Housing Gangwon-gu Armed Forces

2. Red ○ mark (600306-1);

Housing home home-si

3. Oral bank (600430-1).

Housing Gangwon-gu Armed Forces

4. Kim ○ (610402-1),

Housing Gangwon-gu Armed Forces

5. ○○ (740501-1)

Housing home home-si

G. Jinhee (prosecutions) and Kim Jae-ho (Trial)

Judgment

Defendant Kim Jong-ok is not guilty.

Defendant ○○○, Red○○, O○○, and Lee ○○, the appeal by the Prosecutor, Defendant Kim ○, Red○, and Orala

All appeals against subparagraph are dismissed.

The summary of the judgment on the defendant Kim Jong-ok is publicly announced.

A. Defendants

(1) As to the crime related to the loan of KRW 690,000,000,000,000,000,000

(A) Defendant Kim ○

The purchase and sale price of 40-1,000,000 and 42 forest land (hereinafter collectively referred to as "low-income forest"; each land shall be specified only with its lot number and land category) shall be 1.2 billion won, and 6.90,000 won loans to new corporations shall be made within 80% of the appraised amount less than the real purchase price based on an interview among agricultural cooperatives on the ratio of facility loan to new corporations, and there was no problem. Therefore, the intention of breach of trust cannot be recognized. Even if the failure to comply with the domestic loan regulations constitutes occupational breach of trust, the damages incurred by ○○ Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "cooperative") cannot be deemed to have caused KRW 69,00,000,000,000, which is the full amount of the loans, and as long as the loan cannot be arbitrarily disposed of by the ○○ Industry Co.,,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○ Industries").

(B) Defendant Red ○○

The actual transaction price of the forest land by agent was 1.2 billion won, and the defendant ○○ declared that the actual transaction price of the forest land by agent was 1.2 billion won, and the defendant ○○ approved the loan and trust, so there was no intention of breach of trust in the course of business.

(C) Defendant 20

In lending KRW 690,00,000 to a union, which is a right to collateral security, withdrawn reasonable measures to secure the recovery of loan claims by establishing a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 897,00,00,000, and Defendant Kim Jong-won believed and lent the purchase amount of forest land on his behalf to be KRW 1.2 billion. As such, there was no awareness that the act of breach of trust or the act of breach of trust would inflict property damage on the union. Even if the intent of breach of trust was recognized, the loan of KRW 690,00,00 is a special circumstance in which the U.S. ○○ industry cannot arbitrarily dispose of the loan amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of property damage on the union.

(2) As to the Defendants’ crimes related to KRW 1.29 million loan

(A) Defendants

OO0-25 square meters of land for 116-3 forest land and 9,063 square meters of buildings, such as 116-3 forest land and 116-3 forest land and 1.5 billion won borrowed from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and there was a need to repay the same as soon as possible as possible, since O0 agricultural cooperatives purchased 1.5 billion won of mutual financial loans borrowed from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, it was not used in the business of O00, and there was depreciation every year since O0 did not use O0 real estate. In particular, as the ownership of O0 real estate exceeds 10% of the fixed assets ratio of the association, it was impossible to make a new investment in the association. Moreover, the Defendants, who were the officers and employees of the association, were not able to acquire O00,000 won of real estate as a collateral for non-business use, and thus, it was not necessary to promptly dispose of O0,000,000 won of real estate.

(B) Defendant Kim-○

The defendant is not a "person who administers another's business" or "person who administers another's business," but has not recruited and processed the act of breach of trust in this case.

(C) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (the sentence of imprisonment for three years, the suspended sentence of five years, the sentence of imprisonment for two years, the suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years, the defendant Red ○○, the defendant’s name, the defendant’s name, the defendant’s name, the defendant’s name, and the two-year suspended sentence of one year and six months, and the suspended sentence of three years) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant ○○ Kimwon, Red○○○○, and OO○○ is too unfilled and is therefore urgent.

