When Defendant 4 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

Defendant 4 shall order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, 6, and 5 (Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court Decision 2008) are the loans of KRW 160 million on March 28, 2008; each occupational breach of trust due to loans of KRW 120 million on May 2, 2008; Defendant 5’s occupational breach of trust due to loans of KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009; Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 6’s occupational breach of trust; Defendant 1’s violation of the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to loans of KRW 1 billion on December 16, 2010; and Defendant 1’s violation of each Political Funds Act against Defendant 1.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 6 shall be disclosed.

○ 공소외 3 협동조합은 1983.경 설립된 이래 ■■■시 (이하 생략)에서 2010. 12. 현재 출자금 13억 7,000만 원, 예금 260억 원 상당, 대출금 합계 184억 원 상당의 자산을 보유하고 있으면서 위 조합 조합원 등을 상대로 예금수신, 대출업무 등 미인가 금융업을 하고 있다.

Defendant 1 was in office as the president of the non-indicted 3 cooperative from February 2006 to April 201, and has overall control over all of the affairs of the above non-indicted 3 cooperative such as personnel affairs, fund execution and management, accounting, etc.

Defendant 6 is in the position of the managing director of the above non-indicted 3 cooperative from around 2002 to May 201, and is in charge of the management of loans and claims under the management and supervision of Defendant 1, and is in charge of the appraisal and assessment of collateral, confirmation of appropriateness of appraisal and assessment, etc. at the time of a secured loan.

[Defendant 1]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Since Defendant 1 assumed office as the president, Nonindicted Co. 3 had been in possession of an amount equivalent to KRW 1,3770,000,000 investment and KRW 26,000,000,000, and Defendant 1 was in custody and management of the aforementioned amount.

이에 피고인 1은 위와 같이 공소외 3 협동조합의 자금을 관리·집행하고 있는 것을 기화로 조합 소유의 자금을 횡령하기로 마음먹고, 2007. 7. 27. 13:36경 위 공소외 3 협동조합 자금을 업무상 보관하고 있던 중, 공소외 3 협동조합 (계좌번호 1 생략) 농협 계좌에서 공소외 53 명의의 국민은행 (계좌번호 2 생략) 계좌로 4,010,244원을 송금하여 포천시 (이하 생략) ★★★상가 ▼▼▼호의 일부 매수대금으로 사용하고, 같은 날 14:20경 위 농협 계좌에서 공소외 54 명의 (계좌번호 3 생략) 농협 계좌로 32,000,000원을 송금하여 위 ★★★상가 ◐◐◐호의 매수대금으로 사용하여 이를 횡령한 것을 비롯하여 2007. 2. 8.경부터 2010. 12. 23.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표(1-1) 기재와 같이 공소외 3 협동조합 (계좌번호 1 생략) 농협 계좌 및 (계좌번호 4 생략) 국민은행계좌에서 피고인 명의의 금융 계좌 등으로 입금하거나 현금을 출금하는 방법으로 수차례에 걸쳐 공소외 3 협동조합 자금 7,104,289,910원 상당을 임의로 인출하여 피고인의 개인용도에 소비하고 별지 범죄일람표 (1-2) 기재와 같이 그 중 5,313,070,898원 상당만을 입금하여 공소외 3 협동조합 자금 총 1,791,219,012원(= 7,104,289,910원 - 5,313,070,898원) 상당을 업무상 횡령하였다.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and occupational breach of trust;

Defendant 1, along with Defendant 6 of the executive director of the above union, has overall control over the business of credit and credit management of Nonindicted 3 cooperative, and has overall control over the business of evaluating the appropriateness of collateral and checking the appropriateness of the secured loan.

In dealing with the loan business with Defendant 6 as above, Defendant 1 must not only review whether the real estate to be offered as security is suitable for security and has value as security through a field investigation, but also ascertain the appropriateness of the secured loan amount by ascertaining the transaction value and actual transaction value recorded in the copy of the register, and by taking necessary measures to recover the loan by implementing the loan pursuant to the provisions set forth in the non-indicted 3 cooperative, and thereby preventing damage to the non-indicted 3 cooperative.

A. Defendant 5’s loan of KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009 (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 6 and public offering)

Defendant 1, around August 2009, when the above non-indicted 3 cooperative extended a loan of KRW 300 million to the non-indicted 36 from the non-indicted 5 to the non-indicted 36 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 306 building in Gyeyang-si") and the Gunpo-si (hereinafter referred to as the "△△△△△△ apartment store in Gunpo-si") owned by the non-indicted 37 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 37") as collateral, Defendant 1 performed the loan business upon receiving an application for the loan, Defendant 1 was in violation of the duty of the non-indicted 306, the above non-indicted 306, the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000 and KRW 65,000,000 to the National Bank of Korea. Since the above △△△△ apartment was established with priority over the maximum debt amount of KRW 52,000,00 to the non-indicted 38,2008.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from Defendant 5, and suffered financial damages equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives.

B. A loan of KRW 270 million with Defendant 3 (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 6, and Defendant 3)

around May 209, Defendant 1, at the above non-indicted 3 cooperative, received a loan application from Defendant 3 to borrow KRW 270 million from the Jeonsung-gun (hereinafter “Yongsung-gun”) owned by the non-indicted 19 as security, and handled the loan business, Defendant 1, in the above (hereinafter, omitted), had the above non-indicted 27 set a senior collateral security right equivalent to the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million in the name of the non-indicted 27, as well as the total officially announced value of the above forests and fields equivalent to KRW 66 million. Since the total officially announced value of the above forests and fields exceeds KRW 66 million, Defendant 6, who is a regular manager, was well aware of the fact that the secured value does not reach the loan application amount, thereby having Defendant 3 as security. < Amended by Act No. 9738, May 27, 2009>

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby gaining pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 270 million from Defendant 3, and suffered pecuniary loss from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

C. A loan of KRW 300 million on October 21, 2009 (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 6, 3 and public offering) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 209

around October 209, Defendant 1 received an application from Defendant 3 for loan from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 20 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 20”) to demand a loan of KRW 300 million as security from Nonindicted Co. 29 and Nonindicted Co. 30 (hereinafter referred to as “forest in the field of the Gyeonggi-gun”), which was jointly owned by Nonindicted Co. 20 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 20”) and in dealing with the loan business, Defendant 1 purchased the above real estate in an amount equivalent to KRW 85 million from the purchase price at that time, and transferred ownership transfer (the purchase price at KRW 75 million in the register) to Nonindicted Co. 31 in a de facto marital relationship with him.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Co. 20, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted Co. 3.

D. A total of KRW 1.3 billion loans from November 23, 2009 to December 22, 2009 in the name of Nonindicted Company 20 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), Defendant 6, and 3]

Defendant 1, around November 2009, received an application for loan from the above Defendant 3 to request the above Defendant 3 to lend 500 million won to the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Yanwon Special Metropolitan City Forest”) owned by Nonindicted Company 20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Yanwon Special Metropolitan City Forest”) as collateral, and the above real estate was purchased at KRW 150 million around November 20, 2009, which was around the time of the above Nonindicted Company 20, around November 20, 2009, at the time of the loan application by the above Nonindicted Company 20, in violation of the Defendant’s duty with well-known knowledge of the fact that the secured value does not reach the amount of the loan application, and thus, the said real estate was loaned by Defendant 6 to the above Nonindicted Company 20 on the security of the said real estate in sum of KRW 500 million on November 23, 2009, Nov. 30, 2009, and December 2.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby gaining pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion from Nonindicted Co. 20, and suffered pecuniary loss from Nonindicted Co. 3.

E. 30 million won loan (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 6 and public offering) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 55

Defendant 1, around August 2009, in receiving an application for loan from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 55 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 55”) to lend KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Co. 56 to Nonindicted Co. 55 on the security of the Gyeonggi-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 55”) which was owned by Nonindicted Co. 55 (hereinafter “Non-Indicted Co. 55”) and dealing with the loan business, Defendant 1, who was in charge of the loan business, was aware of the fact that the above real estate was set by the senior collateral security right equivalent to KRW 260 million with the maximum debt amount to the new bank, and thus, was well aware of the fact that the secured value does not reach the amount of the application for the loan, and thus, Defendant 6, a managing director, violated

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Co. 55, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted Co. 3.

F. Loans of KRW 450 million in the name of Nonindicted 57 church (occupational breach of trust)

피고인 1은 2008. 5.경 공소외 3 협동조합에서 공소외 57 교회 담임목사인 공소외 58로부터 경기도 ■■■시 소재 토지 및 교회건물을 담보로 4억 5,000만 원 상당의 마이너스 대출을 해달라는 대출신청을 받고 대출업무를 취급함에 있어 위 부동산들은 피고인이 2007. 3. 8.경 5억 원에 낙찰받은 것으로 2008. 3. 31. 이미 공소외 59 협동조합에 채권최고액 5억 2,000만 원 상당의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있어 그 담보가치가 대출신청금액에 못 미친다는 사정을 잘 알면서도 피고인의 임무에 위배하여 위 공소외 57 교회에게 4억 5,000만 원 상당의 마이너스 대출을 해주었다.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 450 million from Nonindicted 57 church, and inflicted damages on Nonindicted 3 cooperative equivalent to the same amount.

G. A total of KRW 618 billion loan of Nonindicted 8 and KRW 500 million [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)]

Defendant 1: (a) around October 25, 2006, on the land located in Dongducheon-dong (hereinafter omitted) in Dongducheon-dong (hereinafter omitted), the wife of Non-Indicted 60,000 won of the maximum debt amount; and (b) around February 22, 2006, from around March 8, 2007 to around March 8, 2007, Defendant 1 created a mortgage worth of KRW 1,085,000,000,000,000 from the above association on December 21, 2006 to the above association as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including the creation of a mortgage worth of KRW 260,000,000,000,000,000,000 from March 10, 2006, and used it as the debtor, respectively.

On September 28, 2007, the Defendant received loans of KRW 230 million in the name of Non-Indicted 8, and KRW 388 million in the name of Non-Indicted 50,000 in the name of his father, respectively, from the above partnership office office around September 28, 2007, and repaid KRW 618 million in the existing principal and interest of loan as of the same day.

However, as seen above, the Defendant obtained loans equivalent to KRW 810,300,000 as security, and even if the Defendant received loans under another person’s name and redeems the existing principal and interest of the loans, the Defendant took measures to recover the principal and interest by taking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover the principal and interest so as to ensure that it does not incur property damage or incur damage to the said association.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his duties and did not receive any security in executing loans worth KRW 618 million in the name of Nonindicted 8, 50,000 in the name of KRW 61,00,000,000 from November 24, 2008, as well as arbitrarily cancelled the collateral security equivalent to KRW 260,000,000 of the maximum debt amount set up in Dongducheon-dong (hereinafter omitted) on November 24, 2008 and arbitrarily cancelled the collateral security set up between March 31, 2008 and August 21, 2009.

As a result, Defendant 1 violated his duties and acquired pecuniary benefits of 618 billion won, and caused damage equivalent to the same amount to Nonindicted Co. 3.

3. Violation of the Commercial Act, false entry in the original notarial deed and use of the original notarial deed;

Defendant 1 is a person who actually runs a non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-indicted 9”) established for the purpose of the construction of reinforced concrete construction business and housing construction business in Dongducheon-si (hereinafter omitted), and is in charge of determining and executing major policies on the overall management of the above company, including general affairs, accounting, public duties, and funds.

(a) Violation of the Commercial Act;

Defendant 1 had the intent to increase the capital of the said Nonindicted Company 9 by temporarily withdrawing the money owned by the said Nonindicted Company 9 from the date of his holding office as the chief director of the cooperative of Nonindicted 3 and paying the stock price of Nonindicted Company 9, immediately withdrawing it and returning it to the said cooperative.

Defendant 1, at around March 25, 2009, received the total amount of KRW 20,870,000 from the above 2.5 billion capital of the above company from the 6.5 billion to the 1.5 billion capital, Defendant 1 had no shareholders paid KRW 500,000,000 from the 6.5 billion capital in the name of the National Bank (Account Number 4 omitted) account in the name of the above association to the 3.5 billion account in the name of the non-indicted 9, the total amount of KRW 65,00,00 and KRW 70,000 in the name of the non-indicted 12,350,00 in the name of the non-indicted 630,000,000 won in the name of the above 6.5 billion capital in the name of the non-indicted 50,000,000 won in the above 6.5 billion capital in the name of the non-indicted 6.5 billion won in the above shares.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 pretended to pay KRW 500 million for the capital increase of Nonindicted Company 9 as above.

(b) Making false entries in the original notarial deed and uttering of the original notarial deed;

Defendant 1, around March 26, 2009, at the Dongducheon District Court 284-1, which was located in the Dongducheon-si Office of Dongbcheon-gu, 2009, submitted documents necessary for the registration of change of capital, such as a certificate of deposit of shares payment, to a registered official who is unaware of the circumstances despite the fact that the capital increase was made in Nonindicted Company 9, and on the same day, the above registered official made a false registration of the total number of shares issued and total amount of capital of the above company, respectively, and had the above registered official keep the commercial register stating the above facts at the same time and place.

As a result, Defendant 1 entered false facts in the commercial register, which is the original copy of the authentic deed, and had Defendant 1 keep the commercial register stating such false facts as above.

[Defendant 3]

피고인 3은 포천시 (이하 생략) ★★★상가 ⊙⊙호 소재 건설 시행사인 공소외 20 회사의 대표이사이면서 피고인 5를 통하여 피고인 1을 알게 되었다.

Defendant 3, as the president of Nonindicted Co. 3, who was in general in charge of the affairs of the said union, requested Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, who was in charge of practical affairs such as the full-time operation of the said union and the management, supervision, etc. of the said union, to provide a security with adequate property value necessary for recovery of claims, or to provide a loan with an excessive security at the request of Defendant 1, instead of providing preferential treatment, such as the so-called loan expansion or the purchase of a commercial building owned by the said Defendant 1. Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, as an executive officer or employee of the said union, were in violation of the occupational duty required for performing such loan business, thereby soliciting criminal acts by accepting the demand of Defendant 3.

1. A loan of KRW 270 million with Defendant 3’s name (occupational breach of trust);

around May 209, Defendant 3 requested the above non-indicted 1 and 6 to lend KRW 270 million to Defendant 1 and 6 the forest land (a total of KRW 66,007,240,000) owned by the non-indicted 19 as security. Defendant 1 et al. knew of the fact that the collateral value as stated in Article 2-B(b) of the criminal facts against the above defendant 1 does not reach the amount of the loan application, and provided the above real estate to Defendant 3 as security on May 27, 2009.

As a result, Defendant 3, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6, acquired the above loans of KRW 270 million and suffered property benefits equivalent to KRW 270 million, and Defendant 3 suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

2. A loan of KRW 300 million on October 21, 2009 in the name of Nonindicted Company 20 (Occupational Breach of Trust)

around September 2009, Defendant 3 received a proposal from Defendant 5 who was tried in a criminal case, such as fraud, from the Seoul Central District Court, to offer a formal security from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives, and received a loan, and accepted the proposal that he would raise his criminal agreement amount and the business funds of Defendant 3.

