Defendant B in the borrowed-name loan for the purchase of stocks and real estate. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant C and E of the reason for the violation of the credit extension by a large shareholder as stated in the Paragraph (c) of Article 6-2 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

A) The part against Defendant A

In light of the fact that Defendant A performed the direction of Defendant B in the most faithful manner as an executive officer who was the most essential part of the N Savings Bank loan business, Defendant A merely approved an illegal loan, and Defendant A was involved in an overall deliberation of the N Savings Bank’s illegal acts, such as lending the words of Defendant B and lending his own license, etc., the lower court’s sentencing that sentenced Defendant A six years of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

B) The part on Defendant B

In light of the fact that Defendant B, as the president of the N Savings Bank, bears the final responsibility in connection with the operation of the N Savings Bank, and participated in each individual loan case through the officer of the Savings Bank, the officer of the Savings Bank, the working staff, and Defendant B’s transition may be the largest cause causing the failure of the N Savings Bank, etc., the lower court’s sentencing sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B is unreasonable.

C) The part on Defendant C

The decision of the court below that acquitted Defendant C is due to the misunderstanding of facts as seen earlier, and thus, the sentence shall be re-determined. In light of such circumstances, the sentence of the court below that sentenced Defendant C with a prison term of five years is too uneasible and unfair.

D) The part on Defendant E

In light of the fact that Defendant E did not seriously reflect his mistake by the last day during the trial of the court below and argued that “it is not refused from the point of view of receiving the B Chairperson’s instructions”, Defendant E continued to work in the financial sphere, who was well aware of the life and interest of the savings bank, and was trying to escape from his responsibility as a net justification, the sentencing of the court below that sentenced Defendant E for 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

E) The part on Defendant F

Considering the fact that Defendant F denies the end of the crime and did not reflect on the end of the crime, the sentencing of the lower court that sentenced Defendant F with imprisonment for three years and six months against Defendant F is too low and unfair.

F) The part on Defendant G

In light of the fact that Defendant G denies the commission of the crime until the end of the crime, the fact that the investigation of Defendant G does not reflect on the other hand, that there was a power to conceal the end of the crime, and that it is easy for Defendant G to commit other crimes due to money laundering by Defendant G, etc., the sentencing of the lower court that sentenced Defendant G by imprisonment with labor for not less than two years and six months is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (unfair form of punishment)

Although the Defendant promoted as an executive officer on August 1, 2008, the lower court did not distinguish between the Defendant’s appointment and promotion of executive officers, and did not distinguish between the Defendant’s appointment and the post, and determined a severe punishment on the Defendant by misunderstanding that the Defendant was the core object of the instant crime, which was the Nando Bank and AW Savings Bank, and was the largest part of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime. Even in relation to the part of the Defendant’s participation as an executive officer, the fact that the Defendant was the representative director of the Nan Savings Bank in a relatively short period is not because (i) the Defendant was solely friendly due to the internal situation of Nan Savings Bank at the time; (ii) the Defendant did not have the final right to decide whether to grant a credit regardless of his position; and (iii) the Defendant merely carried out the existing credit management business directly after the officer in charge of credit extension, and (iv) the Defendant was merely an intermediary approval, and (v) the Defendant did not have any authority to plan and manage the accounts under the direction.

1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing

A) The part on breach of trust due to bad loans

① The portion of loans in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "DU") listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 38-X, 2-Attachment 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "DV") in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "DV"), 3-Attachment 11 in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "DV"), 4-Attachment 2 in the name of EF (hereinafter referred to as "EF"), 1-4, and 6 in the name of [Attachment 13] in the list of crimes and crimes, 6-Attachment 14 in the name of each stock company Q (hereinafter referred to as " Q Q") in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "DV"), and the portion of loans in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "DV"), 10-1 and AW-1 in the name of each stock company (hereinafter referred to as "mortgage") in the name of the court below, which are unlawful since it was a new loan to be repaid or sufficient to be offered.

B) Violations of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to large shareholders credit extension

① Attached Form 5(5) of the judgment of the court below: each loan related to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M"), (2) loan related to the purchase of real estate in annexed Form 10(hereinafter referred to as "M"), (3) loan in the name of Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Q Q") No. 1-6(hereinafter referred to as "M"), (4) loan in annexed Form 14 and No. 14), (5) loan in the name of "U" (hereinafter referred to as "U"), (7) loan in the name of "U" (hereinafter referred to as "PD land"), (10) multi-family housing and neighborhood living facilities located in Gangnam-gu and 1 (hereinafter referred to as "PD land"), (4) loan in annexed Form 1-W No. 14, and (4) loan in the name of "FFR" and the part related to the above loan in the name of the defendant in relation to the joint crime with "FFN" (hereinafter referred to as "FNNN land"), are unlawful in the court below.

C) Although there is no clear evidence to prove that the Defendant and the Defendant G conspired with respect to loans related to 18 lots, such as FY, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the part of the joint crime committed with Defendant G (hereinafter “PE land”), the lower court concluded that the Defendant and G conspiredd for bad loans and provided bad credit to the Defendant, based on the statements lacking in reasoning judgment and credibility. This is unlawful as it was based on misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The Defendant, as a major shareholder and the highest manager of the N Savings Bank, was in depth and seriously against the situation that many victims have occurred due to a large amount of non-performing loans. The Defendant was aware that the executives and employees of the N Savings Bank, who lost their work due to their management mistakes, committed deep-depth accidents even to the executives and employees of the N Savings Bank, and that the Defendant’s act under trial together with the Defendant was a fundamental consequence of the Defendant’s mistake, and there is no doubt that he intended to transfer any responsibility related to the instant case to the Defendant. The Defendant consistently stated the facts in the process of investigating the N Savings Bank’s poor situation of the N Savings Bank, and conducting the prosecution investigation into the N Savings Bank’s poor, and the lower court’s trial. In light of the fact that there was no attempt to reduce the amount of actual damages of the N Savings Bank’s 20% of the total amount of damages, which is merely a 20 billion amount of investment in the N Savings Bank’s operating income, and the Defendant did not contribute to the N Savings Bank’s employees in light of its financial equity and 200 years’s operating profit.

D. Defendant C

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by means of credit extension to large shareholders related to loans to the borrower M, etc.

The Defendant, with respect to the borrowed loan to M, was not only the fact that the lender is the borrower in borrowed name, but also the actual borrower was approved by the borrower without gathering the fact that he is the president of the upper party B who is a major shareholder, but also the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the above loan was extended to the defendant B who is the major shareholder and approved the above loan.

B) As to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by issuing subordinated bonds, the 26th financial statements of the N Savings Bank were related to the financial situation before a defendant takes office, and the defendant did not participate in or directed the preparation of the 26th financial statements concerning the issuance of subordinated bonds as of November 6, 2009 and June 17, 2010, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew that the contents were wrong or that the defendant approved the issuance of subordinated bonds under such circumstances, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant was aware of the falsity, etc. of the 26th financial statements only by the circumstance that the defendant was present at the meeting related to the issuance of subordinated bonds. The judgment of the court below is erroneous and it is against the law.

C) As to the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to excess credit extension to an individual borrower on September 18, 2009, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director on September 18, 2009, and it was impossible to find out whether the existing loan exceeded the limit of borrowed name and credit extension because he did not receive any report from the team leader in charge of loan for a considerable period of time on whether the existing loan was borrowed, the lower court determined that the Defendant approved the execution of the loan with the knowledge that the specific contents of the existing loan, the identity of the actual borrower, and the limit of credit extension, solely based on CX and the

Determination is illegal as a misunderstanding of facts.

Even if the defendant was aware of the borrowing of a loan and the excess, the loan was executed prior to the defendant's taking office and the loan was not itself [Attachment 7 of the judgment of the court below] (the loan amount of 4.5 billion won from December 17, 2009, which was stated as 5.59 billion won in the balance of the loan even though it is clear that 4.5 billion won has been erroneously stated as 5.5 billion won in the name of KS No. 60 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below, and the excess amount of 1.9 billion won has to be naturally deducted, and the court below determined that the loan for repayment [Attachment 7 of the judgment of the court below (the judgment of the court below) 29, 31, 32, 33, 52, and 60 each loan amount of 7.9 billion won in total and 9,10,445 billion won in total and each loan amount of 7.9 billion won in excess of the loan amount has to be altered, but it constitutes an individual loan amount exceeding 1.5 billion won.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of all the circumstances such as equity in sentencing with Defendant A, who was working for the N Savings Bank on February 18, 2009 and was working as the representative director of the said Bank for two years until its business is suspended, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the Defendant five years of imprisonment is too unreasonable, considering the following: (a) although the Defendant was working as the representative director of the said Bank on February 18, 2009 and was working for the N Savings Bank; (b) there was no criminal record; (c) the Defendant thought that the damage to the instant case was very close to the victims; and (d) the Defendant was frightly divided into the bones; and (c) there was no personal benefit in relation to the instant case; and (d) there was no personal benefit in relation to the N Savings Bank’s credit business in fact over a long-term period.

E. Defendant E

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) In light of the following facts: (a) the partial loan of 8 billion won in [Attachment 2] Nos. 2-8 billion won in the list of crimes (2) of the judgment of the court below was made by the public prosecutor that the defendant did not recognize this part of the facts charged by the public prosecutor (the original decision recognized that the defendant recognized it by arbitrary interpretation); (b) the signature in the letter of approval was made by the defendant B; (c) the date of settlement of the letter of approval was made by the defendant on March 15, 2007; and (d) there was no credibility in the statement made by the employees of N Savings Bank Bank, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been involved in this part of the facts charged; (d) the court below erred by misapprehending

B) The part on which the defendant did not approve

① The portion of the loan of KRW 2.7 billion to the borrower BE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BE"), the portion of the loan of KRW 3.3 billion to the borrower in [Attachment 1] No. 31], the portion of the loan of KRW 3.3 billion to the borrower in [Attachment 1] 31], the portion of the loan of KRW 450 million to the borrower in [Attachment 3] No. 2-2] 2-2, the portion of the loan of KRW 450 million to the borrower in [Attachment 3] 2-2], and the portion of the loan of KRW 9.9 billion to the CA for the borrower in [Attachment 6-7] No. 3] 5.45 billion in total of each of the above loans, is omitted from the Defendant’s written loan of each of the above loans, and thus, it is unlawful to find the Defendant guilty as to each of the above facts charged.

C) The part approved by the defendant

Even if the defendant's approval is granted, the defendant did not have the authority to examine and decide the contents of the loan, security situation, etc. and did not have the authority to refuse to receive a detailed report or to refuse to approve it. However, in such a situation, it is illegal for the court below to recognize the approval that the defendant's mechanical approval was made by the defendant to the defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles on the joint principal offender.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the Defendant conspired with the Defendant who is the principal offender B and could not be thoroughly excluded from the process of credit examination, and thus, even if the Defendant acknowledged a conspiracy with the Defendant to engage in a crime of breach of trust, it is extremely weak, and there was no criminal record, and there was no criminal record. The Defendant, as the age of 68 years old, started prosecution investigation in 201, has been under the age of 68, so that he was under the age of 68, with extreme pressure memory and judgment as well as considerable pressure. The recent years, although it was suspected that he was under brain because he was unable to memory his day or horse, it is suspected that he was under brain because he was unable to receive close diagnosis. At present, there was a provisional seizure of all assets such as the Defendant’s house, automobile, and stocks, so that his family's livelihood could be prevented, and that the Defendant, at the National Deposit Insurance Corporation, refused to grant loans from the N Savings Bank to his own will to live thoroughly with the Defendant's family members, it is unfair to fully distinguish the Defendant's life and life.

F. Defendant F

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, at the request of the Defendant B, committed a mistake of facts as to the owner of each project related to FN building, FO building, and LE land; (b) the owner of each project related to FN building, FO building, and LE land, which sought a loan from the borrower or the borrowed-name shareholder; (c) but (d) the lower court’s judgment determined that B was an individual, not the N Savings Bank, based on circumstantial evidence or a statement of some conjection of relevant persons. This is unlawful due to mistake of facts.

B) mistake of facts as to the extent that the Defendant participated in loans related to FN buildings, FO buildings, and LE land

The Defendant, the representative of the N Savings Bank, performed the general management of the real estate purchased by N Savings Bank at the request of the Defendant B. In addition, when management expenses are needed, the Defendant received money from the N Savings Bank, which is the actual owner of each real estate, and used it as the general operation expenses of the real estate management and special purpose corporation. In addition, there was no participation in the decision-making of each loan, the scale of the loan, etc., and there was no possession of passbook to manage the fund after the loan. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s solicitation of and participation in the act of violation of the duties with B.

C) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether breach of trust and calculation of the amount of breach of trust

(1) The portion of the loan made to the borrower for the FR

(A) The portion of loans listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 1 of the judgment of the court below

The amount of KRW 720,00,000, which is recognized as the amount of breach of trust among the loans 4.3 billion won from November 11, 2001 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below (15) as shown in the judgment of the court below, shall be excluded from the amount of breach of trust, since it is actually used as construction expenses for every month over a long period of time in the FN buildings owned by the N Savings Bank.

(B) The portion of loans listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 3 of the judgment of the court below

The amount of KRW 3.52 billion, which was recognized as the amount of breach of trust among the loans of KRW 3.6 billion from August 22, 2006, 300,000, e.g., [15] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 2]] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3]] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3.6 billion]] [Attachment]] [FN

(C) The portion of the loan Nos. 4 in the [Attachment 15] of the judgment of the court below

[Attachment 15] The loan amount of 8 billion won from September 25, 2006, on which the judgment of the court below held that the PE land and its ground FN building was provided as collateral. The value of the collateral was 12.7 billion won (i.e., the appraisal of KRW 25.83 billion - senior 8.4 billion - the amount used as collateral 3 - prior 8.72 billion - the amount used as collateral 8 billion , and the loan amount is KRW 8.0 billion, all of which should be excluded from the amount of breach of trust because there is no damage. Even if the above appraisal is in dispute, 1,312,317,250 out of the above 8.8 billion won should be excluded from the amount of breach of trust because it was deposited into another comprehensive account (KY) account in the name of the FR bank to refund to the Government, and 5.00 billion won should be excluded from the amount of 3.3 billion stock acquisition in the MR bank's business.

(D) The portion of loans listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 5] of the judgment of the court below

With respect to loans 2 billion won from February 24, 2009, [Attachment 15] [Attachment 5] No. 5-24, 2009, the land and the building in the FN building was provided as security. The value of the collateral (i.e., KRW 30 billion - KRW 18 billion - senior 14.81 billion - KRW 30 billion - senior 12.72 billion - KRW 4 used as security, and the amount of the loan is KRW 2 billion, and thus, should be excluded from the amount of breach of trust due to the lack of loss. Even if there is a dispute over the above appraisal, the amount of the loan 2 billion -

Since fixed KRW 900 million is used as operating expenses of the FR, all of them should be deducted from the amount of breach of trust.

(2) The loan to the borrower for the FT

The amount of KRW 5.358 billion out of the amount of 5.5 billion in breach of trust in 5.5 billion in the attached Table 7 of the judgment of the court below (15) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and KRW 2.0 billion in the amount of 5.3 billion in breach of trust in 8. The amount of 1.78 billion in the amount of 33.3 billion in breach of trust in 9 shall be excluded from the amount of misappropriation, since the security was provided.