2. Determination

A. The court below's judgment on the crime related to the loan of KRW 690,000,000,000,000,000,000

Whether or not to mistake mistake

(a) Sales price of forest land as a subordinate agent;

Defendant 00 million won is 1.20 million won or more. However, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant 2: (a) on September 4, 2009, the police officer sold 1.2 billion won or more; (b) on the 600 billion won or more; (c) on the 1.4 billion won or more; (d) on the 600 billion won or more; (e) on the 1.g., on the 2000,000 won or more; (e., on the 1.g., on the 600,000 won or more; (e., on the 1.g., on the 4 billion won or more; (e., on the 600,000 won or more; (e) on the 1.g., on the 600,000 won or more; and (e) on the 1.g., on the 604 billion won or more, on the 7000,00 billion won or more.

(2) Whether there was an intention in breach of trust

(A) Defendant 20

Defendant 00 million won at the time of lending to the investigative agency stated that there was no 700 million won in the fact that the sales price of the hybrid forest was 700 million won at the time of lending to Defendant ○○, and the prosecution stated that this ○○○ was instructed that the purchase price of the forest by proxy was 1.2 billion won and how much loans could be given. Defendant ○○ asked the recent head of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the Vice-Financial Credit Union Federation at the time on the premise that this ○○○ was 1.2 billion won in the sale price of the forest by proxy. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be said to prove that the Defendant ○○ was 70 million won in the actual purchase price of the forest by proxy without any reasonable doubt that the actual purchase price of the forest by proxy was 70 million won at the time of selling the forest by proxy.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and various circumstances revealed by the court below and the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that even if the trading price of the forest by this sub-party to this sub-party was 700 million won or less, Defendant 00 million won did not take reasonable measures, such as obtaining sufficient collateral to ensure the recovery of loan claims, and making loans to the ○○ industry without taking any reasonable measures, and in violation of the credit operating manual, which is a relevant provision, the lending company took place in violation of the credit operating manual, and, thereby, was aware of the fact that there was a risk of causing damage to the association at least.

First, the defendant Lee ○ did not observe the credit operation manual.

As to the reasons and reasons for lending KRW 690,000 to the USO0 industry at the prosecutor's office, Defendant Kim ○ was instructed to review whether it is possible to grant a loan since there is a lack of purchase funds for his own real estate to sell it to the US ○○○○○○ industry. After receiving an application for a loan from the US ○○ industry, Defendant ○○ stated that the business plan and Internet search data, on-site visits to public sites offered as security, answers by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation employees related to the new corporation loans, and written appraisal and assessment have been conducted in good business feasibility, and that it was given a loan to KRW 690,000,000,000,000 from the new corporation's installer's gold support condition.

In general, when an association grants a loan, it is recognized that ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○”) grants a loan based on the loan operating manual issued by the mutual financing division of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “the loan operating manual”). According to the above, the instant loan should be based on the lower amount of the appraised value and the actual sales value as a collateral for the ○○○ industry, and thus, the loan should be made within 5%, which is the standard for the recognition of collateral for non-residential real estate. Thus, even if the Defendant ○○ (i.e., the ○○○○) did not verify the actual sales value of the 1.2 billion won, the instant loan should not be made within 80% of the appraised value, but only within 5.5% of the appraised value (i.e., the 21,54m total appraisal value of the 364,360,900, 500, 450,000 won, 50,000 won, etc.).

Even if Defendant Lee ○-ok loaned a loan on the basis of the above questioning and answer materials, according to the credit operating manual, the loans should be granted based on the amount of loans available on the basis of the calculation of limit on facility funds above 80% of the required facility funds in accordance with the credit operating manual. However, without considering the above circumstances at all, Defendant Lee ○-ok merely carried out a loan on the basis of the amount of appraisal and assessment.