At that time, Defendant 3 purchased the forest land of Gyeonggi-do through a real estate business entity, and subsequently discovered the above Defendant 1 directly through several times, or requested the above Defendant 5 to execute a large amount of loans as security through the above Defendant 5. The above Defendant 1 also conspired to commit crimes by accepting it.

Accordingly, around October 209, Defendant 3 purchased the forest land of Gyeonggi-gun owned by Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 30 to Defendant 1 and 6 at the above partnership office, and requested to lend KRW 300 million as security, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 violated the duty by being aware of the circumstances that the secured value does not exceed the wheelchairs amount as described in Article 2-3(c) of the Criminal Act against Defendant 1, and offered the above real estate as security to Nonindicted Company 20 on October 21, 2009.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6, Defendant 3 acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from the above loans from Nonindicted Company 20, and Defendant 3 suffered financial losses from Nonindicted Co. 3’s cooperatives.

3. Loans equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion in total in the name of Nonindicted Company 20 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes]

피고인 3은 2009. 11.경 공소외 3 협동조합 사무실에서 피고인 1로부터 “조합에서 대출을 해 줄테니 내가 소유하고 있는 포천시 (이하 생략) 소재 ★★★상가 53개를 매수해달라.”라는 취지의 부탁을 받고 이를 승낙하였다. 이에 위 피고인 1은 피고인 3에게 “대출을 하려면 형식적인 담보를 갖추어야 하니까 부동산을 구해라.”라고 요구하였고, 피고인 3은 그 무렵 부동산업자를 통하여 강원도 영월군 임야를 구입한 다음 피고인 1에게 위 공소외 3 협동조합에 위 임야를 담보로 제공하고 13억 원 상당을 대출받아 위 상가 대금 및 상가 수리비용 등으로 사용하기로 서로 공모하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 requested Defendant 1 and 6 to lend KRW 500,000 to the above partnership office of November 23, 2009 the forest land owned by Nonindicted Company 20 as security, and Defendant 1, etc. in handling the above loan business, the above real estate was purchased at KRW 75,00,00,000 around November 20, 209, which was around the time when the above loan application was filed by Nonindicted Company 20, and was in violation of his duty with well-known knowledge of the fact that the secured value does not reach the amount of loan application, and continued to lend KRW 50,000,000 to the above Nonindicted Company 20 on November 30, 2009 as security, and continued to lend KRW 40,000,000,000 on December 24, 2009.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6, Defendant 3 obtained financial benefits equivalent to the total amount of KRW 1.3 billion from the above loans to Nonindicted Company 20, and Defendant 3 suffered financial losses from Nonindicted Co. 3’s cooperatives.

[Defendant 6]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Defendant 6, who was in the custody of Nonindicted Co. 3’s funds on October 16, 2009 by advertising that Nonindicted Co. 3 is managing and executing the funds of Nonindicted Co. 3’s cooperative, and around October 16, 2009, Defendant 6, who was in the custody of Nonindicted Co. 3’s funds, withdrawn KRW 60 million from the National Bank in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s (Account No. 4 omitted) account and deposited KRW 30 million for personal use from February 19, 2008 to December 22, 2010 as shown in attached Table No. 3-1, as in attached Table No. 3-1, Defendant 6 embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Co. 3 cooperative in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s bank (Account No. 4 omitted) with the Defendant’s financial account or withdrawal of cash in the name of the Defendant’s account (Account No. 1 omitted) and embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Co. 3 cooperative’s funds for personal use and deposited KRW 37303137,47.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and occupational breach of trust;

Defendant 6, as the executive director of Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives, has overall control over the business of lending and claims management of the above Cooperatives, and has overall control over the business of evaluating the appropriateness of collateral and verifying the appropriateness of secured loans. In handling the loan business, it is necessary to examine whether real estate to be provided as security is suitable for security through a field investigation, and in the case of buildings, such as commercial buildings, it shall be requested or perused to the competent tax office for data concerning the lessee, lease deposit, rent, lease term, etc. of the buildings, such as commercial buildings, and in case of land, the officially assessed individual land price for the pertinent year shall be confirmed, and in addition, the appropriateness of secured loan amount shall be verified by ascertaining the transaction value and real transaction value recorded in the copy of the register and the actual transaction value recorded in the copy of the register, and by taking necessary measures to collect loans pursuant to the provisions of Nonindicted

A. Defendant 5’s loan of KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009 (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 1 and public offering)

On August 18, 2009, Defendant 5, as indicated in Article 2-A of the criminal facts against Defendant 1, despite being aware of the fact that, around August 18, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 loaned KRW 300 million to Defendant 5 by requesting that Defendant 30 million be loaned to Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 as joint collateral of △△△△△△△△ apartment at the time of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, △△△△△△△, a building, and △△△△△△△△, a building on the building in question, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, in violation of their duties, knew of the fact that the above real estate actually fell short of the amount of the loan application due to its lack of real value

Accordingly, Defendant 6, in collusion with Defendant 1, obtained financial benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from the above loans to Defendant 5, and suffered financial losses from Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives.

B. Loans totaling KRW 1.87 billion in the names of Defendant 3 and Nonindicted Company 20

As indicated in the facts constituting the crime against the above defendant 3, the defendant 3 requested the above defendant 1 and the defendant 6 to provide a security with adequate property value for recovery of the claim, or to provide a loan with only an excessive collateral, prior to the loan. The defendant 1 and the defendant 6 violated the occupational duty required in handling the loan business as an executive officer or employee of the above union, and conspired to commit the crime by accepting the above defendant 3's demand.

1) Defendant 3’s loan of KRW 270 million (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 1, 3 and public offering)

Defendant 3, around May 2009, requested Defendant 1 to lend KRW 270 million to Defendant 1 on the security of the forest land in the Jeonsung-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (a total of 66,007,240 won of the officially assessed individual land price in 2009) owned by Nonindicted 19, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 violated their duties as stated in Article 2-B(b) of the criminal facts against the above Defendant 1. On May 27, 2009, Defendant 3 loaned KRW 270 million to Defendant 3 as security.

As a result, Defendant 6 conspiredd with the above Defendant 1 and 3 to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 270 million from the above loan to Defendant 3, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

2) Non-Indicted 20 Company’s name 300 million won loan (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 1, 3 and public offering) on October 21, 2009

On October 21, 2009, Defendant 6, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 3 on the criminal facts of the above Defendant 1 on October 21, 2009, provided a loan of KRW 300 million to Nonindicted Company 20 on the security interest of the forest land in the Gyeonggi-gu, which was jointly owned by Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 30 (the officially assessed individual land price of 2009, KRW 142,804,350) in collusion with Defendant 1 and 3 on October 21, 2009.

As a result, Defendant 6 conspiredd with Defendant 1 and 3 to obtain financial benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from the above loans from Nonindicted Company 20 and suffered financial losses from Nonindicted Co. 3.

3) A total of KRW 1.3 billion loans in the name of Nonindicted Company 20 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), Defendant 1, and 3]

피고인 3은 2009. 11.경 위 조합 사무실에서 피고인 1로부터 “조합에서 대출을 해 줄테니 내가 소유하고 있는 포천시 (이하 생략) 소재 ★★★상가 53개를 매수해달라.”라는 취지의 부탁을 받고 이를 승낙하였다. 이에 위 피고인 1은 피고인 3에게는 “대출을 하려면 형식적인 담보를 갖추어야 하니까 부동산을 구해와라.”라는 요구하였고, 피고인 6에게는 “ 피고인 3이 포천시 (이하 생략) ★★★상가를 인수해서 리모델링을 한 다음 대출을 받아 갚을 것이니 공소외 20 회사 앞으로 대출을 실행하라, 담보는 영월의 임야를 제공할 것이다.”라는 취지로 지시하자, 피고인 6은 위 지시를 따르기로 하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 6, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 3 on the facts constituting the crime of Defendant 2-d. paragraph (d) of Article 2-2 of the criminal facts against Defendant 1, committed a loan to Nonindicted Company 20 billion won in total of KRW 1.3 billion on November 23, 2009 by offering the said real estate as security, by being aware of the fact that the secured value of the forest land in Gangwon-gu (the officially assessed individual land price of 13,900,700 won in 2009) does not reach the amount of the loan application, and thus, in violation of his duties, Defendant 6 provided the said real estate as security, as well.

As a result, Defendant 6, in collaboration with Defendant 1 and 3, obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion from Nonindicted Company 20, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted Cooperative 3.

C. A loan of KRW 300 million in the name of Nonindicted Company 55 (occupational breach of trust, Defendant 1 and public offering)

On August 209, as stated in Article 2-e (e) of the criminal facts against Defendant 1, Defendant 3, at the above non-indicted 3 cooperative office, requested the above defendant 1 to lend 411/690 shares of 410 million won out of the land owned by the non-indicted 55 to the above defendant 1 as collateral, and the above defendant 1 instructed the defendant 6 to the effect that "when the defendant 3 had the loan documents, it would be possible to grant the loan, since the loan would be developed around the secured real estate, the loan will be done as collateral." The above defendant 6 also ordered the above defendant 3 to comply with the order.

Accordingly, Defendant 6 and Defendant 1 knew of the fact that the above real estate is short of the amount of loan application amount, and thus, they violated their duties, thereby lending KRW 300 million to Nonindicted Company 55.

As a result, Defendant 6 conspiredd with Defendant 1, in violation of his duties, obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Co. 55, and caused a loss to Nonindicted Co. 3.

[Defendant 2]

Defendant 2 was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution due to fraud, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court on October 23, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2010 and is still under suspended execution.

1. Violation of the Labor Standards Act;

The defendant is running a construction business with 30 regular workers as the representative director of non-indicted 4 corporation located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted).

The Defendant had worked from January 17, 2008 to July 12, 2010 at the above workplace, and paid KRW 25,138,100 in total, including KRW 2,842,610 in the wages of October 2008, and KRW 2,842,610 in the same year, and KRW 3,293,460 in the wages of December 12 of the same year, and KRW 3,488,320 in the wages of July 2010, and KRW 25,138,10 in the amount of wages of KRW 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned.

In addition, the Defendant did not pay the total of KRW 65,359,242 to 7 workers as stated in the “the details of confirming the amount of money and valuables in arrear.”

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and occupational breach of trust;

From July 15, 2009, Defendant 2 served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 4”) established for the purpose of the construction and operation of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul”) located in Dobong-gu, and has overall control over the above Nonindicted Co. 4’s financial management and execution, accounting and accounting affairs.

A. Occupational breach of trust equivalent to KRW 20 million related to Nonindicted 11

Defendant 2, around 2008, was liable for the debt amounting to KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 24 on real estate investment case. The above Nonindicted 24 transferred the above debt amount to Nonindicted 11, the actual owner of the said debt amounting to KRW 200 million, and Nonindicted 11 urged several times to repay the above debt amount.

Defendant 2: (a) around December 24, 2009, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted); (b) around December 24, 2009, Defendant 2 prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the effect that “The debtor Nonindicted Co. 4 borrowed KRW 200 million from the creditor Nonindicted Co. 11, and repaid it until March 16, 2010,” and delivered it to Nonindicted Co. 11.

On the other hand, on July 29, 2010, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 11’s succession to the claim, filed a claim seizure and collection order with the Seoul Northern District Court on July 29, 2010 against the deposit claims of the bank under the name of Nonindicted Company 4 on the ground of the authentic deed of the monetary loan contract (Seoul Northern District Court 2010 Ta 14591), and on August 9, 2010, issued a claim seizure and collection order from the above court.

As above, although Defendant 2 bears the debt burden under the name of the company for its business and did not bear it for its personal purpose, Defendant 2 violated its duty and caused Nonindicted Co. 4 to bear the joint and several debt liability of Defendant 2, thereby having Nonindicted Co. 11 gain pecuniary profits equivalent to the same amount, and caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to Nonindicted Co. 4.

B. Occupational breach of trust equivalent to KRW 30 million related to Nonindicted 12

Defendant 2, around January 16, 2003, received and used a cashier’s check of KRW 300 million at face value as borrowed money from Nonindicted 12, but in spite of the demand for repayment over several occasions of the above Nonindicted 12, it was eventually impossible to repay the same, and Defendant 2 was prosecuted against the Seoul Western District Court on October 21, 2009 upon the complaint of the above Nonindicted 12.

Defendant 2, around February 24, 2010, at the office of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Joint Law Office (hereinafter omitted), in order to repay personal debt of KRW 300 million, Defendant 2 prepared and presented a promissory note with Nonindicted Co. 4, Defendant 2, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 12 for the purpose of repaying the personal debt of KRW 300 million. The date of payment: January 22, 2010; the date of payment: April 30, 2010; the issuer: Nonindicted Co. 4; Defendant 2, and Nonindicted Co. 26.

On the other hand, on May 3, 2010, Nonindicted 12 requested the Seoul Northern District Court to order the seizure and collection of the claim against the deposit claims of the bank in the name of Nonindicted Company 4 on the ground of the authentic deed of the above promissory note (Seoul Northern District Court 2010TTTF 8079), and on May 6, 2010, Nonindicted 12 received the seizure and collection order from the above court.

As such, Defendant 2 issued bills in the name of the company for the business of the company, and did not issue bills for personal use. However, Defendant 2 violated his duties, thereby allowing Nonindicted 12 to obtain economic benefits equivalent to the same amount, and causing property damage to Nonindicted 4 to the same amount.

C. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) with respect to Nonindicted 13-related KRW 1.05 billion

On April 2010, Defendant 2 asked Nonindicted Co. 26, which was a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4, to issue and notarized promissory notes corresponding to them in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 in order to recover the check of the number of shares issued and delivered to Nonindicted Co. 26 to Nonindicted Co. 13, an individual creditor of Nonindicted Co. 26.

Defendant 2: (a) around April 19, 2010, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Law Firm 85 (hereinafter omitted); (b) in order to repay the debt amount of KRW 1 billion to Nonindicted 26, Defendant 2: (c) written and presented a promissory note, which is “Non-Indicted 4” and “Non-Indicted 13,” the date of issuance: (d) April 19, 2010; (e) the date of payment: July 30, 2010; and (e) the issuer: Non-Indicted 4 Company.”

On the other hand, on October 13, 2010, Non-Indicted 13 applied for a seizure and collection order against the bank deposit, etc. under the name of Non-Indicted 4 on the ground of the authentic deed of a promissory note to the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court 2010 Other 20769), and on October 29, 2010, issued a seizure and collection order from the above court.

As such, Defendant 2 issued bills in the name of the company for the business of the company, and did not issue bills for personal use. However, Defendant 2 violated his duties, thereby allowing Nonindicted 13 to obtain property benefits equivalent to the same amount, and causing property damage to Nonindicted 4 to the same amount.