(3) The portion of loans made to the borrower to the FU

In the judgment of the court below, the loans No. 10 No. 10 of the crime sight table No. 10 of the judgment of the court below shall be determined through consultation between LB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LB”) representative director LB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LB”), the contractor of FN building, and the Defendant did

Even if the defendant's participation is recognized, this part of the loan was provided as a security by the 9 head of the PF Housing apartment unit at Guriri-si, and the collateral value is KRW 2.51 billion, and thus, the actual amount of breach of trust should be reduced to KRW 4.4881 billion (=2.519 billion) (i.e., KRW 7 billion - KRW 2.519 billion). (iv) In the judgment on the loan portion of the loan to the FV, the amount of KRW 40 million, which was recognized as the amount of breach of trust among the loan amount of KRW 10 billion No. 11 of the list of crimes No. 11 of the list of crimes (15), was used as the operating expenses of the FR, and the amount of KRW 1.7 billion, which was recognized as the amount of breach of trust among the loan amount of KRW 12.7 billion, which was paid by the defendant to the NB Savings Bank, and all of them should be excluded from the amount of

(5) The loan to the borrower for the FW

Around October 2004, the Defendant participated only in a contract to purchase LE under the name of FW along with the JZ, and the management of October 20, 2004 and FW was entrusted to the JZ and did not take part in the next part after the resignation of the director. Thus, the Defendant did not fully participate in each of the loans made after June 30, 2006, and should be excluded from the amount of breach of trust.

Even if the defendant's involvement is recognized, 30 million won, 30 million won, 30 million won, and 20 million won, which are recognized as an amount of breach of trust in the [Attachment 15] No. 13, 14, and 17 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below, were used for the purpose of comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax on real estate owned by N Savings Bank, and 140 million won, which is recognized as an amount of breach of trust in 15 No. 15 of the No. 15 of the judgment of the court below, shall be excluded from the amount of breach of trust, since it was deposited into another comprehensive passbook loan account in the FW's name

(6) The loan to the borrower FX

① The lower court acknowledged the amount of 13.16 billion won of loans 13.5 billion won in [Attachment 15] 18] in the judgment of the lower court. However, the said loan was provided as security by the land and the building in the FO building, but the secured amount was 13.5 billion won as a result of the independent appraisal by the NO Bank, the appraisal by the appraisal corporation requested at the time of the loan, and 12.3 billion won as a result of the recent court appraisal, the above amount shall be deducted from the amount of misappropriation. ② Since the 1.3 billion won of the 19th loans was recognized as the amount of misappropriation, the above amount shall be deducted from the amount of misappropriation; ② since the 1.5 billion won of the 19th loans was deposited at the request of the NO bank, the 3.5 billion won loan amount shall be excluded from the amount of misappropriation loan to the 3.4 billion won in the amount of misappropriation loan, the amount of 3 billion won in the misappropriation loan shall be excluded from the amount of 4.3 billion won in all.

(7) The portion of the loan made to KN by the borrower

Each part of the loans must be deducted from the amount of breach of trust, in the absence of any participation of the Defendant, because the N Savings Bank unilaterally carried out the loans without notifying the Defendant in advance using the comprehensive passbook loan account in the name of KN, opened at the GN Bank.

Even if the defendant's involvement was recognized, the amount of KRW 2 billion, which was recognized as the amount of breach of trust from the loans No. 23 in the [Attachment 15] No. 23 in the judgment of the court below, shall be deducted from the amount of breach of trust, since the bank deposited in the loan account of another borrowed borrower in the N Savings Bank and exchanged.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The Defendant did not participate in each of the loans in this case, and only lent the name of the borrower, and the degree of participation is insignificant by performing only the management of the special purpose corporation, the Defendant did not obtain any particular profit from the loan in this case, the Defendant’s family members, who were only the nominal lender due to each of the loans in this case after the suspension of business operation of the NB Savings Bank, became a bad credit holder, and the auction procedure is in progress for the apartment house in the name of the Defendant’s sole property, and the Defendant was required to demand the refund of the deposit money from the former lessee of the FNN Building, and the Defendant was able to manage the FN Building in the name of the former tenant in the PK under the name of the family, and was continuously managing the 1.3 billion won mortgage in the name of the former tenant in the FN Building and the management expenses of the FO building in the name of the former tenant for more than one year, and the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than 201.12.6.

G. Defendant G

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Whether the Defendant and the upper-party B conspired

Although the Defendant did not have any contact or telephone communications with the Defendant B with respect to loans of KRW 15 billion with respect to the loans of KRW 15 billion with respect to the land 18 parcels of land, including Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the FY (hereinafter “PE land”), the lower court determined that, without any particular evidence, the Defendant and the Defendant conspiredd to borrow KRW 15 billion with the NE land from the NE Bank in collusion with the Defendant and the upper-tier B, without any specific evidence. This is unlawful as it misleads

B) misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether the other party to the transaction in breach of trust is recognized as a co-principal

Even if a loan of 15 billion won related to the PE land is recognized as an act of occupational breach of trust against the Defendant B, the Defendant did not have the principal mark of the crime of occupational breach of trust because it was not in the position of a person who administers the affairs of the NSaving Bank, and cannot be deemed as having actively participated in the act of occupational breach of trust by inducing the act of occupational breach of trust or participating in the entire process of the act of occupational breach of trust. However, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of joint principal

C) The lower court determined that B, as the actual borrower, is the subject to whom the obligation to repay KRW 15 billion with respect to the loan of KRW 15 billion with respect to the PE land was attributed, although the subject to whom the obligation to repay the loan of KRW 15 billion with respect to the PE land was attributed to the Defendant

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Considering the fact that there exist reasons for voluntary reduction and exemption, the Defendant did not take part in the loan review of this case, the Defendant did not file a public prosecution against the Defendant, who was the actual borrower of the loan of this case, and the upper Defendant, CX, and GT, etc., who was in charge of the loan review of this case, due to the instant case, and it was difficult for the Defendant, who was ordered or asked by the Defendant B, at the risk of detention after the N Savings Bank received a disposition of business suspension, to refuse the cash. Although the instant loan is in the form of a secured loan, although the substance of the loan has the characteristics of the PF loan, there was a high possibility of development of the PE land, and thus, there was a very high possibility of collecting the loan, the sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant two years and six months in imprisonment, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

B. The prosecutor and the Defendants’ grounds for appeal were examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the prosecutor maintained the facts charged as to the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by means of credit extension to the major shareholders of the Defendant A, B, C, E, and F, while maintaining them as the primary facts charged, and filed an application for permission to amend the Act to add the facts of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by means of credit extension to the major shareholders as stated in paragraph (1) (b) above, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Defendant A, B, C, E, and F (including the remainder of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violating the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to credit extension to the major shareholders) cannot be maintained further.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio determination, the above facts charged and the remaining crimes are subject to determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B, C, E, and F, prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, mistake of facts, and assertion of unreasonable sentencing. Therefore, this paper examines this issue.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake

1) 30 billion won loan to borrower L (the part against Defendant A and C)

The court below ordered CX to take part in the process of lending specified in this part of the facts charged, i.e., the preparation of documents necessary for the preparation and lending of the loan to CW, which is the head of the financial market team of AW Savings Bank. Accordingly, CW did not take part in the process of preparing a credit review report and reporting the preparation of documents necessary for the lending. (2) On June 29, 201, CX directly phoneed to CX who did not take currency to A and ordered CX to take part in the process of lending, and CX to take part in the process of lending, and 30 billion won to obtain approval of the loan from the Financial Services Commission by using the above loan documents, and 30 billion won after obtaining approval of the loan from 1 team leader of GU to take part in the process of lending, and 300 billion won after obtaining approval of the loan from the Financial Services Commission, and 301 billion won after obtaining approval of the loan from the Financial Services Commission, 300 billion won of the loan and 301 billion won of the loan.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2) Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of credit to major shareholders related to the purchase of stocks and real estate (the part against Defendant C and E)

The court below determined that Defendant A and DH were aware of the following circumstances based on the adopted evidence, i.e., from the time they were investigated by the prosecutor’s office, but at that time, Defendant B was unaware of the fact that it was given a loan by using a borrowed borrower. Defendant B was relatively consistent to the purport that it was aware of such fact only through DH after the suspension of the operation of the NSaving Bank. Defendant E was aware of the fact that: (a) the prosecutor’s office knew of the fact that the loan was given as security in the loan documents and the loan was given for purchasing stocks; (b) whether the loan was given for purchasing real estate; and (c) whether the loan was directly used by Defendant B and C; and (d) even according to Defendant A and B’s statement, Defendant B instructed Defendant B and DD to seek a borrowed borrower; and (d) Defendant C and the head of the team did not directly provide instructions or instructions related to the loan; and (d) Defendant C and the head of the team did not directly establish that each of the facts charged was a major shareholder in consultation with the Investment and Operation Team.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the prosecutor's allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

C. Judgment on Defendant B’s misconception of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, or incomplete hearing

1) The portion of breach of trust due to bad loans

A) Attached Form 1 of the judgment below (1) 38 X lending Nos. 38 X-2)

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant C on July 6, 201, extended the existing loan of KRW 1 billion to H on an additional loan of KRW 2.9 billion to KRW 2.9 billion on a loan to H on a deposit basis, had already been provided as security for another loan of KRW 94 billion on a preferential basis, and the secured value was reduced by lending KRW 1 billion to H in X’s name in excess of the secured value, thereby gaining the same pecuniary profit to H and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the Victim N Savings Bank.

(2) The judgment of the court below

In relation to this part, according to the statement at the court of the court below in Q Q Q's trial, not only requested the appraisal of PG's land but also requested the appraisal of the market price to be well known while informing the transaction price. The court below found the PG's judgment guilty on the ground that the 6.5 billion won of the appraisal price of PG's land was calculated through the appraisal of the market price presented for transactions, such as sale and purchase, not for the stable recovery of loan claims, and it is difficult to view it as the price based on the reasonable appraisal in light of the above appraisal request. Thus, even if the valid collateral value excluding the senior security value of PG's land was calculated as 5.2 billion won, the above loan amount cannot be deemed as a sufficient security for the total amount of KRW 3.9 billion in the loan amount under the name of the former and X 2.9 billion in the name of the former.

(3) Judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, it is acknowledged that X’s name was already financed with KRW 2.98 billion, and the principal was not repaid at all, and that Defendant B loaned KRW 1 billion to H under X’s name on May 30, 2007. The PG’s land offered as security was calculated at KRW 6.515 billion, based on the appraisal result by 3 appraisal corporations on the date of a case, which was calculated at the level of KRW 6.5 billion, not by the justifiable appraisal value, but by the G Q’s request. In addition, it is recognized that the collateral security right was set at KRW 994 million prior to the above real estate.

However, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant shall be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006).

In light of the above facts and the legal principles of the above Supreme Court decisions, even if the appraisal of PG land is not a legitimate appraisal value, the reasonable appraisal price of the PG land is long, and accordingly, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the loan of the above KRW 1 billion in X is a loan in the absence of a collateral. Therefore, there is no evidence that the prosecutor failed to submit the material on the legitimate appraisal price of the PG land in this case. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the loan of KRW 1 billion in X’s name exceeds the effective collateral, or if it exceeds the excess, it is difficult to conclude that a judge is guilty on the ground that there is no evidence of probative value sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant A, B, and C on this part is erroneous. Accordingly, the ground for appeal by the Defendant B on this part is with merit.

B) Attached Form 11 of the judgment of the court below (1) 5.1 billion won loan in the name of 2DU No. 2DU

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant B, at the head office of the N Savings Bank on December 19, 2006, obtained the proprietary benefits of KRW 510,010,000,00 exceeding 0,00,00,00 in the name of 1,922,807 shares of DT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DT”) (excluding 300,000,000 shares previously acquired) as security for the loan in relation to the loan, although the effective security of DT shares 222,807 shares offered as security for the loan is merely KRW 4.589,9,000,000,000,000 in the name of DU operated by 00,000,000 in the name of DoU, thereby causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the N Savings Bank.

(2) The judgment of the court below

① The lower court assessed the valid collateral under the internal regulations of the NT Bank as 40% in the case of KOSDAQ-listed stocks. In general, the Financial Supervisory Service’s prosecutor, etc. calculated the substitute price (the price calculated through the closing price for three months and the current volume of stocks) as 90% in the case of the above NA, and calculated the substitute price as 70% in the closing price as of September 8, 2006. Since the closing price of DT shares was KRW 2,950 per share on September 7, 2006, which was before the initial handling of the loan, was 2,222,807 shares, and it was difficult to view the above NA’s 4.5 billion won in the case of the above NA’s request for the above NA’s transfer of bonds as a collateral, the lower court acknowledged the valid collateral in QU 1’s loan-backed loan-backed loan-backed loan-backed loan-backed loan-backed loan-based loan-backed loan-backed loan-backed loan-based loan-based loan-based 30.

(3) Judgment of the court below

In the crime of occupational breach of trust, "when a financial institution causes damage to property" includes not only a case where a real loss is incurred but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused. If a financial institution provides a new loan to a customer in order to appropriate for the principal, interest, and overdue interest on the existing loan of a customer, it is merely arranged as if it provides a new loan to the customer, and it is not a new loan to the customer, but it does not actually provide a new loan to the customer, it does not cause a new loss to the financial institution, and therefore it is not a separate crime of occupational breach of trust (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da94585 Decided October 29, 2009).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, 1.5 billion won loan was executed for the DoU of the name loan of 1.5 billion won on September 8, 2006, and 300,000 shares of DoU were offered as security for the above loan, and 5.1 billion won loan was executed for the DoU as of December 19, 2006, and 1,922,807 shares of DoT were additionally offered as security for the above loan, but the above 5.1 billion won loan of 5 billion won on December 19, 2006 x 1.5 billion won loan of 1.5 billion won on September 8, 2006 x 1.5 billion loan of 70 billion won on which the court below recognized the valid portion of DoU loan as valid as 9.7 billion won loan x 2.7 billion won loan of 9 billion won on September 29, 2006.

C) The loan of KRW 6.8 billion in the name of DU No. 3 of the crime sight table No. 3 in the judgment of the court below

The court below rejected Defendant B’s assertion that the aforementioned loan is valid within the scope of the aforementioned loan, taking into account the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive review of the adopted evidence: ① 40% of the K Q’s shares and the lease deposit claims were offered as a security by requesting the JJ to the representative director of the K Q, and the so-called additional security that cannot be disposed of by the N Savings Bank; ② following the prosecutor’s statement at the GaV and GS’s prosecutor’s office, DU acquired once convertible bonds (1.53 billion won) issued by MD Co., Ltd. owned by MC Co., Ltd. and 1.470 million won against MD Co., Ltd. (1.53 billion won) as additional security of the above loan, and offered the contract; however, although the contract was delivered from MC Co., Ltd., the fact that the Defendant also offered no security value as it is merely an expression, ③ the prosecutor’s office also held that the above loan was valid within the scope of the aforementioned loan.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D) The portion of the loan of KRW 28 billion in the name of DV Nos. 10-V No. 10 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the court below

The court below found that this part of the loan was disposed of electronically without external outflow, because it refunded the existing loan of 28 billion won to DV, 7 billion won on March 20, 2008, 13 billion won on April 8, 2008, 7 billion won on September 2, 2008, and 1 billion won on November 3, 2008. However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, N Savings Bank was guilty of 363,435 square meters on 55 square meters, which is the business site provided as collateral for existing loan, 5 billion won on 200,000 won on 363,435 square meters on 55 billion won on 400,000,000 won on 160,000 won on 200,000 won on 45,000,000 won on 205,000,000 won on 3635,000,000

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal by the defendant B is without merit.

