[2] The liability of the person who left the contest before the commencement of the enforcement and the method of displaying his intention to leave the contest

[3] The case holding that the defendant was not liable as a co-principal for the act of another co-principal prior to the conclusion of the crime of fire prevention and the act of committing fraud using it, since the defendant escaped from the conspiracy relation,

[2] As long as a public co-principal conspireds to commit a crime, even if he did not directly participate in the act of the crime thereafter, he cannot be exempted from the liability of the co-principal for the act of sharing shares by the other co-principal, unless there are other special circumstances. However, if a certain person among the co-principal desertss before the others reach the act of the conspiracy, he shall not be held liable as a co-principal for the subsequent act of the other co-principal, and the indication of his renunciation does not necessarily require to be explicitly expressed.

[3] The case holding that the defendant did not assume liability as a co-principal for the act of another co-principal by escaping from the conspiracy relationship before the other conspiracys reached the commission of fire prevention and fraud using it

2. The defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for four years, and by imprisonment for five years, respectively.

3. The original judgment; 113 days of detention before the pronouncement; 111 days; 20 days; 3. 4 days; and 102 days shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 5.

4.However, with respect to Defendant 5, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

5. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant 5, the general structure, fire prevention and fraud among the facts charged, and the Defendant 3 is acquitted.

6. To give public notice of the summary of the judgment against Defendant 3.

7. Defendant 6’s appeal is dismissed.

A. Defendant 1

(i)the point of law violation of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act, occupational embezzlement and mistake of facts concerning computer use fraud;

Defendant 1, as indicated in the judgment of the court below Nos. 2 and 3, as stated in the judgment of the court below, operated the deposit slips and computer terminals to deposit them into the non-indicted 2 account, and managed them into the non-indicted 1 livestock cooperative account, and deposited them into the loan account of the defendant 6 and his relative, etc. in the name of repayment of loans and interest thereon. However, although the defendant 6 made the aforementioned deposit into the computer terminal, he was able to actually deposit money in the amount of money handled within the P.M. or the number of days on the day of the day of the deposit, and he did not intend to do so at the same time in collusion with the defendant 6, etc., the court below recognized that Defendant 1 committed each of the above crimes in collusion with the defendant 6, etc., even though he did not have an intention to use them for any purpose other than business. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Fact-finding on occupational embezzlement, etc. in Article 13 of the Judgment of the lower court 1.

Defendant 1, as shown in the judgment of the court below No. 1, committed the crime of embezzlement, etc. of Nonindicted 1 Livestock Cooperative B while Defendant 2 worked in the livestock cooperative B deposit office, in collusion with Defendant 2 as shown in the judgment of the court below. However, Defendant 2 transferred to C Livestock Cooperative D branch and conspired with Defendant 1 of the judgment of the court below that he committed the crime of forging private documents, uttering of the above investigation documents, and occupational embezzlement, although Defendant 1 did not fully participate in the crime of forging the private documents, uttering of the above investigation documents, and occupational embezzlement, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 1 committed each crime in collusion with Defendant 2. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) The point of unfair sentencing

Defendant 1 committed the instant crime but endeavored to reduce damage. In light of various circumstances such as: (a) there was little benefit from the instant illegal loan; (b) the depth of the mistake and the number of self-denunciation, etc., Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor for three years sentenced by the lower court against Defendant 1 is too unreasonable, and the amount of the punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) Points of mistake of facts

Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 from August 1998 to commit each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below (excluding each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) of the list of crimes in the market) on January 1 of the judgment of the court below. However, despite the fact that Defendant 1 had never participated in each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, which was supported by Defendant 1 on June 3, 1998, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 committed each of the above crimes in collusion with Defendant 1, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous recognition of facts.