In addition, since the above question and answer materials used as the basis for the loan by Defendant Lee ○-hwan appear to be an speculation rather than a normal case, it gives attention to applying 80% of the appraised value, which is the lower amount of the sales contract amount and the appraised amount, based only on the above question and answer materials only based on the above question and answer materials, which are merely the reference materials, the Defendant Lee ○-hwan does not lend within the scope of 80% of the appraised value, and it does not necessarily make a loan to the extent of 1.2 billion won after confirming the actual sales value, and in detail, after examining whether the sales value is 1.2 billion won or not, how the new operating manual prescribed the conditions for the support of the facility funds by the new corporation, it did not perform such obligations, even though it did not perform such obligations.

In full view of the above facts, the defendant Lee Jong-han did not comply with all the basic matters of the credit operation manual, which is the relevant regulations, while withdrawing the USO industry 6.9 million won on behalf of the USO industry. In light of his career, it is reasonable to see that the provision was intentionally neglected to lend money to the USO industry as much as possible as possible on the basis of the loan operation (one year and six months from September 2009 as at the time of lending from September 201) rather than putting the relevant regulations on the basis of his business accommodation at the time of lending on around March 201, 201.

Second, the circumstances that interfere with the loan of the OO industry by the Defendant ○○ constitutes an obstacle.

I intentionally reduced the amount.

At the time of loan of KRW 690,000,000 for the construction cost, the creditors were under lien of KRW 89,000,000,00 for the loan, and the creditors were under lien in a subordinate forest. At the subordinate agency, there was no sufficient financial condition to pay 10,000,000 won of the fuel for the equipment of civil engineering works. The Defendant Lee ○○ was aware at the time of loaning these circumstances. Nevertheless, this was not stated in the examination report related to the loan, and the Defendant Lee ○ did not deduct the amount of the secured claim of lien or the amount of credit oil from the amount of appraisal at the subordinate agency. The Defendant Lee ○ did not make a negative report on this reason from the prosecutor’s office before the loan review committee was made, but did not make a report on the lien and credit payment on March 15, 201, but did not make a statement on this date.

However, the above circumstances are one of the circumstances that may seriously suspect the ability to repay the U.S. industry. In particular, the U.S. industry was currently trying to obtain a loan of KRW 690 million,000,000,000 as it did not repay a debt of approximately KRW 100,000,000. The Defendant Company confirmed the actual purchase amount of forest land by agent, and should have checked whether the loan can be fully collected even by agent at auction, and if necessary, other collateral should have been required for the U.S. industry. Nevertheless, the Defendant Company’s lending a loan of KRW 690,000,000 to the U.S. industry without taking such measures ought to be deemed to have been aware at least of the fact that it would inflict damage on the partnership in violation of its duties.

(B) In the case of Defendant Kim ○:

Defendant 00 million won was not paid KRW 89 million for construction work in the U.S.O0 industry. While the U.S. ○○ Industry was well aware that it was insufficient at the time of payment due to the failure to pay KRW 10,000,000 for oil, Defendant Kim Jong-won approved to lend KRW 690,000,000 to the U.S. ○○ industry as collateral for real estate of KRW 700,000 at the market price (the forest land was sold in KRW 530,000 on February 21, 2013) while it was well aware that the Defendant ○○○ industry was unable to secure sufficient collateral to recover the loan claims in the process. Therefore, it should be deemed that the Defendant ○○○ industry was aware that the damage to the victim union was inflicted.

As to this, Defendant Kim Jong-won argued that he had no intention in breach of trust because he knew of the loan regulations, and believed that ○○○ industry was in a temporary cash-raising, but if ○○○○ did not have his instruction or approval, he did not have any reason to make a loan of KRW 6.9 million to the ○○ industry in violation of the loan regulations. Therefore, this assertion is difficult to believe, and so long as Defendant Kim Jong-won knew that 6.9 billion won was loans to the ○○ industry in short amount of KRW 700 million in real estate as security, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention in breach of trust. Further, Defendant Kim Il-won thought that ○○○ industry had been in a temporary cash-raising color. However, in light of the fact that ○○○○ industry had no reason to view that ○○○ industry had been in a serious situation where ○○○ industry was in excess of 10 million won in consideration of the demand for payment as well as other claims, it should also be viewed that ○○ industry had paid part of the above funds.