E) The loan of KRW 6 billion in the name of EF Nos. 2 of the attached Table 12 of the judgment of the court below (12)

The court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the loan on the ground that the two parcels, such as KR and MF, offered as security for the loan of 6 billion won to the borrower in this part of this part of this evidence, were already offered as security at the time of the loan of 1.197 billion won to the EF on March 15, 2005, and that the deposit appraisal at the time was limited to KRW 1.197 billion, and that the land additionally offered as security was investigated at KRW 7.8 billion in the amount of 7.8 billion in the amount of the land additionally offered as security according to the N Savings Bank loan regulations, since the effective security applying the rate of 60 billion in the loan of the N Savings Bank was assessed at KRW 4.68 billion in the amount of 4.6 billion in the amount of the valid security, and that Defendant B also recognized the above facts by the prosecutor.

If a crime of occupational breach of trust is established due to an insolvent loan, not only the amount loaned in excess of the value of the collateral, or the amount actually impossible to recover, but also the total amount of the loan with the risk of causing damage, shall be deemed as the amount of damage. As such, even if the amount partially recovered by the sale of the claim, etc. after the execution of each of the instant loan, or the amount equivalent to the effective collateral offered at the time of the loan is equivalent to the amount of the loan, each of such parts shall not be deducted from the amount of damage caused by the crime of occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15756, Feb. 23, 2012).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below and the trial court, two parcels, such as KR and MF, provided as security with respect to loans of KRW 6 billion in the facts charged, were already provided as security on March 15, 2005, at the time of loan of KRW 1.5 billion to EF. However, the appraisal by omitting a field investigation at the time of the investigation and only documents (so-called deposit appraisal price) was less than KRW 1.97 billion.0 billion. The fact that the MG land offered as security was investigated at KRW 7.8 billion, the rate of security recognition of land sites, rice fields, forests, etc. under the N Savings Bank loan regulations is 70 billion (the trial record 357 pages), and Defendant B did not undergo any feasibility review on the feasibility of new construction and sale projects.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., two parcels, such as KR and MF, were already provided as security at the time of loan of 1.1 billion won to eF on March 15, 2005, and so-called 1.197 billion won and so-called e.g., the so-called e., the so-called e.g. loan of 6 billion won is merely merely merely 1.197 billion won and it is difficult to deem that a valid security has been provided for the loan of 6 billion won. The appraisal of the above MG land is 7.8 billion won and the effective security applied 70 billion won of the NG bank's collateral recognition rate of 5.46 billion won (which seems to have been recognized as 6 billion won but seems to have been erroneous) is difficult to view that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the above part of the appraisal of e.g., the above e., loan of 6 billion won was conducted in excess of 5.

F) The portion of loans in the name of Q 1-4 and 6 in the separate sheet Nos. 1-6 in the judgment of the court below

In relation to the first 5.5 billion won loan to Q on December 3009, the lower court found the collateral value of the stocks offered as security was 10.2 billion won, even though the unlisted company's acquisition fund of KRW 14,300,000, which is an unlisted company, was 5.5 billion. According to the JM's statement, according to the bank's own appraisal of collateral value by referring to the financial statements of EK and the financial statements of the same company, it has evaluated the future value, including future value, and added 10 billion won to use the above collateral as it is, or as a collateral, 5,700 shares as security. In light of the fact that the remainder of the loan is limited to the use of the above collateral or adding 5,700 shares to EK's shares as security, the lower court did not have a provision that the valid collateral value should be assessed in a more reasonable and reasonable manner, but it found the entire amount of the loan to exceed the amount of the subscription value.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

G) The loan under each of the DV Nos. 1 and AW No. 1 of the attached Table (14) of the judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant B guilty on the ground that this part of the loan was executed for the purpose of using the loan for the purpose of acquiring MO through EI (hereinafter “E”), as the loan was executed for the purpose of taking over MO as capital increase with a view to not only the above company was undergoing rehabilitation procedure, but also the loan did not have any value of collateral, and that each part of the loan was not within the scope of collateral value.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal by Defendant B is without merit.

2) Violations of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to large shareholders credit extension.

A) Judgment on the main facts charged

(1) The lower court determined that: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, the following circumstances: (b) not only ① the loan to acquire M’s shares but also the number of borrowed shareholders and shares to be acquired are determined; (c) Defendant B directly determines the appointment and dismissal of representative director; (d) Defendant B did not have the role of the decision-making body, such as the board of directors within the N Savings Bank; and (e) Defendant B did not have the actual owner of M in the process; and (d) Defendant B did not assert that it acquired M by using the loan to the borrower; (b) Defendant B was the representative of the N Savings Bank; (c) Defendant B stated to the effect that it was aware that the loan to M was a natural person for the purpose of operating the N Savings Bank’s employees; and (e) Defendant B did not have the intent to manage the loan to obtain real estate profits from the N Savings Bank’s employees for the purpose of operating the N Savings Bank’s funds; and (e) Defendant B stated to the effect that it did not have the intent to manage the N Savings, one’s own funds.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(2) Loans related to the purchase of Cambodia’s real estate

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the following circumstances: (i) Defendant B loaned the name of the borrower from JE, JB, DI, JF to purchase land located in Cambodia, as stated in the judgment below; (ii) Defendant C and JD used the name of the representative director at the request of change in the name of DN and DM; and (iii) Defendant B did not have a decision-making process, such as the board of directors of the NB bank; and (ii) Defendant B stated that it was difficult for the NF bank to use the loan to obtain real estate from its employees to obtain the loan from its employees to obtain the loan from its NF to obtain the loan from its employees; and (iv) Defendant B did not have an objective decision-making process to obtain the loan from its employees as part of the NF’s domestic savings, and thus, Defendant B did not have an objective decision-making process to obtain the loan from its employees as part of the NF bank’s domestic savings, and thus, Defendant B also did not have an objective intent to obtain the loan from its employees.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(3) The portion of loans in the name of Q in the separate sheet 1 to 6 attached to the judgment of the court below (13)

The lower court determined as follows, based on the adopted evidence, that: (a) Defendant B, who was solicited by the EJ to acquire KR, determined to establish a borrowed-name corporation in order to take over KR; and (b) Defendant B would have been directly determined and ordered to appoint and dismiss the representative director and provide loans to corporations; (c) in the above process, Defendant B did not have the role of the decision-making body such as the board of directors within the N Savings Bank; (d) EJ, JO, and EL, who participated in the acquisition and Q establishment, were the actual owners of KS or Q; (e) Nonparty B did not deny this; (c) Defendant B, who was an employee in charge of loans and examined financial statements, etc. for the purpose of understanding the current status of EK and managing its collateral; and (d) Defendant B’s loan of KRW 4 billion to Q from the borrowed-name Bank as a corporation for the purpose of acquiring the shares in the N&D development project in the area of BY owned by MO; and (e) Defendant B’s personal intent or investment savings, even offered to the above NA’s capital stocks as security.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(4) The portion of loans in the name of each R listed in the [Attachment 14] Nos. 1 and AW No. 1] of the judgment of the court below

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, determined that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the reasoning of the judgment below on the following grounds: (i) the acquisition of shares of EN (hereinafter “EN”) was decided without examining the feasibility of the business by Defendant B’s personal judgment; (ii) the representative director and appointment of shareholders was determined by the direction of the above Defendant; (iii) the EJ and MK stated that the prosecutor had established R and JS for private possession of EN’s shares from the beginning to the beginning of the prosecution; and (iv) the Defendant B did not lawfully assert the facts of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act’s credit extension related to the borrowed-name Savings Bank and AW Savings Bank’s respective credit extension; and (iii) the court below’s determination on the ground that it did not err in the misapprehension of the reasoning of the judgment on the grounds that it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above by the NN Savings Bank’s legitimate ground for appeal by examining the facts of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act’s credit extension related to the borrowed Savings Bank’s respective loans.

(5) The portion of loans to the borrower and the borrower

The court below determined as follows, based on the following circumstances, Defendant B recommended from JU (the representative of KI) to invest in the EP (hereinafter referred to as “EP”) established by JU for the purpose of fund solicitation to invest in Chinese solar energy development company, and participated in the EP capital increase of KRW 8 billion, excluding KRW 2 billion to be used in the repayment of interest, in the name of DF and S, in the name of DF and S, the NU bank borrowed a total of KRW 10 billion from the NF bank and participated in the repayment of interest. At the time of the loan, the EV stated that the above loans are treated as Defendant B’s loans. At the time of the loan, Defendant B cannot be inferred from Defendant B’s act as the actual representative of the NB bank, which is a natural person, and there was no awareness and intent that the loans will be conducted for its business as the actual representative, and Defendant B granted credit to NB, a major shareholder of the NF bank, by allowing the NF Bank to lend loans to the borrower.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(6) U lending part

In full view of the following circumstances, the court below determined that U’s 100% shares are owned by Defendant B, since it is reasonable to view that U’s 10% shares are owned by Defendant B, and that U’s 30% or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares are owned by Defendant B and U’s 30% or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of NF bank, and that U’s 100% or more of U’s shares are owned by Defendant B and U’s 37(1)30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, on the ground that U’s 10% or more of U’s shares are owned by Defendant B and U’s 30% or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of NF bank as a major shareholder who owns more than 30% of U’s total number of issued and outstanding shares.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(7) Joint crimes with Defendant F

(a)the portion of loans to the borrower, FR, FT, FU, and FV in relation to FN buildings

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below, the following facts were revealed: ① Defendant F was merely a friendly relationship, such as Defendant FF 2’s work as an internal loan back to 1970s, and Defendant FF 2 was able to enter into a loan account in the name of Defendant FF 2 and Defendant F 2’s request for the loan of the FF ; ② Defendant F 2 was difficult for the FF NA to keep the loan from the NF bank and to keep the construction of the FN building under the name of the FF 2; ② Defendant F 2 was able to resolve the dispute by acquiring the loan of the FF 3 under the name of the FF 204 and obtain the loan from the NF 10,000 won, and Defendant F NA’s request for the loan of the FF 2 to acquire the loan deposit in the name of the FF 3 and thus, Defendant F NA 2 was also required to undertake the loan savings in the name of the FF NA 3.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal by the defendant B and F are without merit.

(B) The loan to the borrower FW in relation to the location of the facility located in Kimhae-si and the FW

The court below determined that Defendant B granted credit to oneself, a major shareholder of the N Savings Bank, by having the N Savings Bank grant a loan from the N Savings Bank on October 22, 2004, when comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence: (a) Defendant B ordered Defendant B to purchase LE land at around 2004; (b) Defendant F purchased LE land at the N Savings Bank on October 22, 2004; (c) Defendant F stated in the prosecutor’s office that the land was purchased by Defendant B by lending FW’s name; and (d) JV purchased LE land at the investment value reporting by Defendant B to the effect that the said land was owned by the Defendant B; and (c) Defendant B purchased the FE land at the investment value; and (d) Defendant B stated that the said land was owned by the Defendant B.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal by the defendant B and F are without merit.

(C) loan to the borrower fX in relation to the FO building

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below ordered employees to purchase the FO building under the name of Defendant FFX by executing a loan under the name of Defendant FFX at the time of payment of the purchase price, and ordered Defendant FO building to purchase the FO building under the name of FFX branch, even if the NF bank was able to directly acquire the NO building due to its business purpose, since the NO building was the real estate, the court below ordered Defendant FF to purchase the FO building under the name of FX branch at the prosecution, and the first purchase of the FO building under the name of FF branch at the NF branch at the NF bank at the time of payment of the purchase price. Since FO building was first purchased under the name of FF branch at the NF bank, it was not necessary to reverse the NF bank’s loan operation expenses under the name of the NF bank at the time of payment of the loan funds at the NF bank at the 200 billion won interest rate, it was not necessary for the NF bank to use the loan funds at the NF bank.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal by the defendant B and F are without merit.

B) Judgment on the ancillary facts charged (family judgment)

Even if this part of the loan is not a credit extension to Defendant B, who is a major shareholder of the NB bank, it is still subject to the prohibition of credit extension as follows: DJ, DM, DN, DN, DN, DL, and EK acquisition loan under the name of the bank for the loan of funds for acquiring shares in M, QV borrowed from the name of the bank for the loan of funds for acquiring shares in EN, and FR borrowed from the name of the bank for the loan of funds for business use in FN building (hereinafter referred to as “each borrowed corporation in the name of M and the above”), etc., and it is still subject to the prohibition of credit extension as follows. Therefore, it is difficult to see that there is any particular benefit in dispute that loans to each borrowed corporation in the name of this case does not constitute credit extension to Defendant B, a major shareholder.

(1) Summary of the conjunctive charge

With respect to the part related to M lending (Defendant B, A, C, E), Cambodia's real estate purchase-related loan (Defendant B, E), Q-related loan (Defendant B, R-related loan part (Defendant B), FR-related loan part (Defendant B), FR-related loan part (Defendant B, and FR-related loan part) among the primary facts charged, the prosecutor added the part "as preliminary, each of the major shareholders granted credit equivalent to the same amount to the related party B, etc. of Defendant B, who is a major shareholder".

(2) Article 37 (1) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that no one may extend credit or make a provisional payment to any of the following persons (hereinafter referred to as "large shareholders, etc."), and no one shall receive credit or make a provisional payment from such mutual savings banks; 1.0. Employees of a mutual savings bank (including shareholders prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy) and 3.3. It provides that "any person who is an executive officer or employee of a mutual savings bank, or relative or special relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree with such company" as listed in subparagraph 30 or more of Article 37 (1) of the Act shall be punished, while holding more than 10 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of such company or exercising de facto control over such company's management rights." Article 30 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree"), and any person who is in a de facto relationship with such company or special relationship with such company shall be defined as "any of the following persons:

(3) Determination

(5) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, ① 16 shareholders of the NF Bank were 47.8% of their shares, 9.2% of their pro rata LO, 2.7% of their spouse's shares, 1.7% of their shares in the EF Bank's 1.7% of their shares, and 70.8% of their shares in the name of the defendant B and its specially related owner (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant B, etc.") were transferred to 30% of their shares in the EF Bank's name, 10,000 shares of the 3rd KF Bank's 10,000 shares, 20% of their shares were originally transferred to 30,000 shares of the EF Bank's 10,000 shares, 40,500,000 shares of the EF Bank's shares in the name of the 3rd NF Bank's 20,000.

According to the provisions of the above relevant laws and the above facts, each of the following corporations of this case belongs to a management group of Defendant B, and Defendant B is the largest shareholder of the N Savings Bank, and Defendant B exercises the management right of the N Savings Bank. Thus, each of the following corporations of this case is based on the N Savings Bank.

Pursuant to Article 12 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule, a company belonging to a large shareholder group, which is a major shareholder, constitutes credit extension to a person related to Defendant B who is a major shareholder, and therefore, it is subject to punishment according to each of the aforementioned preliminary charges

Meanwhile, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the N Savings Bank held 90.1% of the shares of AW Savings Bank, which is its affiliated bank, and according to the relevant laws and the above facts acknowledged, each of the following corporations of this case is a corporation (N Savings Bank) holding 30% or more of the shares issued by an affiliated bank, and is subject to the prohibition of credit extension pursuant to Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree.

Ultimately, the lower court’s determination is justifiable to have determined that loans to each of the following corporations of the N Savings Bank and AW Savings Bank, which are its affiliated companies, constitute prohibited extension of credit.