[Violation of the Political Funds Act by Defendant 4]

Defendant 4, from February 6, 2006, as the president of the cooperative of Nonindicted 5 (the head office 1, branch 14, place of business 1, and 320 employees; hereinafter “Nonindicted 5 cooperative”) located in the Dong Government City from February 6, 2006 to the present, Defendant 4 represents the cooperative, and takes overall charge of all the affairs such as personnel management, accounting, fund management, and execution of the union’s executives and employees, and mainly performs duties concerning cooperative guidance and education.

1. Unlawful contributions of 8.4 million won for political funds of 2008;

A. Progress of disciplinary action against illegal loans to Nonindicted 5 Cooperatives

공소외 5 협동조합은 2006. 5. 30. 이사회를 통해 신용협동조합법에 따른 동일인 대출한도에 대하여 73억 원을 초과할 수 없도록 의결하여 공소외 5 협동조합은 동일인에게 73억 원을 초과하는 대출을 할 수 없었다. 그런데 공소외 5 협동조합 ◀◀지점장 공소외 64는 2006. 6.경 공소외 65 주식회사 대표 공소외 66으로부터 의정부시 (이하 생략) 5,600㎡ 등 총 22필지 145,500㎡의 매입자금 용도로 292억 원의 대출을 의뢰받고 위 한도제한을 회피하기 위하여 위 공소외 66에게 차명 채무자 7인 명의로 대출을 신청하도록 한 후 공소외 5 협동조합 상임이사 공소외 7에게 보고하고 간부회의를 통해 각 지점장들에게 위 대출건에 대하여 설명하여 공소외 64가 근무하는 공소외 5 협동조합 ◀◀지점을 비롯하여 공소외 5 협동조합 ▶▶▶지점 등 대출실적이 낮은 총 6개 지점에서 위 292억 원을 24억 원에서 50억 원까지 차명 채무자별로 나누어 대출해주기로 하였다.

이에 따라 2006. 10. 30. 공소외 5 협동조합 ▶▶▶지점에서 위 공소외 65 주식회사에게 차명채무자 공소외 67 명의로 40억 원을, 2006. 12. 29. 공소외 5 협동조합 △△△지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 56 명의로 48억 원을, 같은 날 공소외 5 협동조합 ◀◀지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 68 명의로 35억 원을, 같은 날 같은 지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 69 명의로 50억 원을, 같은 날 공소외 5 협동조합 ♠♠지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 70 명의로 24억 원을, 같은 날 공소외 5 협동조합 ▣▣지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 71 명의로 45억 원을, 같은 날 공소외 5 협동조합 ◑◑지점에서 차명 채무자 공소외 72 명의로 50억 원을 각각 대출해 줌으로써 위 공소외 65 주식회사에게 동일인 대출한도 73억 원을 초과한 총 292억 원을 대출해주었다.

At the time of the loan, the above non-indicted 65 corporation received a total of KRW 2.847 billion as interest at the time of the loan to the non-indicted 5 cooperative. Since April 29, 2008, the above amount was not paid interest and was in arrears. Ultimately, the head office of the non-indicted 5 cooperative managed the loan as non-performing loans. On September 24, 2008, the above non-indicted 65 was received in the name of the audit committee of the NAF under the name of the non-indicted 5 member of the cooperative, which is the non-indicted 5 member of the cooperative.

농협중앙회 조합감사위원회는 2008. 12. 22.부터 같은 달 24.까지 현지 확인을 통한 1차 감사를 실시하여 동일인 한도를 초과하여 대출한 사실을 발각하고, 2009. 1. 20.부터 같은 달 21.까지 추가 조사를 통하여 본건 대출을 ‘동일인 대출한도 초과를 회피하기 위한 분할대출 및 본·지소간 승인대출 승인조건 미이행’에 의한 사고로 확정하였다. 이후 농협중앙회 조합감사위원회는 2009. 5. 6. 본건 대출에 관여한 ◀◀지점장 공소외 64에 대하여 정직 3월, 상무이사 공소외 7에 대하여 직무정지 1월 등 총 19명에 대하여 징계를 의결하였다.

On July 21, 2009, the cooperative non-indicted 5 decided to take disciplinary action against the loan-related parties in accordance with the request for disciplinary action by the audit committee of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. On July 21, 2009, the non-indicted 5 decided to collect total of KRW 39.4771 billion including principal and interest, etc. through the method of transferring the loan to non-indicted 73 Co., Ltd., the real estate development business entity. On July 21, 2009, the non-indicted 5 decided to file a request for a new trial against the 15 other employees on August 30, 2009, and the above public notice was received by the National Agricultural Cooperative Audit Committee of the National Agricultural Cooperative on September 1, 2009. However, on October 21, 2009, the committee dismissed the request for a new trial as stated in the judgment below.

(b) Illegal contributions of political funds;

No one is allowed to contribute political funds with funds related to a corporation or organization. Nevertheless, the defendant has committed the following offenses:

On December 2, 2008, Defendant 1, the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 48’s supporters’ association, received a report from Nonindicted 7’s managing director upon Nonindicted 5’s request from Nonindicted 48 member’s supporters’ association, and directed Nonindicted 48 member’s supporters’ association to transfer support payments. On December 22, 2008, the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 conspired to contribute political funds to Nonindicted 48 member’s supporters’ association in advance to receive assistance in the future disciplinary proceedings.

The executive director Nonindicted 7 instructed the chief of the management innovation office to walk support money from his employees through the executive board meeting, etc., and Nonindicted 49, around December 30, 2008, ordered the person in charge of benefits to pay 84,000 won in lump sum from the funds to be paid for transportation expenses and food expenses to the 84,000 won of the executives and employees of the non-indicted 5 cooperative, and transferred the total amount of KRW 8,40,000 to the account of the non-indicted 48 member’s supporters’ association, and around that time, the person in charge of the non-indicted 5’s benefits sent a list of 84 members and employees of the non-indicted 5 cooperative to the above member’s supporters’ association.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 7 and 49, the Defendant contributed political funds with funds related to Nonindicted 5 Cooperatives.

2. Political funds of 9.8 million won in 2009 and illegal contributions of 5.6 million won in 2009; and

No one shall contribute political funds with funds related to a corporation or organization, and shall arrange contributions by unfairly coercing the will of another person through the use of business, employment and other relationship. Nevertheless, the defendant committed the following offenses:

2009. 3.경 공소외 5 협동조합 부근 식당 ‘ ◈◈◈’에서 위 피고인 1이 공소외 7에게 ‘ 공소외 5 협동조합에서 2008년과 같이 후원금을 기부해 달라’는 부탁을 하고, 같은 해 6, 7월경 위 피고인 1이 공소외 7에게 전화로 재차 후원금 납부를 요구하자, 피고인과 공소외 7은 위 1의 가.항 기재와 같이 의정부시 가능동 대출건과 관련하여 농협중앙회 조합감사위원회의 징계요구에 따라 2009. 7. 21. 공소외 5 협동조합 상임이사인 공소외 7을 비롯한 임직원 19명이 징계를 받고, 같은 해 9. 1. 농협중앙회 조합감사위원회에 15명에 대한 징계재심요청승인 공문을 접수시킨 후에 공소외 7을 비롯한 위 15명의 징계 감면을 위해 공소외 48 국회의원 후원회에 후원금을 송금한 후 공소외 48 국회의원에게 징계감면 부탁을 하기로 공모하였다.

The Defendant and Nonindicted 7, a standing director, directed the executive officers, including Nonindicted 49, to remit support money to Nonindicted 48 National Assembly members’ supporters’ associations for the purpose of political resolution of the disciplinary issue related to the Nonindicted 5’s loan doctrine through the managing innovation conference, etc., and for this purpose, Nonindicted 49 divided the employees of Nonindicted 5’s cooperatives into the first payer and the second payer. On August 10, 2009, the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 led 98 employees subject to the first payer to directly transfer the amount of KRW 10,000 to the account of Nonindicted 48 National Assembly members’ associations for each 56 employees subject to the second payer’s contribution around September 21, 2009, and then divided the total amount of KRW 1,560,000 into the said account by deducting the amount of funds to be paid to each 56 employees subject to the second payer’s contribution in the name of each 1,500,000 won.

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted 7 and 49, the Defendant assisted the contribution of KRW 9.8 million for political funds by unfairly coercing the will of others using business, employment and other relations, and contributed KRW 5.6 million for political funds with funds related to Nonindicted 5 Cooperatives.

3. Illegal contributions of 14.2 million won for political funds of 2010;

A. On February 4, 2009, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the Government) submitted to the National Assembly the first amendment containing ① expanding the establishment area of local agricultural cooperatives (Eup/Myeon ? City/Do) ② non-permanentization of cooperatives more than a certain size, full-time executive directors who are professional managers, ③ permanent appointment of the president of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and appointment of representatives, etc. (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”), and the National Assembly amended the Agricultural Cooperatives Act with the above contents at the end of the discussion on April 2009.

In addition, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the Government) submitted a second amendment to establish the Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the Agricultural Cooperative Financial Holding Company by separating the economic business and credit business of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation in order to change the name of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation on December 16, 2009 to the "Agricultural Cooperative Federation" and to reorganize the business structure of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and submitted the second amendment to establish the Agricultural Cooperative Group and the Agricultural Cooperative Financial Holding Company.

In the above amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, there were changes in the special provisions on the election of the existing chief director of the Livestock Industry (the provisions that the representative director of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation under Article 132(1) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act shall be elected at the representative meeting of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives, following the recommendation of the representative meeting of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives), and the portion of the livestock economy project is a standing director system under the jurisdiction of the representative director in lieu of the representative director of the livestock industry, and the above standing director shall be recommended by the personnel recommendation committee including four chief directors.

However, with respect to such government amendment, the Livestock Industry Association asserted and demanded the purport of the amendment against the National Assembly Agriculture and Food Fisheries Committee and all levels of society, under the position that "the Livestock Industry Organization is incorporated under the jurisdiction of the managing director, thus infringing on the expertise and independence of the livestock economy, and the independent representative election authority of the president of the livestock economy guaranteed by the Special Provision on Livestock Industry and the Special Provision on Livestock Industry is also maintained only under the pretext, so the Special Provision on Livestock Industry and Economy should be maintained as of the present system in order to guarantee the expertise and independence of the livestock industry."

B. Anyone is prohibited from contributing political funds with funds related to a corporation or organization, and a public official is prohibited from contributing political funds with respect to solicitation or mediation with respect to the affairs in charge and management. Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the following offenses:

Defendant 1, as the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 48 National Assembly member’s supporters’ association, called Nonindicted 7, a standing director of Nonindicted 5 cooperative, who had a real understanding of the existence, etc. of a livestock economic representative, around early 2010, asked Nonindicted 7, who was the standing director of Nonindicted 5 cooperative, to “In our country’s member of the National Assembly would be able to use the Special Provision for the continuation of the representative director of the livestock industry when revising the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and Nonindicted 7 accepted it.”

When Defendant 1 received a report from Nonindicted 7 on the fact that Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 5 to donate support money to continue the Special Provision on Livestock Industry when revising the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 7, such as ordering Nonindicted 48 National Assembly members’ supporters’ associations, and Nonindicted 7 instructed the head of the management innovation office through the executive council, etc., and Nonindicted 49 instructed the executives and employees of Nonindicted 5 to give instructions to the head of the management innovation office through the executive council, etc., and Nonindicted 49 instructed Nonindicted 5’s executives and employees through the executive council and the instruction letter to make a lump sum deduction of KRW 100,000 per individual from the funds to be paid monthly to them, and solicited the said member’s supporters’ associations to contribute political funds by way of collectively remitting one hundred thousand won of support money in the name of individual employees and employees of the said member’s association.

Accordingly, on March 26, 2010, Nonindicted 7 instructed a member of the National Assembly to remit support money to Nonindicted 48 member’s supporters’ association, and the Defendant and Nonindicted 7, around April 19, 2010, sent the total amount of KRW 14.2 million to Nonindicted 48 member’s supporters’ association in the official document prepared by the management innovation room, according to the approval, and sent the business liaison in which the unilateral order to pay support money was entered to each branch on April 21, 2010, to the employees of the said livestock cooperative, around April 21, 2010, after deducting the total of KRW 14.2 million from the funds to be paid monthly to 1.42 employees of the said livestock cooperative, and then sent the above list of KRW 14.5 million to Nonindicted 5 member’s supporters’ association in the name of 142 members of the National Assembly and KRW 14.25 million in the name of the said member of the National Assembly.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 7 and 49, contributed to the political funds of KRW 14.2 million in relation to the public official’s brokerage of affairs with the funds related to Nonindicted 5 Cooperatives.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 6;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 19

1. The defendant 6's partial statement (limited to the defendant 1 and 3);

1. The defendant 3's partial statement (limited to the defendant 1 and 6);

1. Entry of the statements made by each prosecutor's office (except six times, seven, nine times, and nine times,) with regard to Defendant 6, entry of each prosecutor's examination protocol (except eight times, nine times, nine times, nine times, nine times, nine times, and nine times, in the list of evidence) against Defendant 1, and entry of some statements in each prosecutor's examination protocol against Defendant 3;

1. Part of the statement made by the prosecution against Defendant 1 in the protocol of interrogation of suspect (five times) and part of the statement made by the prosecution against Defendant 1 in the protocol of interrogation of suspect (seven times)

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 75 (including Nonindicted 76’s statement) and the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 77

1. 각 수사보고( 피고인 1, 6에 대한 각 공소외 3 협동조합 마이너스 대출원장 첨부, 공소외 3 협동조합의 부실대출 확인, 공소외 57 교회 목사 상대로 부지매입 및 대출에 대한 피고인 1 관여사실 확인 보고, 공소외 57 교회 대출 서류 첨부, 공소외 57 교회의 공소외 3 협동조합 마이너스 대출원장 등 첨부, 공소외 8의 공소외 3 협동조합 발생수표 사용 확인, 공소외 3 협동조합의 피고인 1 지급내역 및 피고인 1의 조합 입금내역에 대한 입·출금 명목 확인, 피의자 피고인 1에 대한 범죄일람표 재작성, 2007. 9. 28. 공소외 8, 50 명의 담보대출 6억 1,800만 원 발생으로 상환처리된 담보대출 내역 확인 보고, 피의자 피고인 1의 공소외 3 협동조합 마이너스 명목 출금 중 순수 현금 출금내역 확인, 피고인 3 및 공소외 20 회사의 공소외 3 협동조합 대출금 중 일부 피고인 5 사용 확인, 피의자 피고인 5 부실대출관련 최근 부동산등기부등본 첨부, 피의자 피고인 3 부실대출 관련 최근 부동산등기부등본 첨부, 피의자 피고인 3 부실대출관련 부동산 개별공시지가 확인, 피의자 피고인 3 추가 부실대출 관여 정황 확인, 피고인 1 가족의 공소외 3 협동조합 자금 사용 확인, 피의자 피고인 6 관련 공소외 3 협동조합 국민은행 계좌 거래내역 일부 첨부, 피의자 피고인 5 관련 군포 소재 ∇∇∇∇상가 경매사건 내역 등 첨부, 피의자 피고인 6 관련 화성시 (이하 생략) 소재 부동산 경매사건 내역 등 첨부)

1. Reference materials (Evidence No. 259);

[Defendant 1] Paragraph (3) of the Judgment

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 8’s statement

1. Each investigation report (Defendant 1’s embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 3’s funds, confirmation of the fictitious payment for Nonindicted Co. 9, and attachment of application documents for registration related to changes in the number of shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 9)

[Defendant 2]

(1) Paragraph (1) at the time of sale)

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police protocol against Nonindicted 51, 10, and 52

1. Instructions for correction of each violation of labor-related Acts;

(2) Paragraph (2) at the time of sale)

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (verification of details of seizure of the suspect’s deposits in Nonindicted Company 4 related to Defendant 2), each attachment (a copy of each notarial deed and records of civil execution cases prepared between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Company 11, 12, and 13)

(B) Criminal Records at the time of sale)

1. Criminal records and investigation reports (in cases of criminal records and investigation records of the government prosecutor's office 201 type No. 33032 at the government prosecutor's office, and attachment of court records, such as fraud by

[Defendant 4]

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 7, 49, 78, 79, and 80

1. Indicating part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 4 by the prosecution;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 7 and 49 concerning the suspect interrogation protocol

1. Part of each prosecutorial statement made on Nonindicted 7, 49, 78, and 79

1. 수사보고( 공소외 5 협동조합 경영혁신실 공소외 78 2010년 업무일지 사본 첨부, 공소외 5 협동조합 경영혁신실 공소외 78 컴퓨터 파일 첨부 보고, 공소외 5 협동조합 경영혁신실에서 작성, 보관한 후원금 장부 첨부 보고, 후원금이 대가성이 있는 것임을 보여주는 업무수첩 메모 첨부, 공소외 5 협동조합 ♥♥지점 압수수색시 확인된 업무연락 및 업무보고 편철, 유통단지 대출관련 징계서류 첨부 보고)

A. Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356 and 355(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(2) and (1), and 30 (General Provisions of the Criminal Act; Article 2-D of the ruling; Provided, That the upper limit of the punishment shall be governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 35(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Article 355(2)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 35(2)2 of the Criminal Act; Article 36(1)5) of the former Criminal Act shall apply to each case of breach of trust.