(C) In the case of Defendant Red Cross:

Defendant Red ○, when selling and buying real estate and lending the real estate as collateral, was aware that the loan was made on a lower basis by comparing each amount and the appraised value. Defendant Red ○○○○○ was granted a loan of KRW 500 million at the association when purchasing forest land and forest land in mountain 40-1 and mountain 42, and Defendant Red ○○○○○ was in a position to fully know the real transaction value of subordinate forest land by examining and approving the loan at the time. Nevertheless, Defendant Red ○○○ approved the loan examination document without confirming the “actual purchase amount or the estimated market value.” In particular, Defendant Red ○○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ , which was first released by the prosecution, stated that Defendant Red ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ , who sold his own land to ○○ ○○○ industry without examining the loan regulations. In full view of these circumstances, Defendant Red ○ ○ ○ , who was sufficiently aware that Defendant 600,000 won was in violation of the loan regulations.

(3) Whether the risk of property damage has occurred

Where a crime of occupational breach of trust is established due to an insolvent loan, the amount borrowed in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount that is impossible to be recovered is not deemed as the amount of damage, but the total amount of the loan with the risk of causing property damage is deemed as the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do28, Mar. 24, 2000). In addition, “when a person causes property damage” includes not only the case where a person actually causes property damage but also the case where a risk of causing property damage is generated, and as long as the damage was recovered later, the crime of occupational breach of trust does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if the damage was recovered later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7435, Jul. 12, 2012).

Therefore, inasmuch as Defendant Kimwon, Red○○, and Lee ○○ (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as Defendant Kim○, Red○, and Lee ○○○, collectively referred to as Defendant Kim Jong-won, Defendant 2, hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “Defendants”) neglected this loan-related provision and loaned KRW 690 million in excess of the value of the collateral, the full amount should be deemed as the amount of damages caused by the Defendants’ breach of trust in performing their duties.

Defendant Kim Won-won, in the process of examining whether the loan of KRW 690 million is possible, agreed to repay the existing loan to the association of Defendant Kim Won-won with the maximum number of loans actually operated by the U.S. industry and the new loan to the U.S. industry. Furthermore, in order to prevent the arbitrary use of the new loan in violation of the above agreement, the U.S. industry did not apply to cash withdrawal card or Internet banking in the course of opening the loan account against the association. Defendant Kim Won-won did not apply to the association. Defendant Kim Won-won did not have a risk of incurring damage to the association because it had all financial data, such as the head of the Tong and the U.S. industry seal on the above account before the loan was implemented, and it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of incurring damage to the association because it did not change the existing loan amount to the 600 million loan amount, and even if there were some risks, Defendant 300 million loan amount cannot be viewed as damages to the association (see Supreme Court Decision 2010 million won, supra).

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendants violated the duty of free trade, and thereby unfairly 6.9 million won, thereby causing damage to the union. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts concerning the crime related to KRW 1.29 million loan

(1) Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants are executive officers and employees of the cooperative. The Defendants have a duty to provide loans in accordance with the credit operating manual when making a loan of real estate as security. The Defendants, around July 12, 2010, in compliance with the above occupational duty, failed to comply with the above provision, but in light of the above provision, the Defendants used the loan procedure to secure the real estate as security, and applied the provisions of the credit management operating manual for the disposal of non-business assets purchased by the agricultural cooperative, the creditor who applied for voluntary auction, participating in the bidding to recover the claim, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,650,000,000,000, excluding the down payment of KRW 35,000,000,000,000 won, calculated by applying 80,000 won, excluding the down payment of KRW 1.29,200,000,0000,000,000 won, which is adjacent to the loan amount of KRW 1.2,920,000.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) among the facts charged in this case was committed in consideration of the following facts: (a) although the Defendants conspired to provide funds for purchase to the ○○○○○○○, the purchaser, in violation of the business duty to proceed with the procedure for the secured loan in accordance with the credit operation manual of the ○○○○○○ Union; (b) the Defendants applied the debt management operating manual by making it possible to secure the recovery of the loan credit; or (c) there was a perception that the Defendants would cause damage to the ○○○○○○’s association without taking reasonable and reasonable measures, such as obtaining sufficient collateral to secure the recovery of the loan credit; and (d) the physical and human collateral was provided at the time of the loan; and (e) the total amount of the loan should not be deemed as the amount of damage, rather than the total amount of the loan should be deemed as the total amount of