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the circumstances such as Defendant 2’s commission of the instant crime but attempted to reduce the amount of damage, there is little benefit from the instant illegal loan, and Defendant 2’s deep-depth pening and voluntarily surrenders to Defendant 2, the amount of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable, and the amount of the punishment is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 6

In light of the various circumstances such as the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s growth process and environment, and family relationship, including the fact that Defendant 6 was divided in depth of his mistake and has compensated for the total amount of damage, etc., the amount of punishment of imprisonment for one year sentenced by the lower court and the imprisonment for two years during the suspended execution is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 3

(1) Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles

Defendant 3, as a person in charge of Defendant 1’s loan-related business, was the subordinate employee, and did not meet the requirements for approval due to Defendant 1’s failure to meet the requirements for approval on the loan-related loan payment table, which was based on the loan-related loan payment table, the person in charge of Nonindicted 1 livestock cooperative B, but was deposited into the account of Defendant 1 with the approval of the person in charge of Nonindicted 1 livestock cooperative. However, this does not have obtained approval on the crime of occupational embezzlement committed by Defendant 1, but it was merely an act of negligence with Defendant 1’s planned deception without being aware of his criminal act by neglecting his supervision on Defendant 1, and it was merely an act of negligence with Defendant 1’s planned deception, and thus, Defendant 3 did not have an intent to obtain the approval on the act of occupational breach of trust or unlawful acquisition, and thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding, which found Defendant 3 guilty on the ground that there was no change in the amount of loans or interest payment, and thus, did not constitute an existing act of embezzlement (the judgment below).

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the growth process and environment of Defendant 3, and family relationship, etc., the amount of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 3 and the 2-year suspended sentence is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant 4

(1) The mistake of facts as to the fabrication of private documents, the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the occupational embezzlement

Defendant 4’s loan of KRW 380 million from Defendant 2 to Defendant 2, and the delivery of KRW 2.80 million among them was not made by Defendant 1, the subordinate employees of Defendant 2, but there was no fact that Defendant 2 asked or asked Defendant 2 to prepare a discount club business opening and operating funds, and there was no fact that Defendant 1 and 2 received such funds, so Defendant 1 and 2 did not conspired with the above Defendants with regard to each of the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below 1, which embezzled for Nonindicted 1’s money by forging or uttering private documents, such as a letter of loan transaction and a letter of money check, etc., and even though Defendant 4 did not know that the money that the above Defendants lent to Defendant 4 was embezzled by forging or uttering private documents, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 4 committed each of the above crimes in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous recognition of the facts.

(2) Fact-finding regarding joint intimidation

Defendant 4, as indicated in the judgment of the court below Nos. 6 through 8 of the judgment of the court below, did not have any intimidation against Defendant 1 and 2 in collaboration with Defendant 2, Nonindicted 4, and Defendant 5, as stated in the judgment of the court below No. 6 through 8, but the court below recognized Defendant 4 as intimidation with Defendant 4’s accomplice. The judgment of the court below erred by erroneous recognition

(3) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the motive and background of each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the growth process and environment of Defendant 4, and family relationship, etc., each of the punishments sentenced by the court below against Defendant 4 is too unreasonable.

F. Defendant 5

(1) Fact-finding regarding joint intimidation

As the judgment of the court below 1.8, Defendant 5, as stated in paragraph (8) of the judgment of the court below, made a little verbal abuse by Defendant 1 and 2's cell phone phone which is the victim, but did not threaten the victims, the court below acknowledged that the above defendant threatened the victims. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment

(2) Fact-finding as to general buildings, fire prevention and fraud

Defendant 5, along with Defendant 4, Co-Defendant 2, 3, 4, and Nonindicted 5, Defendant 5, etc., committed a fire-fighting act by promising Defendant 5 to put in a stock farm with fire on the lower court’s order on December 12, 199, and Defendant 5 to commit an act of fire-fighting in Smarket, but Defendant 5 did not commit an act of fire-fighting in collusion with Defendant 5 on the day of the crime of fire-fighting, and attempted to commit an act of fire-fighting in the first instance. Defendant 5 did not commit an act of fire-fighting in the first instance on the day of the first instance judgment, and attempted to commit an act of fire-fighting in the first instance judgment. Defendant 5 did not commit an act of fire-fighting in the first instance judgment, and did not commit an act of fire-fighting in the first instance judgment on December 9, 199. Defendant 5 did not err in the misapprehension of the first instance judgment on the day of the crime of fire-fighting.