B. Defendant 2: Articles 109(1), 36(1) and 36(2) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(2) and (1) (Article 2-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and 355(2)

C. Defendant 3: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1), Article 30 (3) of the Criminal Act, Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 355(2) and (2) of the Criminal Act (Article 1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and Selection of Imprisonment)

D. Defendant 6: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1)2 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational embezzlement), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1), and Article 30 (General Provisions of Article 2-2(2)3 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That the maximum penalty shall be governed by the former Criminal Act), Article 356, Article 355(2) and (1), Article 30 (A), Article 30 (2) and (2), Article 355(3), and (3) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational embezzlement)

(e) Defendant 4: Each of Articles 45(2)5 and 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of contribution of political funds related to organizations, selection of fines), Articles 45(2)5 and 32 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of a contribution of political funds related to the arrangement of political funds related to the affairs to be performed by a public official, selection of fines), Articles 45(2)6 and 33 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of arranging contributions by using business, employment and other relationship, the selection of fines)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: The latter part of Article 37 and the first part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the first part of Article 2-1(1) at the time of the sale and the crime of occupational breach of trust,

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with the largest penalty);

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 2-2 of the Each Labor Standards Act, Article 2-2 of the judgment]

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty);

(d) Defendant 4: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act due to the donation of funds related to organizations of paragraph (3) of the same Article with the largest punishment]

(e) Defendant 6: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with the largest penalty);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2, 3, and 6: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 4: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 4: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion;

The amount embezzled by Defendant 1 is KRW 1,690,090,132 (=906,09,074 + 783,91,058) on December 23, 2010, not KRW 1,791,219,012 as indicated in the judgment, but KRW 1,690,090,132 (=906,09,074 + 783,91,058).

2. Determination

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, while the defendant 1 was in office as the chief director of the non-indicted 3 cooperative (hereinafter "cooperative"), he provided security from February 8, 2007, established a marina loan agreement between the union and the union, established a marina account under the name of the defendant 1 at his own discretion, and let the receipt and disbursement staff transfer money from that time to that of the aforesaid marina account, or used money by check or cash from the receipt and disbursement staff to that of his own designated account.

On the other hand, the prosecutor confirmed the specific details of the money used by Defendant 1 based on the records of Defendant 1’s Maspump director and cash book at the cooperative via Defendant 6, a regular manager, and Nonindicted 74, a cash receipt and disbursement employee. From February 8, 2007 to December 22, 2010, Defendant 1 arbitrarily used and embezzled for personal purposes, such as the list of crimes in attached Form 1-1,104,289,910, but the amount of public funds embezzled arbitrarily for personal purposes is KRW 7,104,289,910. However, regardless of the above amount for any reason, Defendant 1 deducted the aggregate amount of the money used by the cooperative as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 1-2 (1-2) from the aggregate amount of money recorded in the list of crimes in attached Form 1,791,219,012 (i) 7,104,289,910,380).

Therefore, insofar as Defendant 1 used part of the above embezzlement for a cooperative in accordance with lawful loan procedures, it is inevitable to take the responsibility for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant 1 as to the whole of KRW 1,791,219,012 prosecuted by the prosecutor against Defendant 1.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

Judgment on the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the occupational breach of trust of Defendant 1, 3, and 6 and their defense counsel

1. The assertion;

A. Defendant 1: (a) When the loan application entered from Defendant 5, 3, etc., Defendant 6, like ordinary loans, knew the collateral value of the mortgaged real estate and instructed Defendant 6 to examine whether it is possible to grant the loan; and (b) if Defendant 6 considers that the loan is possible, the report is believed to be carried out, and there is no fact that the loan was carried out even with the knowledge that there is a lack of collateral value.

B. Defendant 6: (a) Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 5, 3, etc. to examine the loan of Defendant 5, 3, etc., the value of the mortgaged real estate was identified by means of Internet search, telephone search, on-site inquiry, visit to real estate offices, etc., and there was little negligence in understanding some of the collateral values, but the loan was not performed even with knowledge that there was a lack of collateral value.

C. Defendant 3: Defendant 1 received a loan from the union as proposed by Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 and 6 did not participate in the act of breach of trust.

2. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) 공소외 3 협동조합은 1983년경 ■■■시에 있는 기독교인과 교회가 현금을 출자하여 설립된 이래 2010. 12. 현재 출자금 13억 7,000만 원, 예금 260억 원 상당, 대출금 합계 184억 원 상당의 자산을 보유하면서 1,500명 상당의 조합원을 대상으로 금융당국의 인가 없이 예금업무, 대출업무 등 여·수신업무를 하고 있다.

In addition to the president (Defendant 1) and the managing director (Defendant 6), two officers in charge of receipt and disbursement, one assistant employee, and five employees in charge of collecting loans for the number of days are working for the above union. Since the above union is not a financial institution, there is no separate account in the name of the union members such as the financial institution. The receipt and disbursement of money is recorded electronically for each union member, and the receipt and disbursement of money is managed by the National Bank under the name of the union, or the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation's account.

2) On the other hand, Nonindicted Co. 3 paid a higher deposit interest rate in comparison with those set forth in Nos. 1 and 2 in order to enhance business feasibility, and provided loans by simpleizing the lending procedures, easing the evaluation standards of collateral value, and instead receiving a higher loan interest on its behalf.

In relation to the loan procedure, when the applicant for the loan submits documents necessary for the loan, such as a certified copy of the register of real estate secured by the loan, Defendant 6, the executive director of the real estate company, assessed the collateral value and reported to Defendant 1 on a primary basis through the method such as questioning the local address or the real estate office and checking the Internet market price, etc., and Defendant 1 finally decided whether to execute the loan based on Defendant 6’s report.

3) On the other hand, the circumstances constituting the basis for ascertaining the objective security value around the date of lending of real estate secured by the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Price (Occupational Breach of Trust) and the crime of occupational breach of trust in the holding relating to the poor mortgage loans against Defendant 1, 3, and 6 are as follows.

In addition to the facts that are the basis for assessing the value of secured real estate held by Defendant 1, 65,000, 200,000,000 KRW 70,000 won on August 18, 209, KRW 306,000,00 KRW 305,000,000, KRW 700,000,00 KRW 705,000,00 KRW 9,000,00 KRW 70,000,00 KRW 70,000,00 KRW 1,50,000,00 KRW 2,000,00 KRW 70,000,00 for KRW 1,50,000,00 for KRW 7,000,000,000 for KRW 2,000,000 for KRW 7,5,000,00 for KRW 7,000.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) If an employee of a financial institution provides a loan without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as provision of sufficient security to secure the recovery of loan claims in the course of lending, it cannot be deemed that the employee did not have the knowledge that he/she would gain property benefits to a third party and incur financial losses to the financial institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679, Feb. 11, 2003). If the crime of occupational breach of trust is established by an insolvent loan, it shall not be deemed that the amount exceeding the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to recover is not deemed as the amount of damage, and it shall be deemed that there is a concern that the exercise of the right to property would be impossible, or that the total amount of the loan at risk of damage would be deemed as the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do288, Mar. 24, 200).

2) In addition, in order to recognize a beneficiary who benefits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust or a third party closely related thereto as a co-principal with the principal who committed the crime of occupational breach of trust, it is not sufficient to acquire benefits by taking advantage of the principal’s act of breach of trust with the awareness that the act of the principal constitutes the act of breach of trust. It is necessary to actively participate in the act of breach of trust by inducing the principal to commit the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911, Jul. 23, 199, etc.).

C. Determination

1) 그러므로 우선 담보없이 대출이 이루어진 공소외 8, 50 명의의 대출을 제외한 위 표에 기재된 대출을 위하여 담보로 제공된 부동산들의 담보가치에 관하여 차례대로 살피건대, 앞서 본 사실관계에 더하여 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고인 5에 대한 3억 원 대출의 경우, 안양시 ♡♡♡♡♡빌딩 306호에 관하여 이 사건 대출일 이전인 2009. 7. 31.자로 채권자를 공소외 88, 청구금액을 5,000만 원으로 하는 내용의 가압류( 수원지방법원 안양지원 2009카단2634호 )가 이루어진 점, 군포시 △△△△아파트상가 3개에 대한 임의경매사건( 수원지방법원 안양지원 2010타경13931호 )에서의 법원 감정가는 2010. 10. 22.자 기준 합계 1억 2,000만 원(제109호 3,000만 원, 제116, 117호 각 4,500만 원)이나 이미 한 차례 유찰된 사정과 낙찰가율 등을 고려하면 담보가치는 위 평가액에 미치지 못할 것으로 보이는 점, 공소외 3 협동조합이 피고인 1, 6에 대한 범행 발각 이후 실질적 담보가치를 파악하기 위하여 공소외 86 평가법인에 의뢰한 감정결과에 의하면, 2011. 3. 25.자 위 ♡♡♡♡♡ 306호의 감정가액은 1억 6,000만 원, 군포시 △△△△아파트상가 3개의 감정가액은 합계 6,000만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ② 피고인 3에 대한 2억 7,000만 원 대출의 경우, 담보물인 전남 장성군 임야의 소유자인 증인 공소외 19가 이 법정에서 위 토지의 시가를 1억 5,000만 원이라고 진술하였고, 수사기관에서는 위 토지의 시가가 3억 원에 미치지 아니한다는 의미로 ‘위 토지를 담보로 3억 원을 대출받는다고 하여 피고인 3이 대단한 사람이라고 생각했다.’고 진술하였던 점, 위 토지에 대한 공소외 86 평가법인의 2011. 3. 25.자 감정평가액은 6,500만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ③ 공소외 20 회사에 대한 3억 원 대출의 경우, 담보물인 여주군 임야에 대한 공소외 86 평가법인의 2011. 3. 25.자 감정평가액은 9,243만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ④ 공소외 20 회사에 대한 합계 13억 원 대출의 경우, 담보물인 강원 영월군 임야에 대한 공소외 86 평가법인의 2011. 3. 25.자 감정평가액은 4,453만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ⑤ 공소외 55 회사에 대한 3억 원 대출의 경우, 담보물인 화성시 매송면 토지의 선순위 근저당권자인 주식회사 신한은행으로부터 근저당권부 채권을 양수한 공소외 83 주식회사가 2010. 8. 12.경 청구금액을 208,328,767원으로 하여 신청한 경매사건( 수원지방법원 2010타경35854호 )에서 실시된 위 토지에 대한 감정평가액은 307,765,800원이나 이마저도 유찰된 점, 위 토지에 대한 공소외 86 평가법인의 2011. 3. 25.자 감정평가액은 2억 7,540만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ⑥ 공소외 57 교회에 대한 4억 5,000만 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 1이 2007. 3. 8. 위 동두천시 (이하 생략) 토지를 포함한 그 일대 토지를 5억 원에 낙찰받아, 농업협동조합중앙회 앞으로 위 부동산에 관하여 채권최고액 4억 3,500만 원의 근저당권을 설정하고 위 채권최고액 상당을 대출받고, 추가로 공소외 3 협동조합으로부터 대출을 받아 낙찰대금을 납부한 점, 피고인 1은 목사인 공소외 58에게 위 동두천시 (이하 생략) 토지를 매수하여 그 지상에 교회를 지을 것을 제안하였고, 공소외 58이 이에 응하자 공소외 57 교회 앞으로 소유권을 이전하고 자신이 운영하고 있는 공소외 9 회사에서 교회 건축 공사를 맡아 하였으며, 위 부동산을 담보로 2008. 3. 31. 공소외 59 협동조합 앞으로 채권최고액 5억 2,000만 원의 근저당권을 설정하여 4억 원을 대출받은 후, 위 부동산에 관한 별다른 가액 변동이 없음에도 그 직후인 2008. 5. 22. 공소외 3 협동조합 앞으로 채권최고액 5억 8,500만 원의 근저당권을 설정하고 4억 5,000만 원을 추가로 대출받은 점 등을 각 종합하여 보면, 앞서 유죄로 인정한 각 담보대출의 경우 부동산의 담보가치는 대출금액에 턱없이 미치지 아니한다고 봄이 상당하다.