3) Joint crimes with Defendant G

원심은 그 채택의 증거들을 종합하여 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 후 그에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 수익형 부동산에 대한 여신에 집중하라는 피고인 B의 지시에 따라 여신업무 담당자인 CX이 먼저 피고인 G에게 수익형 부동산의 물색을 의뢰하였고 피고인 G로부터 PE 토지의 매입을 제안받고 피고인 B에게 이를 보고하였으며, 그에 따라 피고인 B가 대출 실행을 지시한 점, ② PE 토지와 관련하여 매매대금 및 예상 부대비용 합계 100억 원을 훨씬 초과하는 150억 원이 대출되었는데, 위 토지에 대한 감정평가액 158억 5,000만 원이 정당하게 평가된 금액이라 하더라도 담보인정 비율에 따라 담보가치를 산정하면 위 150억 원의 대출은 담보가치를 초과한 대출이고 피고인 G이 위 토지에 관하여 당진군에 인허가를 신청한 바가 전혀 없고 이자도 납부한 적이 없는 점, ③ CX은 검찰에서 자신이 피고인 B에게 대출금 중 PE 토지의 매매대금을 지불하고 남는 여유자금으로 피고인 B가 차명으로 받은 대출금의 부실을 보전하거나 다른 용도로 활용이 가능하다는 내용으로 보고를 하였고 피고인 B는 그 여유자금을 자신이 사용할 생각으로 대출을 지시하였다고 진술하였는바, 위 대출 결정 당시 금융감독원이 2011. 7. 5.부터 N저축은행에 대한 경영진단을 실시하고 있던 상황으로서 피고인 B가 차명으로 받은 부실대출 건에 대한 담보의 보완 등을 위해 여유자금이 필요하였던 상황이었던 점(CX, GT, 피고인 G은 대출 당시 PE 토지로 인한 수익이 있으면 N저축은행에 일부 귀속시키기로 하는 이야기가 있었다고 하나, 그러한 내용으로 명시적인 약정을 체결한 것도 아니고, 설령 수익이 있더라도 이를 적법한 방법으로 N저축은행에 귀속시킬 방법도 없었던 점에 비추어 피고인 B가 위와 같은 수익을 목적으로 대출을 실행하였다고 보기는 어려운 점), ④ CX은 피고인 G에게도 위와 같은 보고내용을 설명해 주었다는 것인바, 피고인 G도 피고인 B가 차명 차주에 대한 대출의 부실을 보전하기 위해 대출을 한다는 사정을 알았기 때문에 대출 실행 후 얼마 지나지 않아 CX에게 대출금 중 28억 4,000만 원을 교부한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 피고인 G은 GC의 대표이사가 되지 못할 하등의 장애가 없었음에도 GB의 명의를 빌려 대표이사로 등재하고, 매매대금도 KD의 조카인 GE의 명의를 빌려 대출받았으며, 명의를 빌려준데 대한 대가로 1,000만 원 또는 3,000만 원의 비교적 큰 액수의 금원을 지급한 점, ⑥ GE이 N저축은행에서 대출 신청할 당시 N저축은행 직원에게 대출조건을 문의하였더니 "별일 없으니까 걱정 말고 가라"는 말만 들었다는 것이므로 대출에 관한 피고인B의 지시가 없었다면 그와 같은 방식으로 처리될 수 없었을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 피고인 G은 GB와 GE의 명의를 빌리면서 대출 후에 자금 세탁에 이용될 계좌를 만들 것을 지시하였던 것으로 보아 그 무렵부터 이미 매매대금을 제외한 자금을 현금화할 계획이 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑧ 피고인 G은 23억 3,000여만 원의 수표를 돌려받은 무렵 피고인 B로부터 현금 교환을 지시받았다고 진술한 점, ⑨ 피고인 G이 현금으로 교환한 33억 1,000만 원을 피고인 B에게 제공한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, PE 토지 관련 대출은 유효담보가를 초과하여 차명으로 실행된 대출일 뿐만 아니라, 대출 경위나 대출로 인한 이익 및 그 처분권이 피고인 B에게 실질적으로 귀속된 것으로 보아 N저축은행의 대주주인 피고인 B가 실제 차주인 것으로 보이고, 피고인 B는 CX을 통한 의사교환으로 피고인 G과 PE 토지 관련 대출을 공모하였다고 판단하였다.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant B’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

D. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake

1) As to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by issuing subordinated bonds

A) The part concerning the issuance of subordinated bonds on November 6, 2009

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

In offering new securities, such as subordinated bonds, investors are obligated to review the financial situation and stability of profit and loss of the company, and make investments in consideration of the possibility of continuation of the company and future profitability, so the financial statements prepared and publicly announced every fiscal year are important factors for investment judgment, and to present the financial statements prepared and publicly announced as they are and the profit and loss statement in case of offering new stocks.

In particular, since securities such as stocks can be sold to many and unspecified persons at any time due to the strong distribution nature, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act strictly prohibits the omission of entry or false entry in the trading of financial investment instruments such as securities and other transactions.

Therefore, no one shall make a false description or representation of a material fact in connection with the trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments (including public offering, private placement, and public sale in the case of securities) or make use of a document or any other description or representation with a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled.

Nevertheless, Defendant C conspired with Defendant B and A to issue subordinate bonds by publicly announcing the net income (loss) at the 26th period (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) of the N Savings Bank in fact through the act of dividing falsely the assets soundness by pretending to be the ‘normal and ordinary loan claims’ and falsely dividing the bad loan claims into the ‘normal bond' - as if the name was realizing the net income amount of KRW 20.3 billion in the 20.3 billion (loss) as if the name was falsely prepared, the total amount of assets such as the profit and loss statement was 3.1,34 billion won but the total amount of assets such as the profit and loss statement was 3.3 billion won as if the false balance sheet was written as if there were causes for 3.3 billion won in the profits and loss statement and the judgment materials to determine whether investors participate in capital increase.

On November 6, 2009, the N Savings Bank published the financial statements of the 26th period (based on the settlement of accounts on June 30, 2009), and issued a total of 30 billion won subordinate bonds and made it purchased gold N Savings Bank subordinate bonds with ordinary investors of 1,459.

As a result, Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant B and A, made a false statement in the 26th financial statements of the NSaving Bank, on the financial statements, such as assets, net income, and the structure of profit and loss, and made it public to the electronic public disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service. In other words, Defendant C, by using the said financial statements in the process of attracting subordinated bonds, had 1459 purchaser purchase subordinated bonds worth KRW 30 billion, which is not aware that the contents of the financial statements are false.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that, in full view of the following circumstances, the court below found that the defendant C was able to fully recognize this part of the crime as long as it was prepared and publicly announced by the representative director after recognizing that the financial statements and the investment prospectus were made in falsity and approved as the representative director, as long as the defendant C knew that the financial statements and the investment prospectus were made in falsity, and it was prepared and publicly announced with the approval of the board of directors, as long as it was made and announced by the representative director, the executive officers of the strategic planning team, following the discussion on the issuance plan and the size of subordinated bonds, and the defendant C, the representative director of the board of directors, was present at the meeting of the board of directors. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21348, Oct. 26, 2009>

(3) Judgment of the court below

원심 및 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 2009. 11. 6.에 발행된 후순위채에 관한 투자설명서는 N저축은행의 제26기(2008. 7. 1.~2009. 6. 30.) 재무제표를 기초로 하고 있는 사실, 위 제26기 재무제표는 2009. 7. 초순경 남일회계법인으로부터 적정하다는 평가를 받고 금융감독원에 공시된 사실, 피고인 C은 2009. 9. 18. N저축은행의 대표이사로 취임한 사실, 피고인 C은 취임 후 2009. 10. 말경부터 2009. 11. 경 사이에 N저축은행의 금융팀 등 각 팀으로부터 업무보고를 받은 바 있으나 그 당시 제26기 재무제표에 관하여 분식이 있었다거나 N저축은행의 재무상황에 관한 구체적인 보고는 전혀 없었던 사실, 피고인 C은 검찰에서 제26기 재무제표에 분식이 있다는 사실을 알고 있었다는 취지로 진술하였으나(증거기록 8권 4534쪽 이하) 당시 수사관은 피고인 C이 구체적으로 어느 시점에 제26기 재무제표에 분식이 있다는 사실을 알게 되었는지를 특정하여 질문하지 아니하였고 피고인 C도 분식사실을 알게 된 시기를 명확하게 진술하고 있지 아니하였으며, 그와 같이 알게 된 구체적인 계기에 관하여도 밝히고 있지 아니한 사실, N저축은행의 후순위채 발행을 담당한 JY 팀장은 원심에서 "N저축은행은 BIS 비율을 높이기 위하여 후순위채를 발행하였는데 그에 관한 의사결정은 상피고인 B가 하였고, 투자설명서에 첨부된 재무제표는 피고인 C이 취임하기 이전의 재무상황에 관한 것이므로 피고인 C이 위 재무제표의 진위에 관하여 사전에 알 수도 없고 그 작성에 관여할 수도 없다"는 취지로 진술한 사실(공판기록 910쪽, 915쪽), 상피고인 B도 원심에서 "제26기 재무제표는 피고인 C이 취임하기 이전의 재무상황이기 때문에 피고인으로서는 위 재무제표 작성 과정에 관여할 수도 없었고, 작성과정을 알 수도 없었다"는 취지로 진술한 사실(공판기록 1114, 1115쪽) 등이 인정된다. 위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 N저축은행의 제26기 재무제표는 피고인 C이 대표이사로 취임하기 이전의 기간을 기준으로 작성되었을 뿐만 아니라 외부 회계법인의 감사도 피고인 C의 대표이사 취임 이전에 완료되었으므로 피고인C이 위 재무제표의 작성에 관여하지 않았음은 명백한 점, 피고인 C이 취임 후 초기에 N저축은행의 팀장들로부터 N저축은행의 여신현황에 관한 일부 보고를 받았으나 구체적인 여신상의 문제점에 관해서는 전혀 보고받지 못한 점, 피고인 C이 취임 이전에 대출된 여신에 관하여 대환대출이나 이자증대대출을 하는 과정에서 은행장으로서 결제하는 과정에서 일부 문제가 있는 여신에 관하여 알게 되었다고 하더라도 그 시점을 특정하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라 그와 같은 문제 있는 여신으로 인하여 취임 이전에 작성되고 외부 회계법인의 감사가 완료된 제26기 재무제표가 막연히 문제가 있을 수 있다는 수준을 넘어서 구체적이고 명백하게 회계분식이 있다는 것을 알기는 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, 피고인 C의 이 부분에 관한 검찰에서의 진술은 N저축은행에 관한 2011. 8.경 감사원의 감사과정에서 제26기 재무제표의 문제점이 공개적으로 밝혀져 알게 된 사정을 후순위채 발행 당시에도 알고 있었던 것처럼 착오로 진술하였거나 계속되는 수사관의 강한 추궁에 심한 정신적 압박감을 받아(피고인 C은 당시 처음으로 피의자 신분으로 수사기관의 조사를 받는 상태였고, 09:30경에 조사가 시작되어 22:30경에야 조사가 났다) 사실과 달리 진술하였을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 C이 N저축은행의 2009. 11. 6.자 후순위채 발행 시 첨부되었던 투자설명서에 허위의 기재가 있다는 점을 인식하고도 은행장으로서 결재하였다고 단정하기 어렵다. 따라

Defendant C’s ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

B) The part concerning the issuance of subordinated bonds on June 17, 2010

On the other hand, as seen in the part of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to excess credit extension to individual borrowers as of June 17, 2010, the following items are examined: (a) the working staff below the head of the financial team shall prepare and keep a backbook for each individual borrower to avoid the audit of the Financial Supervisory Service on credit extension exceeding the limit to individual borrowers; and (b) the head of the gold Convergence Team shall also report the identity of the actual borrower as well as the back note when he/she obtains approval from the executive officers of the loans or the head of the administration. Therefore, the defendant C seems to have no choice but to know whether the limit has been exceeded; (c) in the case of credit extension exceeding the limit to the above individual borrower, it is hard to see that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the subordinated financial statements as of June 17, 2010.

2) As to the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to excess credit extension to an individual borrower

A) As to the assertion that Defendant C could not be aware of the fact that the limit of credit extension was exceeded because it had known of the specific contents of the existing loan and the actual borrower, the lower court, based on the evidence adopted, determined to the effect that: (i) the case of loans to borrowed borrowers related to each individual borrower was managed in one combination by each individual borrower as follows; (ii) the extended limit was exceeded by repeating interest loan to cover the insolvency of existing loans to individual borrowers; (iii) the general financial team leader reported the excess of the limit of credit extension to Defendant A or Defendant C at the time of each individual loan extension; and (iii) the head of the financial team leader prepared and kept a letter of credit extension by each individual borrower to avoid audit of the Financial Supervisory Service on individual credit extension; and (iv) the head of the financial team, upon being aware of the fact that the head of the bank and the head of the bank were aware of the fact that each individual loan extension limit was in excess of the limit, to the effect that the head of the bank and the head of the bank did not obtain approval from the head of the bank.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant C’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

B) Whether a partial loan does not substantially exceed the limit of credit extension as a substitute loan

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that, although the Mutual Savings Banks Act limits the credit extension limit to an individual borrower, it does not constitute an additional loan exceeding the limit on individual borrower's credit extension, it is merely an extension of the payment period for the existing loan, and it does not constitute an excess of the limit on individual borrower's credit extension. However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the amount of interest increase loans to the relevant individual borrower or new loan is expected to be used to pay the existing principal and interest loan to the account of an individual borrower in excess of the limit on individual borrower's credit extension, it should be deemed that the new credit extension limit has been made at the time when the loan was paid to the account of an individual borrower or the account of a borrowed borrower, and that the new loan was actually used to repay the existing principal and interest loan after the repayment of the existing loan.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the defendant C's allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(C) 4.5 billion won loan to KS for each borrower related to ED.

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

From March 13, 2008 to July 28, 2009, the defendant A and B loaned 41.85 billion won, including general loans, to each borrower in the name of four borrowed-name borrowers, including EGs, for the loans of KRW 41.85 billion.5 billion on May 31, 2010, the amount of loans of KRW 30.25 billion on an individual borrower as of May 31, 2010 [the amount of equity capital (15.28 billion) x 0.2] exceeded 1.593 billion.

Under the above circumstances, Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant A and B on December 17, 2009, loaned KRW 4.5 billion to ED in the name of the borrower on December 17, 2009, with the remainder of KRW 5.9 billion as of May 31, 2010, and extended a loan exceeding KRW 5.59 billion.9 billion.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendant C’s assertion on this part is groundless, since it is justifiable to determine whether to grant credit exceeding the limit to an individual borrower on the basis of the balance of the loan as of the base date of the loan of 4.5 billion won with respect to KS, insofar as the balance appears to be KRW 5.9 billion as of the base date of the loan of

(3) Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the records, Defendant A and B were to provide individual borrowers with loans of KRW 41.85 billion in total, including general loans, in four borrowed loan in the name of EG or other four borrowed borrowers from March 13, 2008 to July 28, 2009; and as of May 31, 2010, if each of the above loans exceeds KRW 41.895 billion, the aggregate amount of each of the above loans is KRW 41.895 billion, and thus, the amount of each loan exceeds KRW 30.5 billion in the Financial Supervisory Service as of May 31, 2010 [1.2 billion in the equity capital + KRW 1.5 billion in the amount of loans exceeding KRW 1.5 billion in the name of an individual borrower, as of May 31, 2010] x 1.5 billion in the amount of loans exceeding KRW 500,500,000 in the name of the Prosecutor 1.5 billion in the above circumstances.