(3) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the growth process and environment of Defendant 5, and family relationship, etc., two years of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the lower court against Defendant 5, and three years of suspended sentence are too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant 1

(i)the point of law violation of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act, occupational embezzlement and mistake of facts concerning computer use fraud;

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 6, etc. to operate a false deposit slip and computer terminal as shown in the judgment below No. 2 and 3, and deposited the probation funds of the livestock industry cooperative into Nonindicted 2’s account, and deposited them into the loan account of Defendant 6 and his relative, as the repayment of loans and interest thereon, and embezzled or defraud them into the loan account of Nonindicted 3, etc., and used them for purposes other than business. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Fact-finding regarding occupational embezzlement, etc. under Article 13 of the judgment of the court below 1.

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 2 who had worked at the livestock cooperative B deposit office, committed the crime of embezzlement of non-indicted 1 livestock funds at the time of consultation as shown in the judgment of the court below 1, as shown in the judgment of the court below 1, and Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 2, etc. even after Defendant 2 transferred to the C livestock cooperative D branch, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 committed the crime of forging each private document, uttering of the above investigation document, and occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below 1. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

(3) The point of unfair sentencing

In full view of the circumstances and results of the instant crime, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, criminal records, family relation, etc., including the Defendant’s age, occupation, personality and conduct, family relation, etc., Defendant 1’s sentencing against the above Defendant is deemed to be unfair because the lower court’s sentencing against the above Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) Points of mistake of facts

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 committed each crime listed in Article 1-1(1) of the crime sight table of the judgment below in collusion with Defendant 1. Thus, the court below did not err by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

In full view of the circumstances and results of the instant crime, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, criminal records, family relation, etc., including the Defendant’s age, occupation, personality and conduct, family relation, etc., Defendant 2’s sentencing against the above Defendant is deemed to be unfair because the lower court’s sentencing against the above Defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 6

Defendant 6 is divided in depth, and the amount of damage is reimbursed in full. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the background and method of the instant crime; (b) the method and method of the instant crime; (c) the character and character and history of the said Defendant; (d) family relationship and growth environment; and (c) the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments and records of the lower court against the said Defendant, including the following: (a) the lower court’s sentence against the said Defendant is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable to deem that the sentencing of the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 3

(1) Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, in case where the loan document was not prepared by the non-indicted 1 stable deposit office as a person in charge of the non-indicted 1 stable loan business, the defendant 3 violated his duty to confirm whether the loan was reasonable and whether the loan was received by himself. Although the non-indicted 1's subordinate employee did not meet the requirements for approval due to the absence of a certificate of loan on the loan prior to the decision of the court below 10, it can be acknowledged that the non-indicted 1 stable loan was approved by the non-indicted 1's account and the non-indicted 1's branch office's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 stable loan transaction without the consent of the court below 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's consent to the above loan prior to the decision of the court below. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant 1 who was an employee of the non-indicted 1's branch office's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's consent to the above loan agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant 3 guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that Defendant 3 had the intention of breach of trust. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the requirements on the criminal intent of breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

E. Defendant 4

(i)an erroneous determination of facts with regard to the fabrication of private documents, the uttering of a falsified document, and the occupational embezzlement;

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, in collusion with the defendant 1 and 2, who is an employee of the 1 livestock cooperative, in order to raise funds for opening business and operating funds, the defendant 4 can sufficiently recognize the facts of committing each of the crimes as set forth in the judgment of the court below 1. Thus, there is no error of law by erroneous recognition of facts in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Fact-finding regarding joint intimidation

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 4 jointly with Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 as indicated in the judgment of the court below 1.8, and the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 who are the victim was threatened with Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 was threatened. Thus, the court below did not err by erroneous recognition of facts, which affected the conclusion of the

(3) Ex officio determination

Before determining the Defendant 4’s assertion of unfair sentencing, each of the lower judgment against the above Defendant constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, insofar as a member of the union concurrently deliberated and tried on it, only one principal sentence shall be sentenced under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained any more.