(3) The judgment of the court on the defendant Kimwon, Red○○, Ohoho Lake, and Lee ○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's 's 's 's 's ')'

(A) Whether a loan of KRW 1.29 million has violated internal regulations (with respect to the defendant's assertion that the loan of KRW 1.29 million was against the defendant's

1) Whether it is an asset used for business purposes of the Rose of Sharon real estate

The register of the acquisition and management of fixed assets of the association is treating the low-income real estate as fixed assets.The fixed assets of the association are real estate (land, buildings, structures, etc.), movable assets (such as machinery, equipment, ships, vehicle transport equipment, tools, fixtures fixtures, livestock) and their appurtenance, other assets (lease deposit, etc.), and intangible assets (fixed Assets Management Regulations (Article 3 subparag. 1). The fixed assets are all assets for business purposes. On the other hand, the term "property for non-business purposes" in 2010 issued by mutual financing and financing of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation is real estate, movable assets, and other property rights which were acquired for the collection of non-business assets. The term "property for non-business purposes" means real estate, movable assets, and other property rights which were acquired through the auction of the court for the secured assets held and managed by the association for business purposes, and after the purchase becomes final and conclusive, it is naturally defined that the assets are not purchased for non-business purposes by offsetting the assets under Article 143(2) of the Civil Execution Act.

2) Whether a loan of KRW 1.29 million violates internal regulations

When the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, the credit management operating manual is a provision for loans, and the credit management operating manual is a provision for the disposal of non-business assets (the collection provision after the execution of loans), and when the loan is implemented, the credit management operating manual shall be applied, and the above credit management operating manual is a provision that is entirely related to the loan.

However, since a loan of KRW 1290,000 was executed as a collateral for real estate, the Defendant is not able to make a loan on the basis of the credit management operating manual, and the loan provisions of the credit management operating manual must be extended in near future. According to the credit management manual, only the credit rating of KRW 6,000 may be extended to the merchants of KRW 6,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

As to this, Defendant OOO does not assume that both the credit operating manual and the credit management operating manual in this case acquired real estate for the purpose of business, but they cannot be used for the purpose of business, and thus they cannot be used for the purpose of business, and there is no separate provision to apply the provisions of the credit management operating manual in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to apply the provisions of the credit management operating manual in this case. However, this case is not a case where there is a lack of regulation as to the issue where it is obvious that the provisions of the credit operating manual should apply because the real estate was sold for business purposes and the real estate was loaned as security. Defendant OO

(B) As to the assertion that the act of breach of trust was not committed

In accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the association did not purchase and use the patriarch real estate in its business, and thus depreciation occurs each year. Interest arising from the loan of 1.5 billion won for the purchase of real estate occurred, and the fixed asset ratio is more than 100% and it can be recognized that it was a situation in which it is impossible to invest in the new business because the fixed asset ratio is more than 100%. However, even if it is necessary to dispose of the patriarchal real estate urgently, it can be said that the defendants took adequate measures to recover the loan, such as securing physical and human security, so that the union does not incur any loss in the course of the execution of the loan, but the defendants' act