The following facts revealed by the above facts. The Mutual Savings Banks Act limits individual borrowers' credit limits, i.e., the purport of restricting individual borrowers' credit limits is to prevent an excessive amount of credit extended to one individual borrower, because there is a risk of causing problems in the recovery of the entire assets of savings banks, and to facilitate the financing of more ordinary people by equally distributing savings banks' credit. Thus, whether a loan exceeds the limit on individual borrowers should, in principle, be determined based on whether the total amount of credit extended to an individual borrower up to the time of the loan exceeds the limit on individual borrowers' credit limit, and if the balance increases due to delinquency after the loan, the balance should not be based on the loan increase. Defendant C has already exceeded the limit on credit extended to an individual ED as of May 31, 2010, and thus, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have exceeded the limit on individual loans extended to KRW 4.5 billion,5 billion, and thus, Defendant C's remaining amount of credit extended to an individual ED as of KRW 1.5 billion after the loan increase of KRW 4.5 billion.4 billion.5 billion.

E. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant E

1) The portion of loans worth KRW 8 billion in attached Form (2) Nos. 2 of the crime sight table 2 of the judgment of the court below

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant B and A on April 5, 2007, purchased old buildings and their land in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BP, removed existing buildings, and did not review the feasibility of the new building, even though the new building was not established, Defendant E extended a loan of KRW 8 billion to B Q I in the name of representative director, and obtained pecuniary benefits of KRW 7.49 billion, excluding the amount used for the repayment of the existing loan, and caused damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim NB bank.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court convicted Defendant E of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant E recognized all the facts constituting an offense in this part at the prosecution, and arranged the existing loan and arranged it as if the new loan was conducted by computer or document, and that there was a new loss. The mere fact that the signature was omitted in the letter of approval cannot be seen as having been involved in the crime on the ground that the signature was omitted.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

원심과 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 2007. 4. 5.의 80억 원 대출에 관한 품의서에 대한 결재는 2007. 3. 15. 이루어진 사실(증마1호증, 공판기록 712쪽), 위 품의서의 은행장 결재란에는 피고인 E이 아니라 상피고인 B의 결재가 되어 있는 사실, 피고인 E은 N저축은행에서 2002. 9. 10.부터 2006. 8. 24.까지 상근감 사위원으로, 2006. 8. 25.부터 2007. 3. 29.까지는 부행장으로, 2007. 3. 30.부터 2008. 6. 30.까지 은행장으로 각각 근무하여 대출품의서상에 결재를 한 기간은 2007. 3. 30.부터 2008. 6. 30.까지인 사실(증거기록 19권 28쪽), 위 80억 원의 대출에 관한 기표는 2007. 4. 5.에 행하여진 사실, '대출기표'는 통상 여신심사위원회 등의 의결과 대출품의서 결재가 모두 완료된 후, 즉 내부적으로 대출 실행에 관한 최종 결정이 있은 다음, 대출금 계좌를 생성하는 작업으로서 구체적으로는 전산상 고객등록란에 차주의 인적사 항을, 자산등록란에 담보내역을 각 등록하고 대출금을 입력하여 전자적인 결재를 통해 전산승인을 받으면 대출 계좌가 생성되는 방식으로 이루어지는 사실(증거기록 제4권 제1626쪽), N저축은행의 금융2팀장인 GS과 전략기획팀 과장 JA은 당심에 증인으로 출석하여 위 80억 원에 대한 대출품의서(증마1호증)상의 은행장 결재란의 결재는 피고인B가 하였고, 통상적으로 대출품의서에 관한 결재를 받기 전에 현장확인을 거치고 대출품의서에 대한 결재가 마쳐지면 대출기표는 새로운 절차가 필요 없다는 취지로 진술한 사실(GS 증인신문조서 16쪽, JA 증인신문조서 16쪽), 피고인 B도 검찰에서 "자신이 A, GS에게 지시하여 대출이 실행 되었고, 자신이 대표이사로 실차주 I, 차명 차주 BQ에 대한 대출 건을 결재하였다"는 취지로 진술한 사실(증거기록 7권 3880쪽) 등이 인정된다. 위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 위 80억 원의 대출은 피고인 E이 대표이사로 취임하기 이전인 2007. 3. 15. 대출품의서에 관한 결재가 완료된 점, 위 대출품의서상의 은행장 결재란에는 피고인 B가 결재를 하였으므로 피고인 E은 위 80억 원 대출의 결재에 관여하였다고 보기 어려운 점, 80억 원 대출에 관한 기표가 피고인이 N저축은행의 대표이사로 취임한 후인 2007. 4. 5.에 실행되었으나 대출품의서상의 결재가 완료된 후 대출기표를 하는 과정에서 별도의 결재나 보고절차 등이 없어 피고인 E이 위 80억 원 대출에 관여하였다고 볼 수 없는 점, 피고인 E이 검찰에서, 조사를 받으면서 위 80억 원의 대출과 관련하여 자신이 은행장으로 재직하던 시기인 2007. 4. 5.에 대출이 실행된 사실을 인정하고 '죄송하다'는 취지의 진술을 하였으나(증거기록 19권 41쪽, 42쪽) 나아가 대출 당시 배임의 고의나 대출에 적극적으로 관여하였다는 것을 인정한 것으로 보기는 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 E은 위 80억 원의 대출에 관하여 배임의 죄책을 진다고 볼 수는 없다고 봄이 상당하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 원심이 이 부분 공소사실에 관하여 유죄를 선고한 것은 사실을 오인한 것으로서 위법하다. 따라서 피고인 E의 이 부분 항소이유의 주장은 이유 있다.

2) The portion without Defendant E’s approval

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

(1) Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant B and A, failed to pay all the interest on the existing loan. Moreover, the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu BJ and 11 piece of land offered as security had already been provided as a senior security for other loans, and there was no value of collateral, and Defendant E extended KRW 2.7 billion in the name of BE on July 10, 2007 and KRW 3.3 billion in the name of BG on September 14, 2007, as described in No. 31, respectively, to obtain profits from each amount and suffered damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim NK bank.

(2) Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant B and A, failed to pay interest on the existing loan at all, and Defendant BV did not properly review the feasibility of the project, and the land and buildings in Gangwon-gun BU through CB,CC, CD or CE, CF, CG through CH, CI, CJ, CK, CK, CL, CL, CM, CM, and CN have already been provided as collateral for the existing loan, and the effective collateral price has already exceeded the effective collateral price, as shown in the [Attachment 3] List of Crimes No. 2-2 of the judgment of the court below without any additional security provision, B obtained profits of KRW 450 million from J in B’s name except for the substitute loan amount of KRW 67,000,000,000,000,0000 from 2-2, and 67,000,000 won from the victim N Savings Bank.

B) The judgment of the court below

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the following circumstances: (a) each of the loans was loans made without securing sufficient collateral without undergoing a certified appraisal institution’s business feasibility evaluation in violation of its employees’ duties; and (b) Defendant E also recognized the facts constituting a crime at the time of the investigation conducted by the prosecution; and (c) the amount of breach of trust charged as to this portion was deposited into the account in the name of the actual borrower and once the funds were leaked outside the bank, and cannot be deemed as having incurred a new loss by arranging the existing loan in electronic form or document and arranging it as if it was a new loan.

In light of the fact that Defendant E did not participate in the loan, although the representative director’s signature was omitted in the letter of the loan, if it is difficult to obtain approval from Defendant E in accordance with the procedures for implementing the loan of the NSaving Bank, he could be found to have recognized Defendant E’s occupational breach of trust as to this part solely on the ground that, according to the witness GS’s statement, etc. to the effect that all funds are reported to the executive director and are carried out without obtaining approval from the executive director, it cannot be said that Defendant E did not participate in the loan.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The burden of proof for the facts charged in the criminal procedure has to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to believe that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the interest of the defendant should be judged even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1907, Oct. 13, 201).

Review of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won to the borrower 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won to each borrower 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won, the approval was made on July 3, 2007 by the Director 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 3 billion won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 3 billion won of loan of 205 billion won of loan of 200 million won of loan of 2.7 billion won of loan of 3 billion won of 20.7 billion won of loan of 205 billion won of loan of general loan of 200000 billion won of loan of

Defendant E was in office as the president of the N Savings Bank from March 30, 2007 to June 30, 2008, and the following circumstances, i.e., loans of KRW 2.7 billion on July 10, 2007, loans of KRW 3.3 billion on September 14, 2007, and loans of KRW 9 billion on July 16, 2007, are omitted from the approval of the president of the N Savings Bank without the approval of the president of the N Savings Bank, and each of the above loans is likely to have been implemented without the approval of the president of the N Savings Bank. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult for the NF to report to the president of the NF on the loan of KRW 30 billion on the loan of KRW 5 billion on the loan of KRW 300,000,000,000 on the loan of KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000.

However, among the facts charged in this part, Defendant E approved the letter of intent to grant a loan of KRW 450 million on May 30, 2007, and therefore, Defendant E was clearly involved in the above loan. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Defendant E is responsible for the above loan. Accordingly, Defendant E’s grounds for appeal on this point are without merit.

3) The part approved by Defendant E

The court below found Defendant E as a full-time auditor from September 10, 2002 to August 24, 2006 and from March 25, 2006 to March 29, 2007, Defendant E did not have the authority to engage in the business affairs of the bank on the ground that Defendant E did not have the authority to engage in the business affairs of the bank, even though it knew of the fact that the new financial company’s executive officers from March 30, 207 to the representative director from June 30, 208 to June 30, 2008, and the new financial company’s executive officers from around 1980 to the 1998.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant E’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

F. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant F

1) In addition to the above circumstances as seen in the BN building B, FO building, and LE land’s assertion that Defendant F took part in the loan, the lower court: (i) appears to have been able to engage in financial business for a long time in a securities company, merchant bank, a start-up business investment company, etc.; (ii) Defendant F was 'F business' from employees of the NF bank; (iii) Defendant F was able to go friendly with Defendant B; and (iv) Defendant F was able to take part in the loan business under the name of the FF bank; and (v) Defendant FF bank was able to take part in the loan business under the name of the FF bank; and (v) Defendant FF bank was able to take part in the loan business under the name of the FF bank; and (v) Defendant FF bank was able to have been able to take part in the loan business under the name of the FF bank’s instructions and to have been able to take part in the loan business under the name of the FF bank.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether breach of trust exists and calculation of the amount of

A) The portion of loans to the borrower for the FR

(1) The allegation in the grounds of appeal on the portion of the loan in the annex Nos. 15 (15) of the judgment below is premised on the premise that the FN building is owned by the N. Savings Bank, or as seen earlier, the FN building cannot be deemed owned by the N. Savings Bank, and as long as the FN building construction and sales business cannot be seen as its own business of the N. Savings Bank, Defendant F’s allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part cannot be accepted

(2) The portion of loans listed in [Attachment 15] 3 of the judgment of the court below

As seen earlier, insofar as the construction and sale of the FN building cannot be seen as its own business of the NNA, even if the NX Savings Bank repaid the money borrowed from the KX Savings Bank in connection with the FN building with this part of the loan, it cannot be deemed that the NB Savings Bank repaid its loan obligations to the KX Savings Bank, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it was substantially exchanged. Accordingly, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(3) The loan portion in the [Attachment 4] No. 4 of the judgment of the court below

The court below held that Defendant F’s assertion on this part is based on the premise that the N Savings Bank, not Defendant B, a major shareholder, had engaged in its business by raising its business funds in the form of a loan to a borrowed borrower for its own business. However, the court below rejected this premise and rejected this part of this part.

Each loan used to repay the loan to the KX Savings Bank, to repay the construction cost paid to LB with the borrowed loan in the name of LB, or to repay the loan to borrowed borrowers related to the business of the NB bank, but it is obvious that the loan to the NB Savings Bank was repaid, the NB Savings Bank was damaged by the NB Savings Bank, and it was convicted of this part of the facts charged.

According to the following circumstances, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

If a crime of occupational breach of trust is established due to an insolvent loan, not only the amount loaned in excess of the value of the collateral, or the amount actually impossible to recover, but also the total amount of the loan with the risk of causing damage, shall be deemed as the amount of damage. As such, even if the amount partially recovered by the sale of the claim, etc. after the execution of each of the instant loan, or the amount equivalent to the effective collateral offered at the time of the loan is equivalent to the amount of the loan, each of such parts shall not be deducted from the amount of damage caused by the crime of occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15756, Feb. 23, 2012).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined the judgment below, 3 billion won was loaned by 2.6 billion won in the name of FDR on July 5, 2004, each of which is 1.5 billion won in [Attachment 1.5] stated in the judgment of the court below, and 3 billion won in the name of FDR, and 4.5 billion won in the name of FDR loan was provided as security, and 4.5 billion won in the name of FDR bank loan was used as security, and 4.5 billion won in the name of FDR bank loan was used as security, 1.3 billion won in the name of FDR loan and 3.4 billion won in the name of FDR loan, 4.5 billion won in the name of FDR loan and 4.5 billion won in the name of FDR bank loan, 1.5 billion won in the name of FDR loan and 4.3 billion won in the name of FDR loan, 3.5 billion won in the name of FDR loan.

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts, namely, the self-evaluation of PD land and FN building at the time of loan of 8 billion won in the order of priority 4.5 billion won in the crime list, was 2.83 billion won, prior to the priority 4.6 billion won loan of 1.6 billion won in the priority 4.3 billion won in the loans of 3.4 billion won in the priority 3 billion won in the loans of 3.4 billion won in the status of 3.5 billion won in the loans of 3.4 billion won in the priority 3 billion won in the loans of 3.4 billion won in the status of 3.5 billion won in the loans of 3.5 billion won in the priority 3 billion won in the loans of 3.4 billion won in the status of 3.5 billion won in the loans of 3 billion won in the priority 3.5 billion won in the loans of 2.5 billion won in the first priority 2.3 billion won in the first priority 2.3 billion won in the loans of 3 billion won in the priority 2.

In addition, even if KRW 1,312,317,250 out of the loans of KRW 8 billion was repaid to another general account loan account in the name of FR bank, once transferred to the borrower and the loan was transferred, it is difficult to view it as a substitute exchange where the crime of breach of trust is not established. Even if KRW 5 billion out of the loans of KRW 8 billion was used for taking over 33.3% of the MR’s stocks, it cannot be said that it is a business of NA bank, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is not established.

Therefore, Defendant F’s assertion of this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(4) The loan portion in the [Attachment 5] Nos. 5 of the judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial, the loan of KRW 2 billion was executed in the name of FR on February 24, 2009, and the above loan was provided as a security for PD land and FN building. The value of the above collateral which was investigated by NDR Bank was 30 billion won (the value of 18 billion won). The PD land and FN building was set at a priority right of KRW 7.15 billion for PD land and FN building, and the lease deposit for opposing power was KRW 7.66 billion was 7.6 billion. The fact that the lease deposit for the opposing power was 1.6 billion for August 27, 2004, which was executed prior to the loan of this part, and each loan was not repaid under the attached Table 14 to the attached Table 15 (Order 15).

According to the following circumstances, PD land and NN buildings prior to loans of 2 billion won in the order of priority of crime list 5-2 billion won in attached Table 15 (hereinafter referred to as "crime list") are offered as collateral for loans of 1.6 billion won on August 27, 2004, 7.2 billion won out of priority 1's loans of 4.3 billion won, 3.2 billion won out of priority 2.6 billion won out of priority 3.6 billion won out of priority 3.6 billion won, 3.5 billion won out of priority 4's loans of 3.6 billion won, 3.5 billion won out of priority 4's loans of 3.5 billion won, 3 billion won out of priority 4's loans of 3.6 billion won - 1.6 billion won out of priority 5 billion won - 7 billion won out of priority 7.5 billion won, - 1.6 billion won out of credit guarantee amount of 7.7 billion won prior to the above.7 billion won

(b)a loan to the borrower for the FT;

(1) Each portion of loans listed in the [Attachment 15] Nos. 7 and 8 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant F guilty on the ground that the N Savings Bank, not Defendant B, as a major shareholder, was guilty on the premise that it was engaged in its business by raising business funds in the form of a loan to a borrowed borrower for its own business, or that each part of the loans was repaid to LB with borrowed-name loan in the name of LB, or exchanged loans to borrowed-name borrowers related to the N Savings Bank's other business.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(2) The loan section 9 of the attached Table 15 of the judgment of the court below (15)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the facts (as evidence records 25 No. 163 pages) as shown in the collateral list are acknowledged as if 14 units of the second floor of the Seoul Gangnam-gu PI building were offered as collateral in addition to the provision of PD land and the FN building as collateral. However, in full view of the above-mentioned evidences, PD land and FN building had already been provided as collateral.