2) 다음으로 피고인 1, 6, 3이 위와 같이 대출금액에 비하여 담보가치가 부족하다는 사실을 알고 있었는지, 나아가 피고인 3은 피고인 1, 6의 대출행위의 전 과정에 관여하는 등으로 위 피고인들의 배임행위에 적극적으로 가담한 사실이 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 위와 같이 담보물의 담보가치가 부족하다는 사정 이외에 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 공소외 3 협동조합의 경우 일반적으로 담보대출을 받기 위해서는 먼저 실무자인 피고인 6에게 부동산 관련 서류 등을 제출하여 대출을 신청하고, 피고인 6이 1차적으로 담보가치를 파악하여 대출심사를 한 다음 이를 바탕으로 피고인 1이 최종적으로 대출여부를 결정하였던 것과는 달리, 앞서 범죄사실의 각 대출의 경우 대출신청인인 피고인 5, 3( 공소외 55 회사 명의의 대출은 피고인 3이, 공소외 57 교회 명의의 대출은 피고인 1이 실질적인 대출신청인이다) 등은 담보물이 없는 상태에서 미리 대출금의 액수를 특정하여 또는 담보부동산을 제시함과 동시에 대출금의 액수를 특정하여 조합장인 피고인 1에게 대출을 신청하였고, 피고인 1이 피고인 6에게 대출금의 액수를 특정하여 대출이 가능한지 알아볼 것을 지시하는 방식으로 대출절차가 진행된 점, ② 피고인 1, 3, 5는 서로 친구 사이이고 위 각 대출금 중 특히 피고인 3과 공소외 20 회사, 공소외 55 회사 명의의 대출금은 모두 피고인 1, 3, 5가 이를 나누어 사용하였는데, 피고인 6도 위와 같은 사정을 잘 알고 있었던 점, ③ 공소외 3 협동조합의 관리직은 조합장인 피고인 1과 상무인 피고인 6 뿐이고, 대출이 이루어질 당시 피고인 1과 피고인 6은 조합의 공금을 횡령하고 있었던바, 피고인 6이 피고인 1의 개인적인 부당대출 지시를 거부한다는 것은 사실상 기대하기 어렵다고 보이는 점, ④ 담보부동산들에 관한 부동산등기부등본이나 임야대장, 토지대장 등 대출 관련 서류들만 검토해 보더라도 이 사건 각 대출이 각 부동산의 담보가치를 벗어난 부당 과다 대출이라는 점을 누구나 쉽게 알 수 있는 점, ⑤ 피고인 6은 위 각 대출 당시 담보가치를 평가하기 위하여 인근의 부동산 사무실에 전화하거나 방문하여 시가를 확인하였을 뿐, 부동산의 시가와 선순위 근저당권의 채무액 등을 고려한 담보가치 등에 관하여 아무런 근거자료를 수집하지 아니하였고, 임대차관계에 대하여 확인한 사실도 없으며, 일부 대출의 경우는 담보가치의 평가 자체가 이루어진 바가 없는 점, ⑥ 그럼에도 불구하고 대출을 신청한지 수일 내에 대출신청인이 요구한 액수대로 대부분 대출이 실행된 점, ⑦ 위 각 대출금에 대하여는 대출이 실행될 당시 선이자를 공제하거나 이후 다른 대출금에서 일부 지급된 이외에는 이자 지급 및 원금 상환이 이루어지지 않고 있는 점, ⑧ 공소외 3 협동조합에서 실행된 대부분의 담보대출은 대출금액이 1억 원 미만임에도 이 사건 부당대출을 비롯하여 피고인 1이 개인적으로 대출을 지시한 담보대출의 경우에만 수억 원의 고액 대출이 실행된 점에다가 다음과 같은 각 대출관련 사정 즉, ⑨ 피고인 5에 대한 2009. 8. 18.자 3억 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 6은 검찰에서 ‘부동산등기부등본을 보았을 때 선순위근저당권이 설정되어 있어서 대출금보다 담보가액이 적은 것을 알고 있었다. 원칙대로라면 대출을 해 주면 안되는데 조합장인 피고인 1이 지시한 것이라 대출을 실행하였다.’고 진술한 점, ⑩ 피고인 3 명의의 2억 7,000만 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 3이 먼저 피고인 1에게 수족관사업자금이 필요하다고 하여, 피고인 1이 담보물을 가져 오라고 하자 피고인 3이 공소외 19에게 그 소유의 전남 장성군 토지를 담보로 제공할 것을 조건으로 동업을 제안하였고, 공소외 19가 이에 응하여 위 전남 장성군 토지를 담보로 제공하였던 점, 피고인 1은 대출 직전에 피고인 6에게 조합 사무실에서 “ 피고인 3이 서류를 가지고 올 것이니까 대출을 해 주라.”고 지시하였던 점, 대출금 2억 7,000만 원 중 7,000만 원은 피고인 5가 조합에 대한 연체이자를 지급하는 등의 용도로, 적어도 380만 원은 피고인 1이, 나머지 2억 원 상당은 피고인 3이 사업자금으로 각 사용한 점, ⑪ 공소외 20 회사 명의 3억 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 5가 서울중앙지방법원에서 사기죄로 재판을 받던 중 피해자와의 합의금이 필요하였고, 피고인 1, 3은 합의금을 마련하고 자신들이 대출금을 사용할 목적으로 적당한 부동산을 담보로 제공하고 조합으로부터 대출을 받기로 하였으며, 피고인 5의 친구인 공소외 81이 공소외 29, 30 소유의 여주군 임야를 소개한 점, 피고인 3은 위 임야를 매수하면서 위 임야를 담보로 조합으로부터 대출을 받아 매매대금을 지급하기로 하였고, 당시 위 임야의 시세는 7,000만 원 내지 8,000만 원에 불과하였던 점, 위 임야를 담보로 3억 원의 대출이 이루어지자 피고인 1은 위 대출이 실행된 공소외 20 회사 명의의 통장을 관리하면서 직접 공소외 29, 30에게 매매대금을 지급하였고, 피고인 5의 합의금, 변호사 비용 및 조합에 대한 연체이자 등으로 1억 2,000만 원 이상을 사용한 점, ⑫ 공소외 20 회사 명의 합계 13억 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 1은 2009. 11.경 피고인 3에게 자신의 처인 공소외 60과 딸인 공소외 50 명의로 소유하고 있는 포천시 ★★★상가 53개를 9억 원에 매수하되, 공소외 60의 농업협동조합중앙회에 대한 2억 원의 대출금채무를 승계하고, 나머지 매매대금 7억 원은 피고인 3이 적당한 부동산(담보가치가 충분하지 않으나 선순위 근저당권이 없어 외관상 담보로 적합해 보이는 부동산)을 담보로 제공하고 위 부동산을 담보로 조합에서 대출을 받아 지급할 것을 제안하였고, 피고인 3이 위 제안을 수락하여 담보로 제공할 부동산을 찾던 중 2009. 11. 20. 위 강원 영월군 북쌍리 임야를 1억 5천만 원에 공소외 20 회사 명의로 매수한 점, 피고인 1, 3, 6은 위 강원도 영월군 임야에 관하여 조합 앞으로 채권최고액 17억 원의 근저당권을 설정하였고, 사흘 후인 2009. 11. 23. 5억 원, 2009. 11. 30. 및 같은 해 12. 22. 각 4억 원씩 합계 13억 원의 대출이 실행된 점, 피고인 1, 3, 6은 이 법정에서 ‘위 강원도 영월군 임야는 위 13억 원의 대출에 대한 담보로 부족하다는 것을 알았지만 이는 대출을 위하여 형식적으로 담보로 제공한 부동산에 불과하고, 피고인 3이 피고인 1로부터 위 포천시 ★★★상가를 매수하고, 피고인 1 소유 이외의 나머지 상가도 매수한 다음 보수공사와 통합등기를 마치고 이를 담보로 조합이나 다른 금융기관으로부터 대출을 받아 위 13억 원을 변제할 예정이었다.’라고 진술한 점, 대출금 13억 원은 피고인 1이 통장을 관리하면서 공소외 20 회사 명의로 ★★★상가를 추가로 매수하거나 인테리어 공사대금으로 공소외 9 회사에게 4억 원을 지급하고, 공소외 60 명의의 농협중앙회에 대한 대출금 2억 원의 이자 월 100만 원 상당을 지급하는 등으로 모두 사용한 점, ⑬ 공소외 55 회사 명의 3억 원 대출의 경우, 피고인 3은 피고인 1에게 공소외 56이 대표이사로 있는 공소외 55 회사를 소개하고, 공소외 56의 협조 하에 공소외 55 회사 명의로 조합으로부터 3억 원을 대출받은 점, 대출금 3억 원 중 1억 5천만 원 상당은 피고인 3이, 550만 원 상당은 피고인 5가, 1,550만 원은 피고인 1이 각 사용한 점을, ⑭ 공소외 57 교회 명의 4억 5,000만 원 대출의 경우, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 1이 담보 부동산인 동두천시 (이하 생략) 토지 등을 5억 원에 낙찰받아, 위 토지를 담보로 농업협동조합중앙회 등에서 받은 대출금으로 낙찰대금을 납부하고, 공소외 57 교회 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 넘겨준 다음 공소외 9 회사에서 교회 건축 공사를 맡아 하였으며, 위 부동산을 담보로 공소외 57 교회 앞으로 근저당권을 설정하여 공소외 59 협동조합으로부터 4억 원, 조합으로부터 4억 5,000만 원 상당을 각 대출받아 토지 매매대금 및 공사대금 명목으로 수령하였는데, 이 모든 과정은 피고인 1이 공소외 57 교회 명의의 통장을 관리하면서 이루어진 점을 모두 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1, 3, 6은 적어도 미필적으로나마 문제가 된 이 사건 각 대출이 충분한 담보를 제공받지 아니한 상태에서 실행된 것임을 알고 있었고, 피고인 3은 피고인 1과 처음부터 대출을 계획하고 담보부동산을 물색하여 제공하는 등 대출과정에 적극 협조함으로써 피고인 1, 6의 부당대출 행위에 가담하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

D. Conclusion

Ultimately, Defendant 1 and 3, etc. are the head of the cooperative of Nonindicted 3; Defendant 1 and 6 were conducted without going through the procedures stipulated in the articles of association, etc.; Defendant 1 and 3 did not have any supervisory authority inside and outside of the cooperative; Defendant 6 did not properly understand the security value in the case of Defendant 1’s loans under the influence of Defendant 1; provided real estate with no sufficient value to secure the amount of loans as security; Defendant 6 performed a loan for the amount planned at the beginning by providing it as security; Defendant 6, despite being aware of the above circumstances, committed an act of breach of trust by cooperating with the lending act by the said Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 3, and 6 who denies this part of the crime cannot accept all the above arguments.

Defendant 4 and his defense counsel on the violation of the Political Funds Act

1. The assertion;

Nonindicted 5’s cooperative did not know the fact that political funds were contributed from 208 to 2010 to Nonindicted 48’s supporters’ association for the National Assembly members, and there was no discussion or conspiracy with respect to Nonindicted 7, 49 and political funds contributions. Nonindicted 5’s employees are individually and individually contributed one hundred thousand won to a supporters’ association according to their voluntary will, and are kept in the account of Nonindicted 5’s cooperative in form. Although the said money was actually owned by individuals, it cannot be deemed as “funds related to organizations” under Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, since the said money was actually owned by individuals, it cannot be deemed as “funds related to organizations” under Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act. The employees merely contributed political funds according to their voluntary intent, and there was no fact that the said employees provided political funds by unfairly suppressing employee’s intent to contribute them, and there was no fact that political funds were contributed

2. Determination

Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act (No person shall contribute any political fund with funds related to domestic or foreign corporations or organizations) to Defendant 4; (2) With respect to the contribution act of KRW 9.8 million by means of remitting one million to the account of a supporters’ association directly by the employees in 2009, the public prosecutor shall not arrange for the contribution act of KRW 100,000 to another person by making a lump sum deduction per head from the salary of employees in 2008; (3) with respect to the contribution act of KRW 3.1 million to the account of a supporters’ association, the public officials are prohibited from making a lump sum deduction of KRW 1.1 million per head from the salary of employees in 209 to the account of a supporters’ association; and (4) with respect to the contribution act of KRW 3.1 million per head in the name of the supporters’ association, the public officials are prohibited from making a donation to the account of KRW 201,000 per head in the name of the supporters’ association; and (3).

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Defendant 4 serves as the head of the cooperative of Nonindicted 5 from 1988, and Nonindicted 7, as an executive director, assist Defendant 4, the president of the cooperative from around 2001 to handle all other affairs except for the credit business portion with the approval of the president of the cooperative. Nonindicted 49, as the head of the management innovation office, has overall control over the management and planning of the cooperative. The political funds contributions from the year 2008 to the year 2010, as stated in the decision, were in charge of the management innovation room.

(ii) a contribution of political funds in 2008;

A) Around December 2008, Nonindicted 7 received the request from Defendant 1, the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 48’s National Assembly member’s supporters’ association, to contribute political funds by collecting KRW 100,000 per employee. In relation to the case of a distribution complex loan from the audit committee of the Federation of Mad Agricultural Cooperatives to the date from December 22, 2008 to December 24, 2008, Nonindicted 7 conducted on-site inspection in relation to the disciplinary action of the distribution complex loan, and Nonindicted 7, at the executive meeting around December 26, 2008, requested the cooperation of Nonindicted 48 National Assembly member’s supporters’ association to provide support in order to prepare for disciplinary issues by contributing political funds to the National Assembly member’s association. In relation to this, Nonindicted 7 instructed Defendant 1, a vice-chairperson of the National Assembly member’s 48 National Assembly member’s supporters’ association to return KRW 99,000,00 per employee’s tax credit per employee.

B) On December 26, 2008, Non-Indicted 7 reported to Defendant 4, the president of the cooperative, immediately after the executives’ meeting directed to support political funds. Non-Indicted 7 sent an official letter to each branch office in the name of Non-Indicted 5’s head office in accordance with the Non-Indicted 7’s order to recruit applicants for support payments, and stated “non-Indicted 5’s compulsory obligation.”

C) On December 30, 2008, upon ascertaining the list of applicants, Nonindicted 49 had Nonindicted 80 persons in charge of benefits receive 84,000 won per employee deducted 10,000 won per employee from the funds that should be paid to 84 applicants for support payments by means of transportation, food, etc., and deposited 8,40,000 won in the provisional deposit account. On the same day, Nonindicted 5 remitted 8,40,000 won from the cooperative account of Nonindicted 5 to the supporters’ association account, and immediately thereafter, sent a list of employees who applied for political funds to the supporters’ association.

(iii) political funds in 2009;

A) On March 30, 2009, Defendant 1 visited Nonindicted 5 Cooperative and asked Nonindicted 7 to donate support payments to Nonindicted 7, and even around April, June, and July of the same year, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 7 to submit support payments by making several calls to Nonindicted 7.

B) Accordingly, at the executive conference on July 24, 2009 at the executive council, Nonindicted 7 made a business instruction to the effect that “it is necessary for the employees to walk the support fund from their employees to solve the problem of disciplinary action against the distribution complex loan by making a contribution to the supporters’ association of 48 members in a political way, so the employees subject to disciplinary action shall prepare an application for reexamination.” Nonindicted 49 made efforts to review the amount of disciplinary action against the distribution complex loan in the business book on that job book to solve the political problem, to mobilize various methods for the head of the association and the executive directors to solve the amount of the disciplinary action against the distribution complex loan reduction and exemption, and to seek ways to solve the problem by gathering the support fund from the employees of Nonindicted 48 members of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries subcommittee at the end of the higher trial (99,000 won at the time of the year-end settlement, 1,000 won, 2222 members:2,200,000 won, one-lane, and 200,00.”