F. Defendant 5

(1) Fact-finding regarding joint intimidation

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 5 called Defendant 1 and 2's cell phone with the victim, as shown in the judgment of the court below No. 8 of the court below, and that the victim threatened the victims. Thus, there is no error of law by erroneous recognition of facts in the judgment of the court below,

(2) Fact-finding as to general buildings, fire prevention and fraud

In so-called so-called "joint principal offense", unless there are other special circumstances, the co-principal cannot be exempted from the liability for the co-principal's act of sharing shares by the other co-principal, but if a certain person among the co-principal desertss before the other co-principal reaches the action of implementation, he shall not be held liable for the other co-principal's act thereafter, and the indication of his renunciation does not necessarily require to be explicitly expressed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do2277, Apr. 20, 1972; 85Do2371, Jan. 21, 1986; 85Do347, Apr. 21, 197).

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the statement of the defendant 4 and 5 at the court below, the defendant 5 did not offer to the defendant 4 and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2, 3, 4's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized Defendant 5, in collusion with Defendant 4, etc. that committed general buildings, fire prevention and fraud under Article 9-2 (b) and (3) of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on common crimes and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 6’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant 3 and 5 is with merit. Thus, without examining the above Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant 1 and 2’s appeal on the issue of unfair sentencing is with merit. Thus, under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant 4 without examining the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing with respect to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the court below, and under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part on Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 among the judgment of the court below

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

1. Of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, Article 9-2 (b) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant 5 is deleted, and Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable, except for deletion of paragraph (10) with respect to Defendant 3.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions;

A. Defendant 1

(1) At the time of the original adjudication: Articles 231 and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(ii)At the time of original adjudication: Articles 234, 231, and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(3) Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment of the lower court 1 and 2 of the judgment: In general, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(d)The use of the funds of the cooperative for any purpose other than the original adjudication: Article 143 of the former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act (amended by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Jul. 1, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act"); Article 30 of the Criminal Code

(v)The point of each computer-based fraud at the time of the original adjudication: Articles 347bis and 30 of the Criminal Code;

(6) The point of occupational breach of trust in the original adjudication: Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

(7) Each occupational embezzlement in Article 13 of the judgment of the court below 1. : Overall, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2

(1)At the time of the original adjudication: Articles 231 and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(ii)At the time of original adjudication: Articles 234, 231, and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(3) Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment of the lower court 1 and 2 of the judgment: In general, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(d)The use of the funds of the association for any purpose other than the original adjudication: Article 143 of the former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Code;

(5) Each business embezzlement in Article 13 of the judgment of the lower court 1: In general, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 4

(1) At the time of the original adjudication: Articles 231 and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(ii)At the time of original adjudication: Articles 234, 231, and 30 of each Criminal Code;

(iii)The point of each occupational embezzlement at the original adjudication: in general, article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, article 356, article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Code;

(iv)The point of each joint threat at the time of the original adjudication: Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Code;

(v)At the time of the original adjudication: Articles 175, 166, paragraph 1, and 30 of the Criminal Code;

(6) Fire prevention in the original adjudication: Articles 166(1) and 30

(vii)At the time of original adjudication: article 347, paragraph 1, article 30, of the Criminal Code;

(8)The point of each check book at the original ruling: Section 2, paragraph 2, paragraph 1, of Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act.