The fact that there was no effective security due to the provision of a nominal loan as security, the fact that the NI building 14th floor and 24th floor of the NI building was leased from Defendant F, and the fact that FI building 14 units were returned to FI building 14 units around August 201, and the fact that FI building 25 units were terminated (Evidence Record 22, 23 pages).

According to the above facts, since the real estate offered as security for this part of the loan is clear that all of the real estate has no value as security, it is just for the court below to find the defendant F guilty as to this part, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts.

Therefore, Defendant F’s assertion of this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(C)the portion of loans to the borrower to the FU;

The court below found Defendant F guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant F acquired and operated the FR in accordance with Defendant B’s instruction and carried out the FN building construction project, and that FNU’s loan to FU, a borrowed borrower, was made by the NB as the NB bank to pay the construction cost.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

In addition, in full view of the above evidence as to whether a valid security has been provided as to this part of the loan, the fact that the 9 sales contracts for the reconstruction apartment building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building

Ultimately, Defendant F’s assertion of this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

D) The loan to the borrowed borrower for FV

(1) The argument in the grounds of appeal on the portion of the loan 40 million won, which was recognized as the amount of breach of trust among the partial loan 10 billion won, in the attached Table 11 of the judgment of the court below (15) is premised on the premise that the FR is the ownership of the NR bank. However, as seen earlier, as long as FR cannot be deemed as the ownership of the NR bank, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this part is without merit.

(2) The portion of loans listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 12 of the List of Offenses in the judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant F guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that even if Defendant F had a loan claim against “N Savings Bank” and such a loan was made for the purpose of repayment, it cannot be said that it did not violate the duty.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(e)the loan made to the borrower FW

(1) Whether there is no responsibility for loans made after June 30, 2006

① On October 5, 2004, the court below stated that Defendant FJE was offered a loan under the name of FW for the purchase of LE land on the first time, 2004. 10, 22, 2004. Then, FW did not have been engaged in any other business; ② JW acquired FW as Defendant F’s proposal, and immediately requested to use FW’s name in purchasing LE land from NE bank immediately after the receipt of the request for the purchase of FW’s name after the receipt of there was no talk about the specific business purpose at the time. In response, Defendant F appears to have received FW for the purchase of LE land under Defendant F’s direction; ③ the FW appears to have taken over Dormant corporation to purchase the LE land under Defendant FW’s direction; and ③ the FWW: < Amended by Act No. 3073, Mar. 3, 2007>

Although Defendant F requested Defendant F to change the name of the borrower several times, Defendant F to take account of the settlement of accounts for the preparation of loan documents and the use of loan in the name of the name, Defendant F, on the basis of the fact that Defendant F did not participate in the process of the FW-related loan, even if he was actually not directly involved in the FW-related loan, Defendant F did not deny his involvement in the increased amount of interest on the first loan or the loan for the repayment of principal on the part of JZ, on the ground that the former F did not have any direct involvement in the process of the FW-related loan.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(2) Whether to recognize the amount of breach of trust

First of all, from loans listed in [Attachment 15] Nos. 13, 14, 17 of the Crime List in the judgment of the court below to the amount of breach of trust.

This part of the grounds of appeal is examined as to the prescribed portion. This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit, as long as the LE land is based on the premise that it is owned by the NSaving Bank, or it is not acceptable as seen earlier.

Next, we examine the part of the judgment below that is recognized as the amount of breach of trust in the loan No. 15 of [Attachment 15] of [Attachment 15] in the judgment of the court below. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, 110 million won out of this part of the loan No. 250 million won is used for its own interest, and 140 million won is recognized as the fact that it was remitted to the borrower (Evidence No. 250 million won). Even if it was used for the purpose of increasing interest after being remitted to the borrower as the defendant F's assertion, as long as the money was transferred to the borrower and was used for the purpose of increasing interest, it can be recognized as the amount of breach of trust, so the defendant F's allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(f) a loan to the borrower FX;

(1) In the event a crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan under the attached Table 18 of the List of Offenses (15), not only the amount loaned in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to recover, but also the total amount of the loan likely to cause a impossibility of exercising property rights or to incur damage. Therefore, even if the amount partially recovered through the sale of the claim after the execution of each of the instant loans or the effective collateral offered at the time of the loan is equivalent to the amount of the loan, each of the relevant parts shall not be deducted from the amount of damage caused by the crime of occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15756, Feb. 23, 2012).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, Defendant F was ordered by the borrower to purchase the FO building in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu through the name borrower, and the loan of KRW 13.5 billion from the NU Bank on October 30, 2006, the above 13.5 billion out of the above 13.5 billion was used as its own interest, and the 10.8 billion won was transferred to the account of FX as the borrower, and the building and the site of the 8.5 billion won was supplied to the above loan, and the 6.5 billion won interest rate assessed by the NOE was 13.5 billion won, and the 13.5 billion interest rate was 0 billion won, more than the 6.5 billion interest rate was 1.5 billion won, and the 6.5 billion interest rate was 0 billion interest rate was 1.6 billion interest rate was 1.6 billion interest rate was 1.6 billion interest rate was 1.6 billion interest rate was 2.

In light of the legal principles of the above Supreme Court precedents and the following circumstances revealed by NA, i.e., 9.5 billion won if the appraisal of FO building and its site by NA is 13.5 billion won multiplied by 70%, which is the collateral recognition ratio of the building and its site (i.e., 13., 5 billion won x 0.7). The effective collateral is 9.45 billion won, which is much less than 13.16 billion won, recognized as the amount of breach of trust from the loan of this part as the amount of breach of trust. Furthermore, NA is not a specialized appraisal institution but a specialized appraisal institution, and it is difficult to believe that the appraisal of FO building and its site is an adequate appraisal, and thus, it is not reasonable to believe that the appraisal of the FO building and its site is a 13.5 billion won loan of this part, or that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the total of 13.1 billion won or the total withdrawal of checks.

(2) The loan portion of attached Form 19 of the judgment of the court below (15)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, 950 million won out of 1.3 billion won of loans 8 billion won in breach of trust in this part and 1.3 billion won of loans 1.5 billion won in Suwon Bank was deposited in Suwon Bank on February 20, 2007, and the remainder was used as expenses incurred in connection with the FO building. The reasons why the NO building was worn out and thus the NO bank's lending limit is so long as it is impossible to operate funds due to the large amount of the NO savings bank's lending limit, the fact that the NO bank received loans from NO Bank in relation to the NO building and partially repaid loans from the NO bank, and that the NO bank again received loans from 1.5 billion won in order to use funds again from the NO Bank (record 27: 1576-1578-78-1578-2 of the record, and Defendant 6.5 billion won in order to use the funds by the NO Savings Bank on the 100.

The following facts revealed by the above facts: (a) KRW 965 million out of the total amount of KRW 1.3 billion recognized as a breach of trust amounting to KRW 8 billion in this part of loans (= KRW 9550 million + KRW 15 million) is ultimately a mortgage on the FO building for which the NO Savings Bank secured the first priority order; (b) partially repaid the existing loans from the NO Savings Bank in the FOX name with a loan of KRW 6.5 billion; and (c) the expenses for receiving a loan of KRW 6.5 billion in consideration of the second priority mortgage on the FO building with a loan of KRW 6.5 billion in consideration of the lack of collateral value; and (d) the acquisition of the second priority and second priority security by the NO Savings Bank cannot be deemed as the ownership of the NO Savings Bank; and (e) there is no reasonable ground to believe that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen earlier in this part of the grounds for appeal.

(3) The loan section 20 of the attached Table (15) of the judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial, F borrowed KRW 600 million from the GL on February 8, 201, which was requested by the NL bank to repay loans, and repaid KRW 435 million among them as of February 11, 2011, to the N Savings Bank, and Defendant F on April 8, 2011, out of KRW 800,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the loans No. 20,000,000,000,000 won, was transferred to FX account and repaid to LL on April 28, 201, and the fact that the above loans of KRW 80,00,00 was not separately provided.

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., F, remittance of KRW 435 million out of KRW 80,000,000 among KRW 80,000,000 from [Attachment 15] No. 200,000,000 to FX and repayment of the obligation to LL is the same as the repayment of the existing obligation to FX N Savings Bank under the name of FX. As seen above, even if the money was used in repayment of the existing loan with the loan, as long as the money was actually transferred under the name of the borrower and the loan was transferred, the crime of occupational breach of trust can be established. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the court below found Defendant F guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, this part of the grounds for appeal by F is without merit.

(4) The argument in the grounds of appeal on the part of the attached Table 21 of the judgment below (15) is premised on the premise that the FO building is owned by the NO Savings Bank. However, as seen earlier, insofar as the FO building cannot be seen as owned by the NO Savings Bank, even if 1.1 billion won out of the loan 2 billion won was paid for the return of the deposit for the lease of the lessee of the FO building, it shall not be excluded from the amount of breach of trust. Accordingly, Defendant F’s allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is without merit.

G) The portion of a loan to KN by a borrower

(1) Whether Defendant F was involved in this part of the loan

The court below determined that the part of the loan to KN was carried out to purchase the land located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was held by the NSaving Bank according to the orders of Defendant B, and that the loan listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 22 at the time of the original adjudication is a loan to repay the existing loan, and the loan listed in the [Attachment 15] No. 23 at the time of the original adjudication is a loan to repay the existing loan, and its location is not known at present, but in light of the fact that Defendant F’s loan documents were written in all process of the loan execution, the court below held that this part of the loan was not justified.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

(2) Of the loans No. 23, KRW 2 billion is excluded from the amount of occupational breach of trust. Although Defendant F’s assertion itself, as long as this part of the loans was transferred to the account in the name of KN and deposited into the loan account of LM in the name of another loan borrower bank, and it is clear that there was a transfer of funds, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established. Therefore, the court below’s finding Defendant F guilty of this part of the charges is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Ultimately, Defendant F’s assertion on this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

As examined in the above 2.C. B’s argument, it can be acknowledged that Defendant G offered a loan to Defendant G with respect to this part of the loan.

Therefore, Defendant G’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Defendant G, in collusion with Defendant B, obtained a loan of 15 billion won from the N Savings Bank, and purchased the PE land, and issued it to B by washing money to KRW 3,300,000,000,000,000 excluding the purchase price in accordance with B’s order, while seeking a borrowed-name corporation (GC) and a borrowed-name borrower (GE) in short of collateral. Defendant G’s participation in the breach of trust in the N Savings Bank as well as the occurrence of considerable damages to the N Savings Bank, and money laundering is necessary as an act that facilitates another crime.

However, Defendant G appears to have not been directly involved in the loan review related to the PE land, while the loan related to the PE land is in the form of a secured loan, it is possible to recover the loan according to the possibility of development because it has the nature of the PF loan in substance. The part of the money laundering is likely to have been in the relationship with Defendant G with Defendant G, at the request of the president of the NA bank, and it seems difficult for Defendant G to refuse it. In addition, examining all other circumstances such as Defendant G’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court that sentenced Defendant G was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable. Accordingly, Defendant G’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since there is no ground to appeal against the prosecutor's violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to loans to Defendant A and C and each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is an ex officio reversal of the part concerning Defendant A, C's guilty (including the part concerning acquittal of the reason) and Defendant B, E, and F, the part concerning Defendant G is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is a ground to

Criminal facts

In addition to the following cases, the facts constituting the crime against the Defendants are stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and such facts are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. (1) and (3) of the facts constituting the crime in the case, including Seoul Central District Court No. 201Da1341, Jan. 1, 201; and (3) of the same as follows; and delete the facts constituting the crime listed in [Attachment 1] 38 of the List of Crimes in the judgment of the court below. (1) Defendant B and A

Defendant B and A offered B: (a) around May 16, 2007 public offering of BB 1 with Defendant E and B 2 to H KRW 2.5 billion; (b) not only the interest on the existing loan but also the Jongno-gu Seoul Party BJ 11 lot, which had already been offered as security, had H obtain an equivalent amount of KRW 2.5 billion from 2.0 billion to 60 billion from 10 billion from 200,000 to 300,000,000 won from 200,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 20,000 won from 30,000,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 30,000,00 won from 3.

Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant B, B, B, and B, as described in the foregoing subparagraph (1)-2, extended 6 billion won to H in the name of BC on January 25, 2010, extended 6 billion won to H to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, and incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the victim N Savings Bank. From that time, until January 4, 2011, Defendant C extended 21.8 billion won in the name of BB, BC, BE, BF, etc., and obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount by lending 21.8 billion won in the name of B, B, B, B, and BF, etc. from January 4, 2011.”

2. On September 8, 2006, the Defendant B, in breach of trust related to the loan of KRW 300,000,000,000 in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da368, Jan. 1, 201, deleted the criminal facts listed in the [Attachment 11] of the judgment of the court below, as follows: (a) around September 8, 2006, with respect to the loan of KRW 30,00,00 in the name of the acquisition fund for the shares of Section 300,00,00,000, which was offered as security for the loan, the effective security of KRW 619,50,000,000,000 in the name of DU and 80,000,000,000 won in the name of the victim bank; and (b) around 201,50,0000,000 won in the name of the victim bank, as stated in [Attachment 214,514.214.5.

3. The part concerning Defendant C among the facts constituting the crime of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2011 High Court No. 1341 is changed as follows.

The financial statements prepared and publicly announced every fiscal year are important factors for investment judgment, and the financial statements that are prepared and publicly announced are duty to present the true financial statements and profit and loss statement when offering new shares, because investors review the financial situation of the company and the stability of profit and loss, etc. of the company, and make investments in consideration of the possibility of continuation and future profitability of the company.

In particular, since securities such as stocks can be sold to many and unspecified persons at any time due to the strong distribution nature, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act strictly prohibits the omission of entry or false entry in the trading of financial investment instruments such as securities and other transactions.

Therefore, no one shall make a false statement or representation of a material fact in connection with the trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments (including public offering, private placement, and public sale in the case of securities) or any other transaction, or make use of a document or any other description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing any misunderstanding of another person.

Nevertheless, Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant A and B, intended to publish a false balance sheet prepared as if it were false as if it were realizing the net income of KRW 20.3 billion in the name at KRW - 215 billion in the name of the NSaving Bank’s net income (loss) at KRW 26 (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) in fact through the process of dividing falsely the asset soundness by pretending to be ‘normally and regularly defective loan claims less than 3.3 billion in common' and by falsely classifying the asset soundness. As such, Defendant C conspiredd to issue subordinated bonds by publicly announcing the balance sheet prepared as if it were false as if it were 3.1,334 billion in the net income statement and the judgment materials to determine whether investors participate in capital increase with capital increase.