C) On August 10, 2009, Nonindicted 49: (a) the management innovation office sent a letter of business liaison to each livestock hold office to identify the list of applicants for political fund contributions; and (b) classified Nonindicted 49 into the first payer (persons engaged in credit business) and the second payer (persons engaged in non-economic business).

D) After the preparation of the list on August 10, 2009, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 49 had 98 persons eligible for the first payment directly wired 10,000 won from their own account to the supporters’ association account. On the following day, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 49 received a call from the persons related to the audit committee of the Union to confirm that they would submit the data relating to disciplinary cases, and received an application for reexamination of the employees subject to disciplinary action following the date.

E) When Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 49 confirmed that the case of applying for reexamination was in excess of the audit committee of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation on September 2009, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 49 returned KRW 100,000 to the account of a supporters’ association in the name of an employee on September 22, 2009, after making a lump sum deduction of KRW 100,000 per capita from the funds to be paid to 56 employees eligible for the second payment on September 21, 201.

F) On the other hand, around July 2009, Nonindicted 7 reported to Defendant 4, who received a request for support payment from Defendant 1, and reported to Defendant 4 on the matters related to the direction to collect the supporters’ association immediately after the executive meeting. Nonindicted 49 reported the political funds to Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 7 on August 10, 2009 and September 21, 2009, after the contribution to the supporters’ association, and received written resolution.

(iv) political funds of 2010;

A) Around early 2010, Defendant 1 called Nonindicted 7 by phoneing Nonindicted 7, stating that “ Nonindicted 48 National Assembly members think that the existence of a representative livestock industry exists in relation to the amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act at present, and, as it is in the place of representing the agriculture and livestock industry in our region, the amount of KRW 100,000 per employee was donated to Nonindicted 49 and Nonindicted 49 also received a call from the supporters’ association to request support payments to be paid to a male.”

B) Accordingly, at the executive conference on March 26, 2010, Nonindicted 7 instructed the donation of support payments in the same way as the previous one before the executive council. Meanwhile, on March 24, 2010, Nonindicted 49 stated the conversation between Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 7, prior to the executive council’s separation in the partnership room, “one hundred thousand won per person of support payments for the National Assembly members (not mandatory)” in the business book, “The legislative bill of the National Assembly, the legislative bill of the National Assembly, the cooperation of Nonindicted 48 Council members ? the order to receive applicants,” and on April 18, 2010, stated “(i) the business book as reference to the political support payment at the regular meeting of the executive council.”

C) As in the year 2008 and year 2009, Nonindicted 49 received a list of 142 donors from each branch to receive a list of donations, and on April 21, 2010, deposited KRW 14.2 million per capita in the stable payment account by collectively deducting 10,000 won from the benefits under the pretext of benefits to be paid to them. However, on August 11, 201, when the supporters’ association opened, Nonindicted 49 transferred 10,000 won per employee to the account of the supporters’ association. The supporters’ association sent a list of donors to the supporters’ association.

D) Meanwhile, Nonindicted 7 reported matters related to political funds to Defendant 4 immediately after the executive meeting, and Nonindicted 49 also prepared a list of the contributors of political funds and made a verbal report to Defendant 4 on April 19, 2010, and received written resolution.

B. Determination

1) First of all, as to whether Defendant 4 conspiredd with Nonindicted 7, 49, and 208 to 2010 regarding the contribution of political funds, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., ① Nonindicted 5’s credit business, including loans, etc., among the affairs of Nonindicted 5’s cooperatives, did not obtain approval from Defendant 7, who is a standing director, but the other affairs of the cooperative, including various kinds of contributions, such as neighboring aid funds, are subject to approval from the president of the cooperative. On completion of the ordinary executive committee, Nonindicted 7 reported the matters to be directed by Defendant 4 to the president of the cooperative. Defendant 4 was difficult to know about the fact that Nonindicted 7’s contribution was carried out through the response of Nonindicted 5’s staff members, and it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 7’s contribution was carried out by Nonindicted 5’s executive director to the extent that it was carried out by Defendant 7’s own political fund donation in the process of raising political funds from the president of the cooperative.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument that Defendant 4 denies the public offering with Nonindicted 7 and 49.

2) Determination on the violation of Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act

A) Legislative history and legislative intent of Article 31 Section 1 of the Suspension Fee Act

(1) As a matter of principle, the Political Fund Act enacted by Act No. 1685 on February 9, 1965 allows anyone to provide political funds to a political party by depositing political funds with the National Election Commission (Article 3(1) main text of the said Act). In exceptional, foreign corporations and foreign organizations, State or public organizations, state-run enterprises, government-run enterprises, or organizations and government under the direct or supervisory authority prohibit anyone from offering political funds by financial institutions or financial organizations, labor organizations, school foundations, and religious organizations (proviso of Article 3(1) of the said Act and Article 33 of the Political Parties Act as at the time of the amendment of the said Act). After the amendment of the said Act, the said Act had maintained a large framework other than the removal of financial institutions or financial organizations from among the organizations subject to restrictions on donation, media organizations, and the press enterprises, and some loss enterprises, as they were, 2).

(2) However, in the second half of 2003, the transit between companies and political groups requiring preferential interest has become a social problem. Accordingly, the Act on Political Funds, amended by Act No. 7191 on March 12, 2004, prohibits companies from using their political contribution funds at source and preventing the democratic process of formation of a democratic will through the organization’s excessive exercise of political influence, distortion of the organization’s democratic decision-making process, and distortion of the organization’s will (Article 12(1)).

In addition, in the process of the amendment of the above Act, there was an argument that a company, etc. or a corporation or an organization, including a company, should simultaneously regulate the intent of “the place of contribution of a group” by providing political funds through an individual, such as an executive, etc., and accordingly, a provision was added to a provision that prohibits anyone from contributing political funds with funds related to an organization in order to take into account the legislative intent of the provision on “the place of contribution of a group” and prevent an evasion of the law (Article 12(2)).

(3) After that, the above Act was wholly amended on August 4, 2005 as the Political Funds Act, and the provisions prohibiting the contribution of political funds of the above organizations and prohibiting the contribution of funds related to organizations are stipulated in Article 31(1) and (2) of the Political Funds Act with the same content as the former Act.

B) The meaning of “funds related to the organization” and requirements for recognition

In light of the purport of the provision of Article 31(2) of the Political Funds Act, which can be seen in the legislative process as seen earlier, that is, the purpose of preventing an organization from making a lawful contribution of political funds, “funds related to an organization” as referred to in the above provision refers to funds that can be deemed as an organization ownership, and “funds that can be made in the name of an organization according to an organization’s decision-making.” This includes not only assets that form the basis for organization existence and activities, but also funds raised and raised mainly by using its name. However, funds legally reverted to a natural person cannot be deemed as funds substantially owned by an organization.

Furthermore, in individual and specific cases, whether an organization constitutes funds raised and raised primarily by using its name shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the methods and results of raising and raising funds, a series of processes of raising and raising funds, such as the circumstances before and after raising funds, etc. In addition, whether direct and indirect pressure of an organization in the course of raising funds may interfere with or distort the formation of an individual’s genuine will, as well as the criteria for determining whether such direct and indirect pressure is likely to interfere with

C) As to whether Defendant 4 contributed political funds from “organization-related funds”, Defendant 4, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 49 conspired to keep the benefits to be paid for food, transportation, etc. to the employees of Nonindicted Cooperative 5 in the livestock cooperative account, Defendant 4 received an application for support funds from employees in the form of official gazettes as determined through the executive conference, and then made a lump sum deduction of KRW 100,000 per capita from the relevant employees’ pay, and then contributed political funds in the name of individuals according to their designated dates and methods. As to the funds owned by Nonindicted 5, a cooperative that was led by Nonindicted 5 to raise and raise political funds within a short period of time, and was owned by Nonindicted 5’s cooperative funds, at any time, under the name of Nonindicted 5’s cooperative and Nonindicted 5 Cooperative decision-making. Accordingly, Defendant 4’s allegation in this part is without merit (the Defendant 4 and his defense counsel were practically an employee’s tax credit of KRW 99,000, which is in fact owned by the employee.

3) Determination on the violation of Article 33 of the Political Funds Act

A) Relevant legal principles

The meaning of mediating the contribution of political funds by unfairly coercing the other party's intention by taking advantage of business, employment, and other relations under Article 14 of the Political Fund Act refers to mediating the other party to make a contribution of political funds by unfairly inducing the other party to make a contribution of political funds without free decision making, while recognizing the other party to receive disadvantages due to the business, employment, and other relations with the intermediary even though the other party has no intention to make a contribution of political funds, and allowing the other party to make a contribution of political funds by not making any free decision making. It is sufficient to the extent that the other party's free decision making is infringed on due to the relationship of business, employment, employment, etc., such as the crime of intimidation, and it is not necessary to explicitly notify the harm and injury as to the degree of suppressing the other party's free decision making, or to suppress the other party as to the crime of intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do482, Apr. 27, 2004)

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, as to whether Defendant 4 conspired with Nonindicted 7 and 49 for employees in charge of Nonindicted 7 and 409 to transfer KRW 9.8 million to the account of the supporters’ association in an unjust manner, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 49 were subject to the measures of care to the account of the supporters’ association in the name of Nonindicted 5 in the year 2008 that they would have been at issue as a contribution of the corporation or organization in the name of the said association. ② Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 7, a standing director, were not in charge of raising funds in the name of the said association, and Nonindicted 4 and the head office were not in charge of raising funds in the name of the said association, and Nonindicted 7, a non-indicted 8, a non-indicted 4, a non-indicted 2, a non-indicted 7, a non-indicted 2, a non-indicted 4, a non-indicted 3, a non-indicted 4, who was in charge of political funds.

4) Determination on the violation of Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act

Finally, as to whether Defendant 4 donated political funds of KRW 14.2 million in collusion with Nonindicted 7 and 49 in the year 2010, Defendant 1, the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 48 National Assembly member’s supporters’ association, as well as Defendant 1, the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 48 National Assembly member, recommended Nonindicted 7 to contribute support funds to Defendant 4 in order to reflect the position of consultation on festivals, such as the continuation of the president of the Livestock Economy Director at the time of the amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, so long as Nonindicted 7, who was recommended to report the above circumstances to Defendant 4 and make a lump sum deduction from the benefits to be paid to his employees, Defendant 4, etc. seems to have contributed political funds to the National Assembly member in relation to the amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which is a public official’s affairs, to reflect himself as to the amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which is a member of the National Assembly.

○ The current status of Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives

After the occurrence of Defendant 1, 3, and 6’s crime, the Emergency Countermeasure Committee, which was organized by some of the members of Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives, requested an appraisal of the collateral value, etc. of the real estate held by Nonindicted 86 for the appraisal of the real estate held by Nonindicted 86. As a result, in the case of an insolvent loan due to Defendant 1, 3, and 6’s breach of trust, the collateral value of the real estate held by the secured was not limited to the extent that it had already been extinguished or was not lower than the loan amount, and the recovery rate of the secured loan was 83.5%. Since then, Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives requested Nonindicted 87 Accounting Corporation to conduct an audit of the assets held by the Association, and as a result of comprehensively considering the value of the secured real estate and the recovery rate of the secured real estate, it was possible to recover 60% in the case of the secured loan. The loan amount was most exceptional, and it was evaluated that it was impossible to recover the entire loan of this case.

On the other hand, the non-indicted 3 cooperative has been paying 60% of the deposit even after the suspension of business due to the number of days during which the crime of this case was revealed, even after the suspension of business.

○ Defendant 1

Defendant 1, while in office as the president of Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives, embezzled KRW 1.9 billion for several years, and caused unfair loans equivalent to KRW 3.6 billion, thereby causing substantial damage to the above loans to the victim, and Defendant 1 appears to have used the amount equivalent to KRW 2.2 billion in the above amount of breach of trust, regardless of the nominal lender. In addition, Defendant 1 pretended the payment of the capital increase of Nonindicted 9 Company with the funds of Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives, and made it available to keep the false information by entering it in the commercial register.

피고인 1은 이 사건 범행이 드러나자 자신 또는 가족 소유의 부동산에 관하여 공소외 3 협동조합 앞으로 근저당권을 설정함으로써 부당대출로 인한 피해액을 모두 변제하였다고 주장하고 있으나, 시가 등에 관한 제반 자료에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 1이 제공한 대부분의 담보부동산의 경우 이미 선순위근저당권이 있거나 피고인 1이 주장하는 바와 같은 가액이 인정되지 아니하는 등의 사정으로 인하여 피해액을 모두 변제하였다고 보기 어렵다{ 공소외 3 협동조합의 새로운 이사장인 증인 공소외 82는 이 법정에서 포천시 ★★★상가가 15억 원 상당에 이를 것이라는 피고인 1의 주장을 근거로 피해액 대부분이 변제되었다고 진술하였고, 피고인 1 및 그 변호인도 위 ★★★상가가 통합등기된 이후 의뢰한 감정결과를 근거로 위 ★★★상가를 담보로 제공함으로써 피해액 대부분이 변제되었다고 주장한다. 그러나 ① 공소외 86 평가법인은 이미 포천시 ★★★상가 53개가 13개의 상가로 통합등기된 상태를 예상하고 감정하였음에도 감정가액은 3억 7,270만 원 상당에 불과한 점, ② 피고인 1은 2007. 1.경 3억 2,100만 원 상당에 위 ★★★상가를 낙찰받았고, 2007년 및 2009년에는 여러 개의 위 ★★★상가를 개당 1,000만 원 내지 2,500만 원 상당에 매수한 점, ③ 변호인이 제출한 감정가는 15억 원 상당이나, 그에 따르더라도 낙찰가율은 46% 정도이고, 피고인 1이 위 상가를 2007년경 3억 2,100만 원에 낙찰받을 때에도 감정가는 15억 원 이상이었던 점, ④ 공소외 20 회사 명의로 추가로 매수한 상가에 관하여는 다른 근저당권자가 2011. 3. 14. 임의경매를 신청하여 사실상 담보가치를 보장할 수 없게 된 점 등을 종합하면, 피해자인 공소외 3 협동조합이 위 포천시 ★★★상가로부터 회수할 수 있는 피해액은 피고인 1이 주장하는 금액에 크게 미치지 못할 것으로 보이고, 현 이사장 등 위 조합의 집행부도 실질적인 회수가능성 등 부실대출로 인한 사태의 심각성을 제대로 파악하지 못하고 있는 것으로 보인다}.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has old age, the fact that the defendant has repaid a considerable portion of the embezzlement amount, the fact that the above defendant has been appointed as the president of the victim and has expanded the scale of business, such as the expansion of the scale of deposits and loans, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is four years - seven years [the range of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is embezzlement and breach of trust, Type 3 (not less than KRW 5 billion, less than KRW 30 billion),

○ Defendant 3

Defendant 3 was involved in the act of breach of trust equivalent to KRW 1.9 billion by taking advantage of Defendant 1’s relative job offers as the president of the victim’s association, and the degree of participation in the act of purchasing real estate from the beginning with a view to planning a loan and providing it as a security cannot be deemed to be somewhat less, and there is no trace of efforts to pay damages.