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendants extended 1.2.9 million won to Lee Jong-ia as collateral, and set up a mortgage on the low-carbon real estate as joint and several sureties. However, the appraised value of the low-carbon real estate (the appraised value of part of the low-carbon real estate was removed by ○○○○○) at the auction procedure is less than 1.11 billion won and less than the loan amount (the appraised value of the low-carbon real estate as of September 21, 2006, which had existed, was less than 1.524,521,00 won and the appraised value of the high-carbon real estate as of September 21, 2006, which was considerably lower than the appraised value. Thus, if the defendants secured as such, it is reasonable to view that the above appraised value of the real estate was less than 92,500,000 won and there is no reasonable ground to view that the real sale value of the real estate was less than the appraised value of the land.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ○○○○○, on April 5, 2010, borrowed part of the purchase and sale contract for 3,50,000 won for Hu○○○○, which entered into with the association on April 5, 2010, and the union borrowed 1,290,000 won to ○○○, Inc. on July 12, 2010, and ○○○, ○○, Inc., extended 1,290,000 won to ○○○○, Inc., 1,200,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 4,000 won for 4,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 1,000 won for 3,000,000 won for 1,000 won for 2,000 won for 2,00 won.

(C) On the assertion that there was no intention of occupational breach of trust

First, we examine the argument that disposal of the patrial real estate and the loans therefor are made for the partnership.

In the crime of occupational breach of trust, even if the defendant had the intention to infringe on his own interest, if it is only an incidental, and if it is revealed that the intention to gain or gain profit or gain profit is the principal, the intention of the crime of occupational breach of trust shall be committed. If the employees of a financial institution have extended a loan in full without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as receiving sufficient security to secure the recovery of the right to borrow the loan, it is difficult to view that there was no perception that the third party would obtain property benefits and incur damages to the financial institution (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679, Feb. 11, 2003).

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the cooperative purchased Dog-ri real estate in order to promote the Dog-ri business in 2007, and it became impossible for neighboring residents to proceed with the Dog-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si, which was exempted from the acquisition of Dog-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri real estate, and the association paid 1.5 billion won borrowed from the National Agricultural Cooperative Association to acquire Dog-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri real estate at an annual interest rate of 5% per annum for the 1.5 billion won borrowed from Dog-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si.

Second, I examine the argument that the provisions of the loan management operating manual are applied to the Dogin real estate with knowledge that it is non-business property.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below, the union decided to lend 1.3 billion won as collateral under the contract from the time when it was intended to sell Doluri's real estate to Lee Byung-hee on September 16, 2009. The victim union was able to lend 1.3 billion won as loan from the time when it first entered into a contract with the real estate broker and the planning team leader of the union, etc. who was in charge of the purchase and sale of Doluri's real estate. According to the credit operating manual at the prosecutor's office, Maho-do, the company was unable to lend 1.3 billion won to ○○○, but it was stated that this ○○○ gave 1.3 billion won loan to all the examiners who prepared and approved the loan examination documents in line with 1.3 billion won. As such, it can be recognized that the amount of loan was within the limit of 1.9 billion won, regardless of the loan management guidelines set forth by the defendants.

Furthermore, 1.29 million won is the maximum amount of loans executed by the association. Nevertheless, it is difficult to recognize credibility because the defendants' provision that the funds for purchasing non-business assets should be provided within 80% of the remaining funds to those who intend to purchase non-business assets of the association is considerably violated the duties of the employees of financial institutions. Defendant 1 stated to the effect that, in cases where the prosecutorial office sells a loan to a third party, it would be difficult to consider the loan by applying the regulations on credit operating rules to the effect that even if the loan falls short of the loan amount required by the third party, the regulations on credit management business cannot be applied even if the third party disposes of real estate, and in particular, it is reasonable to consider that the loan was made to the 00 million won, and that the loan was made more easily by Defendant 1,000 won without examining the loan amount, and that the loan was made by Defendant 2 to the 00 billion won for non-business purposes by taking account of the fact that the loan was made by Defendant 1300 million won as a new loan management loan agreement.