On June 17, 2010, the N Savings Bank published the financial statements and the investment prospectus prepared in falsity on June 26, 2010 (the closing date as of June 30, 2009) and made 836 ordinary investors purchase the N Savings Bank subordinate bonds by issuing a total of KRW 20 billion. Accordingly, in collusion with A and B, Defendant C obtained financial benefits equivalent to the above amount by making a false entry into the N Savings Bank’s 26 financial statements, such as assets, net income, and profit and loss structure, and making it public to the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic public disclosure system by using them in the process of attracting the N Savings Bank’s 26 financial statements as above, and by using them in the process of attracting the N Savings Bank’s 2010 and June 17, 2010, it obtained financial benefits by allowing 836 lower-ranking purchasers purchase subordinated bonds worth KRW 20 billion in total, regardless of the falsity.

4. Change of facts constituting an offense in the case, including Seoul Central District Court No. 201Da1341, 5.00, and change of 5,509, respectively, as stated in the [Attachment 6] [Attachment 60] No. 60 and [70] No. 600, respectively, into 4,500, 500, respectively. The defendant B, A, and C conspired to lend more than 500,000,000 won to 3.7 billion,000,000,000 won to 3.5 billion,000,000,000 won to 2.75 billion,000,000,000 won to each of the above N Savings Bank's principal office (the defendant C was involved from November 5, 2009 to May 27, 2010) and the total amount of more than 9.7 billion won to 3 billion,000,000 won,000 won.

Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant B and A on January 7, 2008, extended KRW 2.8 billion in the name of B Q to obtain property profits equivalent to KRW 2.5 billion, excluding the amount used for the repayment of existing loans, and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount from the victim N Savings Bank. From that time to April 28, 2008, Defendant E extended a total of KRW 18.9 billion in the name of BR and BS to obtain property profits equivalent to KRW 4.9 billion, excluding the amount of the large exchange loan, and changed the criminal facts of this case, including the Seoul Central District Court No. 201Da1341, Jan. 2, 2008.

“(2) Defendant E

Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant B, B, and B, extended KRW 2.5 billion to H in the name of BD on May 16, 2007, extended a loan of KRW 2.5 billion to H in the name of BD and incurred losses equivalent to the amount of the said amount from that time to April 3, 2008, Defendant E changed the following criminal facts of this case: (a) from that time until April 3, 2008, Nos. 16, 17, 25, 26, 32 in the name of BD, BF, BG, etc., 16.97 billion in total, excluding the amount of the large exchange loan, and (b) obtained pecuniary gains from H in the name of the victim NG; and (c) subsequently, the Seoul Central District Court 201Da13141, Jul. 13, 2014.

“(3) Defendant E

Defendant E in collusion with Defendant B and A as described in the [Attachment 2-2] List of Crimes Nos. 2-2, as shown in the foregoing paragraph (1)-2, obtained 400 million won property benefits excluding the amount used to pay interest on existing loans in the name of BW on July 16, 2007, and caused damage to the victim N Savings Bank equivalent to the same amount.”

The summary of the evidence against the Defendants is as follows: “1. The summary of the lower court’s respective statutory statements in the trial of Defendant A, B, and F; 1. witness GS, JA, LS, LS, JV, GT, CX, KD, and PJ are as follows: (a) the respective statutory statements in the trial of the lower court are added; and (b) it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. The respective points of each of the following are as follows: (a) Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (b) Articles 356, 35(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 355(2) and 2-B of the Criminal Act; (d) Articles 2(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 2(1) and 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (e) Articles 3(1) and 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (e) Articles 32(1) and 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; (e) Articles 30(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Borrower; (e) Articles 20(3) and 37(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Audit, Etc. of Bonds; (e., Article 30(2)1) of the former Criminal Act.

B. Defendant B

1) Seoul Central District Court 201 High Court 1341 et al.

각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조[범죄사실 제1항 및 제2항, 제6항(2012고합368호 범죄사실 제1의 다. (2)항 포함}10) 범죄사실의 DE 등 차명차주 29명(별지(8) 범죄일람표 중 차명 차주 II, HS, IW, HR, IC, IB, HZ, HV, H, HP, HT, HU, KL, DF(순번 92), IS 이상 15명 제외}에 대한 대출 부분의 각 업무상배임의 점, 제1항의 실차주 H, I, J, K에 대한 각 대출의 점은 실차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 다만 실차주 I, K에 대한 부분의 유기징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로한다. 제2의 나. 항의 차명 차주 M, CZ, DA, DB, DC, DD에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여 11), 제6항의 DE 등 차명 차주 29명에 대한 대출의 점은 차명 차주 별로 각 포괄하여 12), 다만 차명차주 HE, 주식회사 IX, GI, HD, DG, HW, DE, HG, AV, 주식회사 KM을 제외한 나머지 차명 차주들에 대한 대출 부분의 유기징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다], 각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조[범죄 사실 제6항의 별지(8) 범죄일람표 중 차명 차주 II, HS, IW, HR, HZ, HV, IH, HP, HT, HU, KL, IS에 대한 대출 부분의 각 업무상배임의 점, 각 차명 차주 별로 포괄하여, 다만 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다. 각 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제1항, 제30조[범죄사실 제6항의 별지(8) 범죄일람표 중 차명 차주 IC, IB, DF(순번 92)에 대한 대출 부분의 각 업무상배임의 점, 각 차명 차주 별로 포괄하여, 각 주식회사의 외부감사에 관한 법률 제20조 제1 항, 제13조, 상법 제635조 제1항, 형법 제30조(허위 재무제표 작성·공시의 점), 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제2항 제1호, 제1항 제8호, 제178조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제30조(허위 작성 재무제표를 사용한 부정거래행위의 점), 각 구 상호저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 의2, 제39조 제3항 제4의2호, 제12조 제1항, 형법 제30조[개별차주에 대한 한도 초과 신용공여의 점, 개별차주(KG, H, BQ, KH, ED, 주식회사 KI, 주식회사 KJ, KK) 별로 각 포괄하여, 각 상호저축은행법 제39조 제2항 제3호, 제37조 제 1항 제1호13), 형법 제30 [범죄사실 제2항, 제6항(2012고합368호 범죄사실 제1의 다. (2)항 포함}의 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 차명 차주 M, CZ, DA, DB, DC, DD에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여, DE 등 차명 차주 36명에 대한 대출의 점(별지(9) 범죄일람표)은 차명 차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 구 상호저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 제2항 제2호, 제37조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제30조(캄보디아 부동산 구입 관련 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 포괄하여)14)

2) 서울중앙지방법원 2012고합368호 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제1항(업무상횡령의 점, 다만 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다), 각 특정경제범죄 가중치벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항[범죄사실 제1의 나.항 및 다. (1)항, (3)항의 각 업무상배임의 점, 제1의 나. 항의 실차주 0, P에 대한 대출의 점은 실차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 다만 실차주 P에 대한 부분 및 제1의 다. (3)항 부분의 각 유기징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다. 제1의 다. (1)항의 차명차주 (별지(13) 범죄일람표 순번 6번 기재 대출은 제외)에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항[범죄사실 제1의 다. (4)항의 업무상배임의 점, 다만 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다], 상호저축은행법 제39조 제2항 제3호, 제37조 제1항 제1호(차명 차주 Q에 대한 대출 관련 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 포괄하여), 각 구 상호저축은행법(2010, 3. 22. 법률제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 제2항 제2호, 제37조 제1항 제1호(차명 차주 S, T에 대한 대출 관련 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 차명차주 별로 각 포괄하여), 상호저축은행법 제39조 제2항 제3호, 제37조 제1항 제3호(대주주인 피고인 B와 특수관계에 있는 U에 대한 신용공여의 점, 포괄하여), 각 형법 제133조 제1항, 제129조 제1항(뇌물공여의 점, W에 대한 뇌물공여의 점은 포괄하여), 각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조[범죄사실 제2항 중 차명 차주 FR, FT, FU, FV, FX에 대한 대출 부분 및 제3항의 각 업무상배임의 점, 제2항의 차명 차주FR, FT, FU, FV에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여(다만 유기징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다)15), 차명 차주 FX에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여 16)], 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제1항, 제30조(범죄사실 제2항 중 차명 차주 FW에 대한 대출 부분의 업무상배임의 점, 포괄하여 17)), 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조(범죄사실 제2항 중 차명 차주 KN에 대한 대출 부분의 업무상배임의 점, 포괄하여 18), 다만 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다), 각 상호저축은행법 제39조 제2항 제3호, 제37조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제30조(범죄사실 제2항 중 차명차주 FR, FT, FV, FX에 대한 대출 부분 및 범죄사실 제3항의 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 제2항의 차명 차주 FR, FT, FV에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여, 차명차주 FX에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여), 구 상호 저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조 제2항 제2호, 제37조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제30조(범죄사실 제2항 중 차명 차주 FW에 대한 대출 부분의 대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 포괄하여)다. 피고인 C각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조[2011고합1341호 등 범죄사실 제1의 가.항 및 제2의 나.항, 제6항의 DE 등 차명 차주 10명{별지(8) 범죄일람표 순번 32(차명 차주 HJ), 54(차명차주 HZ), 84(차명 차주 IL), 86(차명 차주 IM) 기재 각 대출 부분 제외)에 대한 대출 부분의 각 업무상배임의 점, 제1항의 실차주 H에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여, 제2의 나. 항의 차명 차주 M, DC, DD에 대한 대출의 점은 포괄하여, 제6항의 DE 등 차명차주 10명에 대한 대출의 점은 차명 차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 다만 차명 차주 R에 대한 대출 부분의 유기징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다], 각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조[2011고합1341호 등 범죄사실 제1의 다. 항, 라. 항, 제6항 의 별지(8) 범죄일람표 순번 32(차명 차주 HI), 54(차명 차주 HZ), 84(차명 차주 IL), 86(차명차주 IM) 기재 각 대출 부분의 각 업무상배임의 점, 제1의 다.항, 라. 항의실차주 J, K에 대한 대출의 점은 실차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 다만 실차주 K에 대한 대출 부분의 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다. 제6항의 차명 차주 HJ, HZ, IL, IM에 대한 각 대출의 점은 차명 차주 별로 각 포괄하여, 다만 형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 15년으로 한다], 주식회사의 외부감사에 관한 법률 제20조 제1항, 제13조, 상법 제635조 제1항, 형법 제30조(제27기 재무제표에 관한 허위 재무제표 작성 · 공시의 점), 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제2항 제1호, 제1항 제8호, 제178조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제30조(허위작성 재무제표를 사용한 부정거래행위의 점), 각 구 상호저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조의2, 제39조 제3항 제4의2호, 제12조 제1항, 형법 제30조[개별 차주에 대한 한도 초과 신용공여의 점, 개별차주(KG, H, BQ, KH, ED, 주식회사 KJ, KK) 별로 각 포괄하여, 각 상호저축은행법 제39조 제 2항 제3호, 제37조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제30조(대주주인 피고인 B에 대한 신용공여의 점, 포괄하여)

(d) Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 [Article 1-1-A, 201 Gohap1341, and Paragraph (6) of the same Article [Article 16, 17, 19, 26, 52, and 66 of the former Criminal Act [Article 1-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Section 1-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Borrower; Section 1-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Section 1-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Borrower; Section 2-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Loans, Section 1-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Borrower, Section 5-6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, Section 1-6-6 of the respective Act on No.

E. Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 35(2), 30, and the main text of Article 33 of the Criminal Act [Article 2012 Gohap368 of the Criminal Act]; Article 32 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 36 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 36 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Loans to Large Stockholders; Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 360 of the Act).

F. Defendant G

Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355 (2), 30, and the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act (the crime of occupational breach of trust under paragraph (3) of the same Article), Articles 39 (2) 3 and 37 (1) 1 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, the main sentence of Article 30 and Article 33 of the Criminal Act (the extension of credit to Defendant B who is a major shareholder under paragraph (3) of the same Article), Article 3 (1) 3 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (the realization of loans in breach of trust for the purpose of pretending the assets legitimately acquired)

1. Formal concurrence: Defendant A;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

B. Defendant B

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (including paragraphs (2) and (6) (2) of the facts constituting an offense, such as 201 high-priced 1341 (2), (6) (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (2012 high-priced 368) (excluding the part concerning the occupational breach of trust against 36 persons), 1-3 (1), (3), and (4) (excluding the portion concerning loans 6-13), (2) (excluding the portion concerning loans 15), 1-4, 7, 10 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the portion concerning loans 15), 3-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the portion concerning loans 1-5), 2-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the portion concerning occupational breach of trust), 201 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (2) and 3-1-2) of the Act.

C. Defendant C

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the provision of punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

D. Defendant E

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the provision of punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

E. Defendant F

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 2012 Gohap368) (Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and Article 40 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Articles 2012 and 368 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Articles 2012 and 368 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, however, excluding the loans set forth in the attached Table 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Crime of Violation of Trust) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Offense of Violation of Trust) by Large Stockholders]

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

Each sentence of imprisonment on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, each sentence of imprisonment on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and each sentence of imprisonment on the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks due to the excess of the limit on individual borrowers.

B. Defendant B

(1) Of the crimes of paragraphs (1) and (2), and (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (including 2011 high-level 1341) (including 2012 high-level 368 high-level 368 c. (2)), 29 borrowed borrowers (attached Form 8), including DE, etc. (Attachment 8), shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each crime of breach of trust; imprisonment with prison labor for each crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; imprisonment with prison labor for each crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; imprisonment with prison labor for each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding 92 persons) for each of the following crimes; imprisonment with prison labor for each individual borrower; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; imprisonment for each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Real Estate under the Act on the Purchase of Real Estate in excess of the limit for each individual Credit Extension.

(2) As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes of No. 2012 and No. 368, Article 1-2 (b) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes of No. 2012 and Article 1-2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, imprisonment with prison labor for each limited term, for each crime of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act through extension of credit to U-related major shareholders, etc., and imprisonment with prison labor for each crime of offering of a bribe, for each crime of borrowing a loan to borrowed borrower, FT, FU, FV,

C. Each of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), including Defendant C201 high-priced1 and 1341, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), each of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), including imprisonment for a limited term of imprisonment for each of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets, for each of the charges of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), including the DE under paragraphs (1) and (6), 32 (JJ), 54, 84, 86 (HZ), 86, 16, 16, 16, 36, 16, 16, 30, 16, 205, 201, 201, 16, 26, 16, 16, 6, 2, 16, 5, 4.

E. Defendant F2012Gohap368 of the criminal facts of the F201Gohap368 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with respect to each of the offenses of lending loans to borrowed Borrower FR, FT, FT, FU, FV, and FX, each of the offenses of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation

F. Determination of imprisonment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by Defendant G G, etc.

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act [Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the proviso to Article 42 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) of the following Borrower with respect to each part of loans to the FR, FT, FT, FU, FV, and the KN of the following Borrower from among the criminal facts

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A, B, C, and E: Each of the criminal offenses under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 1-A of the Criminal Act, such as Article 21 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to loans to the actual borrower H, and Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the same Act;

(b) Defendant F: The penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which is the largest type of loan to FX, is limited to concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

(c) Defendant G: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which are the largest penalty (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of each of the above crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant C, E, F, G);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to Defendant G, the grounds for reversal as seen earlier, and with respect to the remaining Defendants, the favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing shall be considered)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant E and G);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (with respect to Defendant E, for the following sentencing grounds, repeated consideration of the favorable circumstances, and for Defendant G, for the reasons for reversal as seen earlier)

1. Social services (defendant G);

Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act The reason for sentencing

1. Defendant A

In around 2004, Defendant A entered the N Savings Bank as a vice head and continued to be in charge of credit business, and did not refuse to comply with Defendant B’s instructions without having become aware of each of the instant crimes. As a result, Defendant B became aware of the trust from Defendant B, and performed the core officer’s role in the credit portion while serving as the head of the N Savings Bank’s Finance Headquarters, the representative director of the credit portion, the former director, and the chairman of the Credit Review Committee after 2007. Accordingly, Defendant A needs to be subject to strict punishment corresponding to his responsibility.