The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is 2 years - 5 years [the embezzlement and breach of trust crime group, 2 types (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), and the basic area].

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant is aged and there is no criminal record other than a fine, and the amount of profit actually acquired is less than the amount of damage, the punishment lower than the above recommended punishment shall be determined.

○ Defendant 6

Defendant 6, while being in office as a regular director of the cooperative of Nonindicted 3, embezzled the amount of KRW 600 million for several years, and as much as he was in charge of the practice of the illegal loan of this case, his responsibility is heavy.

The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is 2 years - 5 years [the embezzlement and breach of trust crime group, 2 types (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), and the basic area].

However, considering the fact that Defendant 6 was the first offender, he is in profoundly against his mistake, repaid the amount equivalent to 300 million won out of the embezzled amount, and made efforts to provide his own deposit claim and real estate as collateral in order to repay the remaining damages, and that the illegal loan seems to have no profit on the property acquired by Defendant 6, the punishment lower than the above recommended punishment shall be determined.

[Defendant 2]

Defendant 2 was the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4, and did not pay wages and retirement allowances equivalent to KRW 65 million to workers. Defendant 2 had the said Nonindicted Co. 4 bear the liability equivalent to KRW 1,550,000 for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party. Defendant 2 committed the above crime without being aware of, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment due to fraud, etc., for a suspended sentence of two years.

The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is 2 years - 5 years [the embezzlement and breach of trust crime group, 2 types (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), and the basic area].

However, a lower punishment than the above recommended punishment shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant both recognizes and reflects his own crime, and that part of the amount of damage is actually used as the acquisition fund of Nonindicted Co. 4.

[Defendant 4]

The crime of this case is inevitable in that it damages the purpose of legislation of the Political Fund Act with the aim of contributing to the sound development of democratic politics by guaranteeing the adequate provision of political funds and preventing any malpractice related to political funds, and the crime of this case is committed several times, planned, and organized over several years, and the crime of this case cannot be deemed to be light.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant was the first offender, and the crime of this case was led by Nonindicted 7, etc., and the defendant, as the approving authority, has been passively causing to commit the crime of this case for the reduction and exemption of disciplinary action against subordinate employees, the protection of organization, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 5 requested Defendant 1 and 6 to provide a security with adequate property value necessary for recovery of claims, instead of providing certain benefits, such as loan increase, or to provide a loan with an excessive loan-backed collateral only with an excessive collateral, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 conspired to commit a mutual crime by accepting Defendant 5’s demand, in violation of the occupational duty required for performing such loan-related business as an executive or employee of the above union.

1) Loans of KRW 160 million on March 28, 2008

피고인 5는 2008. 3.경 공소외 3 협동조합에서 피고인 1, 6에게 서울 ◁◁구 ▷▷▷▷▷상가 (층호수 생략) 중 공유자 공소외 32의 공유지분 740.62분의 13.22, 740.62분의 341.64, 740.62분의 19.16 및 공유자 공소외 33의 공유지분 740.62분의 21.92, 740.62분의 13.93, 피고인 5의 공유지분 740.62분의 43.89를 각 담보로 1억 6,000만 원을 대출해 달라고 부탁하고, 피고인 1, 6은 위 대출업무를 취급함에 있어 위 공소외 32의 공유지분 740.62분의 341.64에는 2001. 11. 30.경 이미 공소외 34 새마을금고에 채권최고액 2억 2,100만 원 상당의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있는 등 그 담보가치가 대출신청금액에 못 미친다는 사정을 잘 알면서도 그 임무에 위배하여 2008. 3. 28. 위 부동산의 각 공유지분을 담보로 피고인 5에게 1억 6,000만 원을 대출해주었다.

As a result, Defendant 1, 5, and 6 violated their duties, thereby having Defendant 5 gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 160 million from Defendant 5, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

2) Loans of KRW 120 million on May 2, 2008

피고인 5는 2008. 5.경 공소외 3 협동조합에서 피고인 1, 6에게 위 서울 ◁◁구 ▷▷▷▷▷ 상가 중 공유자 공소외 32의 공유지분 740.62분의 13.22, 740.62분의 341.64, 740.62분의 19.16과 공소외 32 소유의 부천시 (이하 생략)(2008년도 공시가격 4억 600만 원, 이하 ‘부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호‘라고 한다)를 각 담보로 1억 2,000만 원을 대출해 달라고 부탁하고, 위 피고인 1 등은 위 대출업무를 취급함에 있어 위 공소외 32의 공유지분에는 위와 같이 2001. 11. 30.경 이미 공소외 34 새마을금고에 채권최고액 2억 2,100만 원 상당의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있었을 뿐만 아니라 2008. 3. 31.경 공소외 3 협동조합에도 채권최고액 1억 6,000만 원 상당의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있었고, 위 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호도 2006. 11. 30.경 이미 공소외 35 주식회사(이하 ’ 공소외 35 회사‘라고 한다)에 채권최고액 4억 9,560만 원 상당의 선순위근저당권이 설정되어 있는 등 그 담보가치가 대출신청금액에 못 미친다는 사정을 잘 알면서도 그 임무에 위배하여 2008. 5. 2.경 위 부동산들을 담보로 피고인 5에게 1억 2,000만 원을 대출해주었다.

As a result, Defendant 1, 5, and 6 violated their duties, thereby having Defendant 5 gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 120 million from Defendant 5, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

B. Defendant 1, 5, and 6 and their defense counsel's assertion

Since the collateral value of the secured real estate at the time of each loan stated in this part of the facts charged was higher than the loan amount, the Defendants did not have the intention of breach of trust.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The provision on the restriction on lending limit to the same person of community credit cooperatives is prepared for the proper operation of community credit cooperatives themselves, and it does not directly take into account the possibility of recovery of loan claims, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of not immediately recovering loan claims. Therefore, even if a person violates the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act by lending a loan in excess of the loan limit to the same person, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that a crime of occupational breach of trust is established unless there is a special reason. In general, in light of the financial status of a loan obligor at the time of lending, the overall financial transaction situation including loans from other financial institutions, loans from other financial institutions, and other debts, the current status of business and prospects, the purpose of lending, the required period, etc., in addition to the above fact that the loan limit exceeds the loan limit to the same person, and thus, it shall be deemed that the occupational breach of trust has occurred only when it is deemed that there is a problem in the collection of loan claims due to the lack of debt repayment ability or the economic value of the collateral provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Do476.

2) Determination as to the value of security

In light of the above legal principles, in order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust due to an insolvent loan, it is not sufficient that the loaner simply violates the legal or occupational duties required, and it is objectively insufficient to secure the recovery of loan, and it is not sufficient to prove that the value of the security is the value of the security, which is the security, at the time of the loan of each charge.

A) A loan of KRW 160 million on March 28, 2008

검사가 제출한 증거에 의하면, 위 부동산 중 공소외 32의 공유지분에 관하여 2001. 11. 30.경 이미 공소외 34 새마을금고에 채권최고액 2억 2,100만 원 상당의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있는 사실, 위 ▷▷▷▷▷상가 (층호수 생략) 중 공소외 32 지분에 관하여 선순위 근저당권자인 공소외 34 새마을금고가 2009. 12. 9.경 청구금액을 168,813,790원으로 임의경매( 서울중앙지방법원 2009타경45826호 )를 신청한 결과, 위 부동산 중 공소외 32의 지분은 2010. 11. 17. 3억 230만 원 상당에 낙찰되었고, 선순위 채권액을 공제하면 공소외 3 협동조합에 대한 배당액이 3,600여만 원 상당에 불과한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이 부분 대출일로부터 약 2년 8개월이 지난 시점의 위 공소외 32 지분에 대한 낙찰금액이 3억 230만 원 상당에 불과함에도 이미 채권최고액 2억 2,100만 원 상당의 선순위근저당권이 설정된 부동산을 담보로 1억 6,000만 원을 대출하였고, 위 공소외 32 지분을 제외한 나머지 피고인 5 등 명의의 지분은 소수에 불과하여 별다른 담보가치가 없는 점을 고려하면, 피고인 1, 6, 5가 위 부분 대출 당시 담보가치가 대출금액을 상환하기에 충분하지 않다는 점을 알고도 부당대출을 실행한 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.

However, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt for guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4541, Jan. 14, 2010; 2008Do1096, Jun. 25, 2009).

살피건대, 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① ◈◈감정원이 공매 목적으로 위 서울 ◁◁구 ▷▷▷▷▷ (층호수 생략) 상가에 대하여 2004. 11. 1. 기준으로 감정한 평가액은 16억 원이고, 위 상가 중 공소외 32의 지분 비율에 따라 계산한 위 ▷▷▷▷▷ 상가 중 공소외 32 공유지분의 가액은 7억 3,700만 원 상당이며, 위 ▷▷▷▷▷ 상가 중 공소외 32 공유지분에 대한 임의경매 사건에서의 2009. 12. 23.자 기준 감정가 또한 8억 5,000만 원인 점, ② 이 사건 대출일인 2008. 3. 28. 당시의 위 ▷▷▷▷▷ 상가의 감정가액이 앞서 본 바와 같은 2004. 11. 1.자 감정가액 7억 3,700만 원 상당과 2009. 12. 23.자 감정가액 8억 5,000만 원을 크게 벗어날 것으로 볼만한 사정이 엿보이지 아니하는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 대출 당시 피고인 5가 담보로 제공한 위 부동산의 담보가치는, 선순위 근저당권의 채권최고액인 2억 2,100만 원을 공제하고도 대출금액인 1억 6,000만 원을 훨씬 상회하였다고 볼 충분한 여지가 있으므로, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 이 사건 대출 당시 부동산의 담보가치가 대출금 1억 6,000만 원을 회수하기에 충분하지 않았다고 단정할 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

B) A loan of KRW 120 million on May 2, 2008

위 ▷▷▷▷▷상가 공소외 32의 공유지분에는 공소외 34 새마을금고 명의의 선순위 근저당권이 설정되어 있었고, 선순위근저당권자에 의한 경매절차에서 공소외 3 협동조합이 배당받지 못한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 이 사건 기록에 의하면, 위 ▷▷▷▷▷ 상가에는 피고인 5 명의의 2008. 3. 28. 1억 6,000만 원의 대출금을 담보하기 위하여 2008. 3. 31.경 공소외 3 협동조합에 채권최고액 1억 6,000만 원 상당의 근저당권이 추가로 설정된 사실, 위 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호에 관하여도 2006. 11. 30.경 이미 공소외 35 회사 앞으로 채권최고액 4억 6,560만 원 상당의 선순위근저당권이 설정되어 있는 사실, 위 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호의 2008년도 공시가격은 4억 600만 원이고, 위 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호에 관하여는 2010. 1. 8.경 선순위 근저당권자인 공소외 35 회사가 청구금액 429,049,940원으로 임의경매( 인천지방법원 부천지원 2010타경304호 )를 신청한 결과, 2010. 4. 1.경 4억 1,060만 원 상당에 낙찰되어 공소외 3 협동조합은 배당을 받지 못한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 앞서 피고인 5 명의의 2008. 3. 28.자 1억 6,000만 원 대출의 점과 마찬가지로 이 부분 대출의 경우에도 피고인 1, 5, 6이 담보가치가 부족하다는 점을 알고도 대출을 실행한 것은 아닌지 의심이 든다.

그러나 ① 앞서 본 바와 같은 위 ▷▷▷▷▷상가에 대한 감정가액(7억 3,700만 원 내지 8억 5,000만 원)에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 대출 당시 공소외 34 새마을금고 및 공소외 3 협동조합 앞으로 설정된 각 선순위근저당권의 채권최고액 합계 3억 8,100만 원(= 2억 2,100만 원 + 1억 6,000만 원) 상당을 공제하더라도 남은 담보가치가 대출금액인 1억 2,000만 원을 상회한다고 볼 충분한 여지가 있는 점, ② 나아가 이 사건 기록에 의하면, 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호의 2008. 5. 당시 일반 평균 매매가가 5억 9,500만 원, 위 부동산에 관한 2010. 1.경 법원경매 감정가가 5억 3,000만 원인바, 선순위 채권최고액 4억 6,560만 원 상당을 고려하더라도 이 부분 대출 당시 위 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호의 담보가치가 수천만 원에 이르렀다고 볼 여지가 있는 점, ③ 피고인 6은 이 법정에서 ‘이 사건 대출 당시 서울 ◁◁구 ▷▷▷▷▷상가만으로도 담보가치가 충분하다고 파악하였고, 위 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호는 담보여력을 강화하기 위한 추가담보로만 평가하였다.’고 진술한 점 등을 종합하면, 검사가 제출한 증거만으로는 이 부분 대출 당시 피고인 5가 담보로 제공한 서울 ◁◁구 ▷▷▷▷▷상가의 공소외 32 지분과 부천시 ◐◐타운 ♤♤♤호의 담보가치가 대출금액인 1억 2,000만 원을 회수하기에 충분하지 않았다고 단정할 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

3) Conclusion

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 6, and 5 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it shall be sentenced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. [The prosecutor was indicted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by comprehensively taking into account the act of improper loans in three times under Defendant 5, and the total amount of KRW 160 million on March 28, 2008 and KRW 120 million on May 2, 2008 and KRW 280 million on May 18, 2009 can be deemed to have a single legal interest and the form of crime is identical, but it is difficult to view that the loan is a series of acts based on a single crime, considering the time when the loan occurred, real estate, and circumstances of the loan.]

2. Defendant 5-2’s occupational breach of trust due to the loan of KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009

A. Summary of the facts charged

On August 209, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, who was the president of the above union, who was in charge of the business affairs of the above union as the president of the non-indicted 3 cooperative, to provide the above union with a security of adequate property value necessary for recovery of claims, such as loan expansion, or to provide a loan with a security of excessive financial value necessary for recovery of claims, instead of providing a certain benefit, such as the so-called loan expansion, etc., and Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 conspired to commit a mutual act by accepting Defendant 5’s demand, in violation of the business duties required for handling such loan business as an executive officer or employee of the above union.

Defendant 5, as indicated in the crime of occupational breach of trust due to loans of KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, as indicated in the judgment, requested Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 to borrow three of KRW 300 million to jointly secure at the time of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, △△△△△△ apartment, which was owned by Nonindicted 36, and requested Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 to provide three of KRW 300 million to jointly secure. Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 knew of the fact that the above real estate did not have actual value as security, and provided loans of KRW 300 million to Defendant 5 as security on August 18, 2009, by being aware of the fact that the above real estate did not have actual value as security.

As a result, Defendant 5 conspiredd with the above Defendant 1 and 6 to acquire the above loans of KRW 300 million, and caused a loss equivalent to the same amount to Nonindicted 3 Cooperatives.

