(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

C. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

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

E. Occupational breach of trust

(f) Interference with business;

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

(h) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(i) Violation of Commercial Act;

A

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

IBI

3. b. (c) d.g.

ICT

4.(c) d. g.

A person shall be appointed.

G Law Firm (for Defendant A)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm I (For Defendant B)

Attorney J, K, L, M, N,O, P, QR

S Law Firm (for Defendant B)

Attorney T, U,V, W

X (for Defendant C)

Y, Z, AA

Law Firm (Limited) AB (Defendant D)

Attorney AC, AD, AE, AF, AG

The statements in the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of any statements in the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

The court below found all the charges of this part of the charges to the effect that the defendants violated the Mutual Savings Banks Act by allowing AH Bank and its affiliated banks to lend approximately KRW 4.5 and KRW 62.1 billion to each of the instant SPC, on the premise that the major shareholders or executives of a mutual savings bank under Article 37 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act are practically controlling their management, and that it constitutes "corporation meeting the criteria determined by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service upon approval of the Financial Services Commission," under the premise that each of the instant special purpose corporations (SPC) constitutes "corporation" as provided by Article 30 (2) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19448, May 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 22160, Dec. 31, 2010>

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below on this part is just and acceptable as it is in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as asserted in the grounds of appeal (it does not constitute "credit extension prohibited by Article 37 (1) of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act, even if each of the instant SPC was merely a nominal corporation entitled to receive a deduction of income amount under Article 51-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, as asserted by the Defendants).

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act") (Misappropriation)

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and C on the violation of the Special Economic Act due to the loan of the PF for the real estate implementation project of the AH Bank Group (Breach of trust) is that the lower court’s holding that each of the companies controlled by the AH Bank and that obtained pecuniary benefits due to the Defendants’ breach of trust (non-performing Loan) shall not be deemed as a breach of trust, since the interests are ultimately attributed to AH Bank.

However, each of the above SPC is a juristic person strictly separate from AH bank, the lending bank, and its affiliated banks. The court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that loans to each of the above SPC resulted in the risk of actual damage to the lending bank, and such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as not constituting the Defendants’ breach of trust. The above ground of appeal is without merit, and Defendant B asserted that there was no act of breach of trust, and there was no damage to the lending bank, and that the calculation of damages was erroneous.

However, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the original decision that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is acceptable as it is in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the allegation that the calculation of damages was erroneous is not made as a new ground of appeal filed after the lapse of the period for

B. As to the violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation of trust) due to loans related to Cambodia's business, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of all of the charges except for the part of the charges (1.3 billion won on January 16, 2009) on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justified in light of the relevant legal principles and records. In so doing, it is just in light of the legal principles asserted by Defendant B as the grounds for appeal.

There is no illegality in law.

3. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B as to the violation of each special law (Embezzlement) is just in light of the relevant legal principles and records, and it is just in light of the relevant legal principles and the records to determine that the court below convicted all of the facts charged (the embezzlement for Defendant A’s repayment of personal debt and embezzlement related to the purchase and sale of land in the Daejeon District of the Daejeon District). There is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the Defendant B’s ground of appeal on each of the occupational breach of trust

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court’s judgment convicting all of the facts charged (an act of misappropriation relating to having a specific customer contact prior to the suspension of business to withdraw deposits) is justifiable as it is in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in

There is no illegality in law.

5. Examining the various circumstances indicated in the records, such as the motive for each of the instant crimes, the specific process, means and method of committing each of the instant crimes, the relationship between Defendant A and B, the degree of participation in the instant crimes, the amount of damage, the degree of recovery from damage, and the intent of the actual victims of the instant criminal punishment, as to the Defendants A and B’s assertion on unfair sentencing, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendants A and B, the lower court’s determination of the punishment is extremely unfair. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

6. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Park Poe-dae

Justices Ko Young-han