However, Defendant A had much burden on Defendant B’s exclusive and intangible decision on credit, and had no personal advantage in dealing with credit business, and had no personal advantage. Defendant A contributed to the discovery of substantive truth of the instant case by confessioning all the crimes from investigation agencies to the trial court at the trial court and actively cooperating with the investigation. Defendant A was pronounced not guilty as to some of the facts charged ex officio at the trial court, by examining all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and determined the sentence as indicated in the Disposition.

2. Defendant B

Defendant B acquired the NSaving Bank based on its long-term experience and worked as a representative director, and actively operated the NSaving Bank as the president after around 2007. Defendant B used the deposit received from many ordinary people as one’s own personal funds without any distance for personal investment purposes. In lending or investment, Defendant B requested specialized institutions, etc. to make an objective evaluation of business prospects or collateral value, and caused large damages to the NSaving Bank, and thereby, caused a financial crisis to avoid the risk of being subject to sanctions by the financial supervisory organization. In particular, even if the NSaving Bank’s poorness is difficult to recover, Defendant B was punished for a large amount of damages caused to investors in the name of 5 billion won by issuing subordinated bonds twice through a disguised means to conceal its financial soundness.

However, Defendant B made a confession that almost all of the crimes of this case and divided his mistake in depth, the verdict of not guilty of some of the facts charged in the trial, the balance between the same kind of case and the punishment needs to be considered, the consideration for the socially alienated class and the service activities seems to have been actively conducted for a long time, and the fact that it resulted in this case in the process of maximizeing the profits of the N Savings Bank in a more unfavorable condition than the first financial right, and the fact that the situation that conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., were examined and determined as ordered.

3. Defendant C. Defendant C. As a professional manager with a long-term experience of finance, Defendant C was the representative director of the N Savings Bank for two years, and was in the position of the highest approving authority, and the credit which had been previously implemented was not legitimate pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and subsequently, Defendant C’s approval was made consecutively without making efforts to correct this. Although Defendant C did not refuse the direction of N Savings Bank’s highest manager of Defendant B’s high school, which was the highest manager of N Savings Bank, and thereby led to each of the crimes of this case, even if Defendant C was in a position representing N Savings Bank inside and outside the country, taking part in each of the crimes of this case is not somewhat liable.

However, Defendant C did not obtain personal benefits in performing the duties of the representative director of the NSaving Bank; each of the crimes in this case is deemed to have fundamental reasons for not preventing Defendant B from her ebbbing, which is the highest manager; and in reality, it is difficult to refuse Defendant B’s instructions; in the trial, some of the facts charged are pronounced not guilty; there is no penalty power other than minor criminal records; and other circumstances, such as Defendant C’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, were examined and determined as per the disposition.

4. Defendant E

In light of the fact that Defendant E, while holding office as the representative director of the N Savings Bank from March 30, 2007 to June 30, 2008, obtained approval of Defendant B’s unfair loans without any check and approval, Defendant E’s responsibility is not exceptionally against the Plaintiff E.

However, Defendant E did not have experience in the part of the credit, direct guidance for bad loans or personal gain in performing the duties of the representative director of the NSaving Bank, and the verdict of innocence on some facts charged in the trial is rendered, and there is no particular record of punishment, and other circumstances, such as Defendant E’s age, character and conduct, environment, health, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered and the sentence is determined as ordered.

5. Defendant F

Defendant F, as a follow-up course of Defendant B’s high school, performed Defendant B’s instructions in good faith so that Defendant B may execute a loan and make personal investments, and provided a borrower with a borrowed name loan, thereby facilitating Defendant B’s criminal act. In that process, Defendant F was in the position to exempt Defendant F from his responsibility even when he acquired profits, such as taking charge of managing the building of the N Savings Bank and related companies, and being provided a large amount of financing for personal investments, without any particular security. In light of the above circumstances, Defendant F’s responsibility is not less than that of Defendant F’s liability.

However, Defendant F was not a regular employee of the NSaving Bank; Defendant B had a friendly relationship with Defendant B; Defendant B had an aspect that faithfully followed Defendant B’s instructions during his prison life period; Defendant B had currently undergone liver cancer removal operations; Defendant F was in a state of being conducted liver cancer removal operations, which is not very good for health; and other circumstances, such as Defendant F’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the conditions of sentencing, such as the following circumstances, were considered.

The acquittal portion

○ The portion of Defendant A’s actual borrower’s loan amounting to KRW 15 billion in the name of the borrower in the name of the borrower in Section A.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B and E on April 28, 2008, lent KRW 15 billion to BS in the name of BS and obtained financial gains equivalent to KRW 1.36 billion excluding the amount used for the repayment of existing loans, etc. among them, and suffered financial losses equivalent to the same amount from the victim NSaving Bank.

B. Determination

As to the loan stated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant A stated that I did not memory, unlike the loan to other borrowed borrowers B or BR at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation (Evidence No. 637 of the record), from February 17, 2008 to February 2, 2009, GS, which was the Vice-Chairperson of the Financial Team 3 Team from January 2, 2007 to September 6, 2009, and Defendant A’s statement (Evidence No. 1416, 1708 of the record No. 4, 5, 2570 of the record) made by the 3rd Team or the third Team leader at the prosecutor’s office (Evidence No. 416, 50 of the record) and witness GS’s statutory statement, it is difficult to view Defendant A’s loan to have retired from Defendant A’s office as evidence for the loan to the 3rd Team’s representative director, and Defendant A’s loan No. 278 of the record No. 208.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant A should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the crime

Unless it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) stated in Article 1-2 (b) (2) of the judgment of the court below, which is located in the limit of 2011 Gohap1341, etc., the judgment of the court below shall not be separately pronounced. On February 11, 2010, 201, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by the Mutual Savings Banks

A. Summary of the facts charged

On February 11, 2010, Defendant B, A, and C conspired to lend 13 billion won to KR from the head office of the N Savings Bank to each borrower (20 billion won as of May 31, 2010, the limit of credit extension (20 billion won as of May 31, 2010, KRW 151.28 billion as of its equity capital, KRW 30.25 billion, KRW 30.7 billion) exceeded 1.79 billion.9 billion.

B. Determination

According to the inquiry report on the fact-finding conducted on May 14, 2012 by the court of the court below on N Savings Bank administrator, it appears that there was no loan to individual borrower KH on February 11, 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case without proof of a crime, the defendant B, A, and C must be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but inasmuch as the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to excess credit extensions to the individual borrower with respect to KH as stated in paragraph (5) of the judgment of the court below, it shall not be acquitted separately from the order.

Defendant C and E’s violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to credit extension to major shareholders related to the purchase of stocks and real estate (Article 2011 Gohap1341, and Paragraph 6 of the same Article)

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant E provided credit equivalent to KRW 57.5 billion in total to Defendant B, who is a major shareholder, as stated in Article 6-2(b) of the Criminal Act, including 201Gohap11 and 1341. The Defendant C provided credit equivalent to KRW 128.4 billion in total to Defendant B, who is a major shareholder, as described in Article 6-3(c) of the Criminal Act.

B. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the record: (a) Defendant B was aware of the fact that the loan was made under the direction of Defendant B, even though it was inevitably approved by the lower court; (b) Defendant B was unaware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court; (c) at the time of the suspension of business on September 18, 2011, Defendant B was aware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court’s order; (d) Defendant B did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court; (e) Defendant B did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court; and (e) Defendant B did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court and the lower court was made under the name of the lower court to have been made under the name of the lower court; and (e) Defendant B and Nonparty did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the loan was made under the name of the lower court’s order and the lower court.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, each of them should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the defendant E and C are found guilty of all of the crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) as stated in Article 6-b. (Defendant E and paragraph (c) of the Decision 201 Man-Ma1341, etc., each of

Defendant B, C, and A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by an insolvent loan to X actual borrower H [Attachment 1 of the judgment of the court below] The summary of this part of the charges is as shown in the above 2.c. 1) (A) (1) and the above 2.c. 1) (3). Thus, inasmuch as there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as stated in the above 2.c. 1) (3), each innocence should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the Seoul Central District Court 201Da1341, which is related to the comprehensive crime, is found guilty of the remainder of the facts charged in the above paragraph 1. A, the judgment of the court shall not be pronounced

0. Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by means of an defective loan of KRW 5.1 billion on December 19, 2006 (Attachment 11 of the judgment of the lower court) in relation to the following borrower’s DU, actual borrower’s loan of KRW 5.1 billion on December 19, 2006 (Attachment 11 of the judgment of the lower court)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as shown in the above 2.c. 1 (b) (1) and 2.c. 1 (b) (3). Thus, since there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as stated in the above 2.c. 1 (b) (3), each not guilty should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the Seoul Central District Court found the remainder of the facts charged in the case No. 2012 Ma368, which is related to the comprehensive crime,

The summary of the charge on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the issuance of subordinated bonds by Defendant C on November 6, 2009 is the same as that of the above 2. D. 1)(a)(1) and the above 2. D. 1)(3) and thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reason under Article 325(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, each of them is acquitted under the latter part

The summary of the facts charged on the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of credit to an individual borrower to KS or an actual borrower as set forth in [Attachment 70] Nos. 60 in the list of crimes committed by Defendant C at the time of the original adjudication of Defendant C is as follows: (a) the summary of the facts charged is as stated in paragraph (2) (d) (2) (c) (1) above, and (d) (3) above, and there is no proof of a crime for the same reason; (b) each of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act; but (c) as long as the Seoul Central District Court 201Da1341, which is related to the comprehensive crime, is found guilty of the remainder of the facts charged in

0. Defendant E’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by means of an defective loan of KRW 8 billion on April 5, 2007 to the name borrower B Q and the actual borrower under Article 1-A (2) of the criminal facts of the case, including Seoul Central District Court No. 2011 High Court No. 1341 (No. 2 of the attached Table of the judgment of the lower court)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of the above 2. E.(a). Since there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as above 2. E.(e)(1)(c), each not guilty should be pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, unless the Seoul Central District Court found the remainder of the facts charged under Article 1-b(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the Seoul Central District Court 201Kahap1341, which is related to the comprehensive crime, guilty, it shall not be separately pronounced. The summary of the facts charged in the part of the facts charged through the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by the non-performing loans Nos. 21, 31, 31 (Attachment 1), 6-7 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the court below, since there is no proof of a crime for the same reason, it shall be sentenced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Hun-Ba

Judges Nam-yang

2) Defendant A and C did not dispute this part of the grounds of appeal but ex officio examine this part.

3) The grounds of appeal on the part of Defendant C are also examined in this part.

4) As to this part, Defendant F’s assertion is also examined.

5) Prior to amendment by Act No. 10682, May 19, 2011.

6) In uniformly determining whether a prosecutor has exceeded the limit on individual borrowers’ loans, May 2010.

31 Based on the basis of 31, it is difficult to view that the equity capital of the N Savings Bank has been continuously increased.

As such, whether a loan carried out before May 31, 2010 exceeds the credit limit for an individual borrower based on May 31, 2010.

The criteria for May 31, 2010 presented by the first-aid prosecutor, since it cannot be deemed that the Defendants would act disadvantageously to them.

making decisions.

7) The part as examined together in the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B is excluded.

8) Evidence that the NDR bank’s self-evaluation of PD land and its ground FN buildings is higher than the actual value.

Since there is no exception, the above amount shall be the basis for the payment.

9) Evidence that the NDR bank’s self-evaluation of PD land and its ground FN buildings has been evaluated higher than the actual value.

Since there is no exception, the above amount shall be the basis for the payment.

10) The crime No. 1-C. 1-2 (2) of the crime No. 2012 Gohap368 is related to loans to the victim N Savings Bank and the AW Savings Bank to the borrower.

The breach of trust is an occupational breach of trust, and the separate sheet (8) Nos. 9 of the crime list against R of the borrowed borrower under paragraph (6) of the crime, such as No. 2015, 1341;

10 and 11 parts of loans (victim N Savings Bank) and 8,89 parts of loans (victims) in sequence 88, and 89 against R of borrowed borrowers

AW Savings Bank) and each victim's comprehensive crime (see note 14) are described in this context (see note 14).

11) The facts of the crime No. 2-b. are several persons of the borrower, which was based on a single criminal intent as a loan to acquire and operate M.

Since it appears that a series of acts of breach of trust relating to a borrowed borrower constitute a single crime. This is based on the extension of credit to a large shareholder.

The same shall also apply to the application of the Mutual Savings Banks Act.

12) The facts constituting the crime under Paragraph (6) (including Paragraph (2) of the crime No. 1-368) are several persons among the borrowed borrowers, on the ground of the borrowed borrower.

Defendant B’s instruction to purchase other stocks or real estate by making a loan, each of which shall be given according to the instructions given by the respective parties.

As such, it is difficult to regard it as a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, and therefore, it is several times for the borrower as a whole.

It shall not be deemed that the act of breach of trust constitutes a single crime, including the act of breach of trust, and it is reasonable to deem that the act constitutes a single crime including a single offense for each borrowed borrower.

The same applies to the application of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by credit extension to large shareholders.

Furthermore, in the case of paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of the crime No. 1-201, 2012, 368, as follows:

This is also based on the same reason.

13) However, with respect to the facts constituting a crime under Paragraph 6, if the time at which the crime was completed by each name borrower on September 23, 2010, the former name custodian.

Articles 39(2)2 and 37(1)1 of the Banking Act (Amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010) shall apply.

section 3.

14) Criminal facts paragraph (7) are several names of borrowed borrowers, and Cambodia's location for a period of less than three months from February 14, 2008 to February 14, 2008

A single criminal intent in light of the circumstances of carrying out a borrowed borrower as a loan under the direction of Defendant B to purchase a real property;

Inasmuch as such act can be seen as a series of acts based on this section, the act of extending credit to a large shareholder on several occasions through a borrowed borrower constitutes a crime.

shall be constituted.

15) The facts constituting the crime in Paragraph 2 are Defendant B, and many borrowed borrowers are named as Defendant B, and the loan to the borrowed borrower, FR, FT, FU, FV.

Sector It seems that a loan for the implementation and operation of a construction project of FN building was based on a single criminal intent, so it is deemed that the said borrower and the borrower are the same.

An act of breach of trust in relation to multiple times constitutes a crime of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by means of credit extension to major shareholders.

This provision shall also apply to the application.

16) Of the facts of the crime, the part of a loan to FX under paragraph (2) of the same Article is a separate single loan for the purchase and operation of FO building.

Since it seems that the borrower was committed with criminal intent, the act of breach of trust in several times related to FX constitutes a single crime. This constitutes a single crime.

The same shall also apply to the application of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act by credit extension to shareholders.

17) Of the facts constituting the crime paragraph 2, the part of the loan to the borrower FW is a loan for the acquisition and management of the FP at the time of Kimhae and the F Q Q each land.

In addition, since it seems that it was based on a separate criminal intent, the act of breach of trust in several times related to the FW by a borrowed borrower is included in a single criminal intent.

The Mutual Savings Banks Act shall be constituted. This provision shall also apply to the application of the violation of mutual Savings Banks Act through credit extension to large shareholders

18) Of the facts constituting the crime paragraph 2, the loan to KN is a loan for the purchase and operation of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government KO land.

Since it seems that the act of breach of trust related to KN was committed with a separate single criminal intent, the act of breach of trust in two instances related to the name borrower shall be included in the crime.

shall also constitute a crime of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of major shareholders.