In addition, Defendant 1’s assertion that, according to the direction of Defendant 1’s order, ○○ constitutes a non-business non-business asset of the Republic of Korea real estate of the Republic of Korea, Defendant 1 did not seem to have any doubt as to the fact that it was a non-business asset of the Republic of Korea. However, Defendant 1 was aware that the Defendants’ loan KRW 1.29 billion, which was internally determined by the credit operation manual, was unable to make a loan in accordance with the credit operation manual, and it is apparent that the credit management operation manual is not a provision applicable to the loan of this case, not to the loan operation manual, but to the case that the union takes out the loan and takes the loan back. Thus, Defendant 1’s loan also was aware of the fact that Defendant 2 violated the credit operation manual.

(D) As to the assertion that no loss has occurred to the partnership

When comprehensive evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the partnership may recognize the fact that 1.5 billion won borrowed from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation was repaid as a deposit for the purchase and sale of the real estate of the Sejong Sejong City, and that 227,753,425 won was exempted from its interest from its interest from 2010. However, on the other hand, the partnership may recognize the fact that 0,000 won was loaned to ○○○○, but it did not recover 564,50 million won out of its interest. Thus, even if the profit and loss was simply compared, it cannot be deemed that there was no damage to the partnership. Thus, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

(e) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it can be fully recognized that the defendant incurred a loss to the union by unfairly lending funds to the U.S. ○○ianian due to the violation of his duties, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any errors of mistake of facts as claimed by him.

(4) Judgment of the court on the defendant Kim Jong-ok

In order to assume the responsibility for occupational breach of trust against Defendant ○○○, there must be a prosecutor’s proof on the fact that Defendant ○○○ was aware that the loan of KRW 1.29 million was in violation of the internal regulations of the cooperative. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant ○○ was in charge of the sale and purchase of the real estate in the ancient City, and Defendant 1.29 million won was not a member of the Loan Review Committee who approved the loan of KRW 1.90 million. The fact that the other Defendants did not comply with the loan-related provisions is difficult to view that the obligation to verify the loan-related provision on the assumption that the other Defendants did not comply with the loan-related provisions, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone exceeds the extent of inquiring Defendant ○○○○’s possible loan of KRW 1.3 billion,000,000 for Defendant 1,290,000 won, and there is no reasonable doubt to deem that other Defendants in charge of credit business did not have any unfair knowledge of the loan of KRW 1.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant Kim Jong-ok guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong-ok is with merit.

C. Judgment on the assertion on unfair sentencing (excluding Defendant Kim ○, Defendant in this paragraph; hereinafter, Defendant in this paragraph)

When referring to the defendants other than ○ Kim Jong-ok, 'the defendants'

The Defendants caused large financial losses to the victim association by executing an unfair loan in violation of their duties. Defendant Kim ○○ is the president of the association, who is the representative of the association, and is responsible for overall control over the union's business affairs, and the degree of participation in the crime cannot be deemed to be negligible because he is in the position to manage the union's overall business affairs by assisting the president of the association. Defendant Da○○ also implemented an unfair loan in violation of the internal regulations of the association. Defendant Da○-ho and this ○-ho operated an unfair loan; Defendant 1290 million won economic damage suffered by the victim due to the instant crime; Defendant 129 million won was considerably large; Defendant ○○-ho did not properly take measures to recover damage from name of the same kind of crime; Defendant ○○-○ was subject to punishment; Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have been subject to punishment for the same kind of crime; Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have been subject to punishment for the same kind of crime; and Defendant 1290 million won cannot be deemed to have been able to have committed an excessive motive for the crime of this case.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by Defendant ○○ Kimwon, Red○○, and Lee Ho-ho, and Lee Jong-ho, and the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant Kim○○, Red○○, and O-ho, the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit, all of these appeals shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the appeal by Defendant Kim○-ok is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant Kim○-ok among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(

Parts of innocence

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) against Defendant Kim ○-in is the same as that of Paragraph 2(b)(1) of the judgment on the grounds of appeal in this case. This is without proof of crime as stated in Paragraph 2(b)(4) of the same Article, and thus, the judgment of innocence should be pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act,

Sym

Organic Smoking