D. Defendant 5

(i)The point of each joint threat at the time of the original adjudication: Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Code;

(2) At the time of the original adjudication: Articles 175, 166(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

2. Commercial concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act.

(a)Defendant 1, 2, and 4: Among the crimes of uttering of a forged loan transaction agreement under the name of the principal debtor as indicated in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 13 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the crimes of uttering of a counterfeited loan transaction agreement under the name of the principal debtor as indicated in the judgment of the court below and the crimes of uttering of a forged loan transaction agreement under the name of the principal

(b)Defendant 1 and 2: the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with Article 1 and 2 of the Judgment of the lower court, which are more severe than the punishment;

3. Selection of species;

(a) Crimes of forging private documents in judgment: Selection of imprisonment;

(b) Crimes of uttering of falsified investigation documents in judgment: Imprisonment;

(c)Violation of the former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act due to the use of the funds of the cooperative for purposes other than those of the market: Imprisonment;

(d) Fraud by using computers, etc. in its holding: Imprisonment;

(e) Crimes of occupational breach of trust in judgment: Imprisonment;

(f) A violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act: Selection of imprisonment;

(g) Fraud: Selection of imprisonment;

(h) Violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act: Selection of imprisonment;

4. Punishment of concurrent crimes: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 4).

5. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act.

(a)Defendant 1, 2: The punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in Article 1 and 2 of the Judgment of the lower court with the largest sentence and penalty;

(b) Accused 4: Aggravated increase in the penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) when the sentence is the largest.

(c)Defendant 5: Aggravated increase in the penalty provided for in the preliminary crime of fire prevention in an original adjudication with the largest sentence;

6.Discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to Defendant 1, considering the above circumstances);

7.Inclusion of Number of Days of Confinement in the United States: Article 57 of each Criminal Code (as regards Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5)

8. Suspension of execution of sentence: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (5) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant 5 of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case against Defendant 3 is as follows: "If the above lending document is not prepared when the lending document is approved to the extent that it is the person in charge of the lending business at the deposit office, the defendant shall not approve the lending prior to the payment prior to the loan. Although the above lending duty is to confirm whether it is legitimate and whether it is receiving the loan by himself, he violates his occupational duty, and at the deposit office around September 21, 1999, Defendant 1 acquired the above amount of money equivalent to KRW 50 million from his own deposit in order to embezzled the temporary funds at the deposit office at the deposit office around 21, 199, the defendant 1 acquired the above amount of money equivalent to KRW 70 million from the above deposit office by obtaining approval from the person in charge of the money withdrawal statement with the above false contents and making it possible to obtain the above amount of money equivalent to KRW 500,000,000 from the deposit office to the above 200,700,000 won from the above deposit office.

Therefore, as seen in the judgment on the grounds of appeal as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 3 had a criminal intent to commit a crime of breach of trust by allowing Defendant 1 to acquire KRW 285 million embezzled by failing to perform his/her duties in good faith by violating the trust relationship with Nonindicted 1 Livestock Cooperative, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the facts charged of this case against Defendant 3 constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and thus, it shall be acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment against Defendant 3 shall be published in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

2. Of the facts charged against Defendant 5, the summary of the general structure, fire prevention and fraud in the instant case is as follows: “Defendant 5, Co-Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 4, and Defendant 4 conspired with Defendant 4, Defendant 4, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 4, and Defendant 5, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 1, and Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, and Defendant 9, Defendant 9, Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 9, Defendant 9, Defendant 4, Defendant 2, Defendant 7, Defendant 9, Defendant 9, Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 4, Defendant 1, Defendant 6, Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 1, Defendant 5, Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 2, Defendant 7, Defendant 9, Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 7, Defendant 9, Defendant 2, Defendant 9, Defendant 3, Defendant 9, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 1.

Therefore, as seen in the judgment on the grounds of appeal above, Defendant 5 conspiredd with Defendant 4, etc. to prevent the crime and to use it to obtain insurance money, but it was not at the site because punishment was imposed in the case of the fire prevention of the Haman on December 199, and it was hard to say that the fire prevention again occurred and the crime of fraud using it could not be prevented to Defendant 4 who set the next day, and the other conspiracys left from the conspiracy relationship before they reach the action. Accordingly, Defendant 5 did not be held liable as a co-principal for the other conspiracys' acts after the escape from the above conspiracy relationship. Accordingly, since each of the above facts charged against Defendant 5 falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, it is sentenced to innocence as to each of the above facts charged against Defendant 5 in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Hwang Young (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)