B. Defendant 5 and defense counsel’s assertion

In Ansan-si, Defendant 5 offered as security, 306 of the △△△△ apartment building and three of the △△△ apartment shops at the time of the loan of this part of this case, the collateral value was limited to the loan, and Defendant 5 applied for the loan to Defendant 1 and Defendant 6, and there was no fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 participated in the act of breach of trust.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

First of all, the security value of the secured real estate does not exceed KRW 300 million, and there is a crime of occupational breach of trust as to Defendant 1 and 6’s act of lending KRW 300 million on August 18, 2009, such as Defendant 5’s stated in this part of the facts charged, as seen above. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) around August 2009, Defendant 5 demanded that Defendant 1 of his pro-Japanese job offering grant loans of KRW 300 million to Defendant 1, who owns his pro-Japanese, △△△△△△△△△ Building and three of the △△△△△△△△△△ apartment building in the Si/Gun-si.

B) Defendant 1 ordered Defendant 6 to provide a loan of KRW 300 million to Defendant 5 with the above real estate as collateral. Defendant 6, even though having confirmed that senior mortgage was already established on the above secured real estate, he asked Defendant 1 about the market price of the real estate office in the vicinity of the above real estate, and without taking any particular measures, obtained approval for the loan of KRW 300 million by attaching the related documents, such as a copy of the register of the real estate.

C) Defendant 1 had knowledge of the fact that the senior mortgage was already established on the said secured real estate during the process of approval, and ordered Defendant 6 to execute the loan of KRW 300 million. Accordingly, Defendant 5 borrowed KRW 300 million from the cooperative of Nonindicted 3 on August 18, 2009.

2) Relevant legal principles

Meanwhile, in order to recognize a beneficiary who benefits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust or a third party closely related thereto as a co-principal with the perpetrator of the crime of occupational breach of trust, it is insufficient to acquire profits by taking advantage of the act of breach of trust passively even though he knows that the act of the perpetrator constitutes the act of breach of trust against the principal who is the victim. It is necessary to actively participate in the act of breach of trust by inducing the perpetrator to commit the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911 delivered on July 23, 199, etc.).

3) In light of the above legal principles, as to whether Defendant 5 actively participated in Defendant 1 and 6’s act of lending KRW 300 million in the course of obtaining a loan, or participating in the entire process of lending, etc., the health account is as to whether Defendant 5 actively participated in the act of breach of trust. According to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant 5 demanded an amount of loan equivalent to security value by offering real estate as security to the association whose relatives have their relatives, and Defendant 1 and 6’s act of giving a loan to Defendant 5 constitutes an unfair loan, and constitutes an act of occupational breach of trust against the association as an unfair loan. It is acknowledged that Defendant 5 actually participated and used part of the loan in the process of various proposals recognized as the above unfair loan, but it is difficult to view that Defendant 5 actively participated in the act of breach of trust by taking advantage of Defendant 1 and 6’s occupational breach of trust, or by taking part in the entire process of the act of breach of trust or by taking part in the act of breach of trust. There is no evidence otherwise.

4) Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove Defendant 5 guilty of this part of the facts charged, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to the loan of KRW 1 billion in the name of Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 6 to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 40 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 40”) and Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 40 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 1”), jointly established Nonindicted Co. 2 and Defendant 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 1”) provided Defendant 5 with a golf course membership right of Nonindicted Co. 40 as if they were issued in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3, as if they were issued in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 40, and some of the loans were granted to Defendant 5, as if they were issued in the name of Nonindicted Co. 40, Dec. 17, 2010; Defendant 5 offered a loan to Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 2 for the use of the remaining loans to Defendant Co. 5’s overall president; Defendant 1 did not provide the above loans to Defendant Co. 1 and the Association with adequate financial benefits.

Accordingly, around December 2010, the above non-indicted 2 issued and delivered to the non-indicted 1 company the sum of the 20 billion won total of the 2.6 billion won for the golf club membership of the non-indicted 39 company (the normal price: 130 million won) to the non-indicted 1 company operated by the defendant 2, who was employed as the representative director, and the defendant 5 and the defendant 2 requested the above 1 and the defendant 6 to loan the above 1 billion won as security to the non-indicted 40 company. In handling the above loan business, the defendant 1 and the 6 did not confirm whether the above non-indicted 40 company's right to the golf club membership was issued in the fixed form and whether the sale price was paid in the future, and whether the above non-indicted 200 million won was actually not secured, and whether the above 100 billion won was not worth being sold in the non-indicted 2's membership right or whether the above 100 billion won was actually secured by the non-indicted 16.

As a result, Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6 and Nonindicted 2 jointly offered a public offering to acquire the above loans of KRW 1 billion, and they incurred a significant loss to Nonindicted 3 cooperatives.

B. The above Defendants and their defense counsel's assertion

The right to a golf club membership offered as security is issued within the extent that Nonindicted 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 40, obtained approval for the sale from △△△△△ City, and the Defendants did not pretend to issue the golf club membership right, and Defendant 2 did not pay the sale price, or Defendant 2 did not register with the Korea Golf Association. The right to a golf club membership cannot be deemed as having no value of collateral solely on the ground that the golf club membership right was issued by Nonindicted 2, the representative director of Nonindicted

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the records of this case, the following facts can be recognized.

A) On October 2010, Defendant 2, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, became aware of Nonindicted Company 2, who was the representative director of Nonindicted Company 40, and Defendant 5 came to know of Defendant 1 and 6 with the fact that Defendant 2 received a loan from the partnership through Defendant 5.

B) Meanwhile, around September 14, 2010, Nonindicted 2 issued a bill to secure the payment of the purchase price by purchasing Nonindicted 42 and 43 the management right and 100% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 40 for KRW 3.3 billion. In this case, Nonindicted Company 44 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 44”) promised the payment of the said bill, and Nonindicted 2 was in office as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 40 from September 201 to February 201.

C) On December 2010, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2 decided to obtain a loan from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives whose golf club membership rights were secured by Defendant 5 through Defendant 5. Defendant 1 issued a golf club membership right in the name of Nonindicted 40, while Nonindicted 40 was not paid the sale price, Defendant 2 borrowed a loan of KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted 3 cooperatives as security, and Defendant 2 established Nonindicted 41 Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted 41 Company”) along with Defendant 5 and 1, and the remainder of KRW 500 million was written by Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2.

D) Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 asked Defendant 1 to grant a loan of KRW 1 billion to Defendant 1 as security, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 6 to verify whether a secured loan against the right to golf club membership is possible. Defendant 6 confirmed Defendant 1’s employees of the National Bank of Korea and the certified judicial scrivener of the National Bank, and reported Defendant 1 to be able to obtain a secured loan by establishing a pledge against the right to golf club membership and obtaining a notarial deed.

E) Defendant 2 offered Defendant 1 as security Chapter 5 of the fifth-minute of Nonindicted Company 40’s membership right (amount of KRW 300 million) to Defendant 1. In this case, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2 informed Defendant 1, 6, and 5 that the golf club membership right offered as security was not paid.

F) However, Defendant 1 did not obtain approval for the sale of the instant 5-minute membership from ○○○ Island, and the applicant for the loan (Nonindicted Company 1) and the nominal owner (Defendant 2) changed the security to the fourth-minute membership, and demanded the borrower to become Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2 again offered the loan amounting to KRW 2.6 billion in face value (hereinafter “instant golf club membership”).

G) On December 16, 2010, Defendant 1 and 6 established a pledge on the above 4th class membership 20, and had it notarized, Defendant 1 and 6 executed a loan of KRW 1 billion in the future of Nonindicted Company 1 as collateral. Of KRW 1 billion, KRW 500 million deposited in Nonindicted Company 41’s capital. Defendant 5, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 decided to have divided the shares of KRW 15% in the name of Nonindicted Company 21, Defendant 21, and Defendant 2 used the remainder amount of KRW 200 million.

H) Meanwhile, Nonindicted 44 Company’s failure to comply with Nonindicted 2’s payment undertaking of the promissory note issued by Nonindicted 2 to pay the acquisition price of Nonindicted Company 40 on December 2010, and thereafter Nonindicted 2’s acquisition of Nonindicted Company 40 was no longer made. Nonindicted 2’s relocation management, including Nonindicted 43, returned to Nonindicted 40 Company’s relocation management, issued a golf club membership right with a unique number equal to the instant golf club membership right, and sold it to a third party after completing registration with the Korea Golf Association.

(ii) review;

가) 그러므로 우선 이 사건 골프장회원권이 발행을 가장한 것으로서 담보가치가 전혀 없거나 혹은 대출금을 회수하기에 담보가치가 부족하였는지에 관하여 보건대, 위와 같은 사실관계 및 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 공소외 2는 공소외 40 회사의 경영권 및 주식 전부를 양수하고 대표이사의 지위에서 이 사건 회원권에 발행일자를 기재하고 대표이사의 직인을 날인함으로써 회원권을 발행하였으므로, 당시 누구든지 위 골프장회원권에 대하여 대한골프장협회에 등록을 하고 취득세를 납부하면 이를 사용할 수 있었던 점, ② 공소외 2는 공소외 40 회사를 인수한 이후 피고인 2와 골프장회원권을 담보로 한 대출을 논의하기 전에 이미 공소외 44 회사 ▲▲지점으로부터 공소외 40 회사 골프장회원권 111구좌 약 200억 원 상당을 담보로 제공하고 리조트 공사대금 100억 원을 대출받기로 하였는데, 결국 2010. 12. 초순경 위 대출이 무산되고 골프장회원권을 반환받았으나, 위 회원권 또한 분양대금이 납부된 바 없고, 대한골프장협회에 등록이 되었다거나 취득세가 납부된 바가 없었던 점, ③ 한편 공소외 2가 발행한 이 사건 골프장회원권의 고유번호(회원번호 생략)는 ●●●도로부터 분양승인을 받은 것으로 애초에 공소외 44 회사에 담보로 제공하였던 회원권 중 일부의 고유번호와 일치하는 점, ④ 이 사건 공소외 3 협동조합에 대한 대출 이외에도 공소외 2는 이 사건 골프장회원권을 담보로 공소외 45 주식회사로부터 대출을 받고자 하였으나, 연말이라 위 은행에 대출금이 묶여 있었던 사정으로 대출이 실행되지 아니하였던 점, ⑤ 증인 공소외 43은 이 법정에서 ‘이 사건 회원권에 대하여는 공소외 2가 지금도 공소외 40 회사의 대표이사였다면 차후에 등록을 하였을 것이고, 어쨌거나 공소외 2가 공소외 40 회사의 대표이사로 있을 때 발행된 것이기 때문에 결과적으로는 공소외 40 회사에서 책임을 져야 하는 것이 맞다. 한편, 지금도 공소외 40 회사에서 발행하고 등록이 안 된 상태에서 담보로 제공된 회원권이 있으며, 위와 같은 회원권은 제외하고 분양을 하고 있다.’라는 취지로 진술하였고, 증인 공소외 2도 이 법정에서 실제로 분양대금 납입이나 등록 여부와 상관없이 회원권을 담보로 금융기관으로부터 대출을 받은 사례가 있었다고 진술한 점 등을 종합하면, 공소외 2는 이 사건 회원권을 담보로 제공할 당시 공소외 40 회사의 대표이사로서 공소외 43으로부터 분양권 발행에 관한 권한을 양수받아 그 권한 범위 내에서 공소외 40 회사 명의로 골프장회원권을 발행한 것으로 보이고, 공소외 2의 의사에 따라 회원권이 발행된 이상, 피고인 2와 공소외 2가 골프장 회원권의 발행을 가장하였다거나 허위로 발행하였다고 볼 수 없으며, 분양대금이 납부되지 아니하였다거나 대한골프장협회의 등록을 거치지 아니하고 취득세가 납부되지 아니하였다는 사정만으로 회원권 발행이 무효라거나 회원권이 재산적 가치가 없어 대출금 회수를 위한 담보가치가 없다고 볼 수도 없고, 액면 26억 원의 골프장 회원권을 담보로 10억 원을 대출받았다는 사정만으로 위 회원권의 담보가치가 대출금에 미치지 못한다고 단정할 수 없다.

B) Furthermore, Defendant 1’s refusal to grant the above loan to Nonindicted Co. 4 as security, although Defendant 2 was unable to complete the construction of the above building as a result of Defendant 6’s confirmation, Defendant 2 again refused to obtain a golf club membership right in the ceiling, but Defendant 1’s refusal to issue a membership right in the above loan only for the reasons that the above loan was issued, and Defendant 2 offered a golf club membership right in the first place with a total face value of KRW 2 billion as security; Defendant 2 attempted to offer a golf club membership right in the above amount of KRW 00 million as security; Defendant 1 offered a loan to Nonindicted Co. 6’s loan out to Nonindicted Co. 1 as security; Defendant 2 offered a total of KRW 260,000,000 to Defendant Co. 4 and KRW 260,000,000,000 to Defendant Co. 2, Ltd. on the ground that this case’s loan was not feasible; Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 2 offered to Defendant 400,00.

C) Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 6 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. The violation of the Political Funds Act against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 1은 2006. 2.경부터 2011. 4.경까지 공소외 3 협동조합 이사장으로 재직하는 이외에, 2010. 6. 2. 실시된 전국지방선거에서 제8대 ○○도의회 의원( ■■■ 제2선거구)으로 당선되어 현재 건설교통위원회 소속 의원으로 일하고 있고, 2008. 4.경부터 ◆◆시· ■■■시 지역 선거구 공소외 48 국회의원의 후원회 부회장으로 재직하고 있다.

On the other hand, as stated in Article 3-A (A) of the facts constituting the violation of the Political Funds Act against Defendant 4, the Livestock Industry Association asserted and demanded the purport against the National Agricultural and Food Committee of the National Assembly and all levels of society on the following grounds: “The Livestock Industry Organization is absorptioned under the jurisdiction of the managing director, thus infringing on the expertise and independence of the livestock economy, and the independent representative election authority of the representative director of the livestock economy guaranteed by the Special Provision on Livestock Industry as the Special Provision on Livestock Industry is also maintained only under the pretext, and the representative of the livestock economy shall continue to exist under the current system to guarantee the expertise and independence of the livestock industry.”

No one shall contribute political funds with funds related to domestic or foreign corporations or organizations, and shall contribute political funds in relation to the affairs in charge and management by public officials.

However, in the above process, Defendant 1, as the vice-chairperson of the National Assembly member's supporters' association in the above region, called Nonindicted 7, who had a real understanding of the existence, etc. of a livestock economy representative as above, and then was examined positively to the extent of 80% of the existence of the Special Provision on Livestock Industry, with a thickness of our National Assembly member and the Special Provision on Livestock Industry. When revising the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Defendant 1 demanded Nonindicted 5 to be able to keep the Special Provision on Livestock Industry in existence, and Nonindicted 7 also demanded that Defendant 1 contribute support payments to our supporters' association. In accepting the above request, Nonindicted 7 also requested that Defendant 1 reflect the special provision on the existence of livestock industry representative in the process of amending the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, such as the election of the president for livestock industry, and requested that Defendant 1 contribute support payments to Nonindicted 5 in return.

In addition, Nonindicted 7, in relation to Nonindicted 5’s cooperative heads, etc., directed executives and employees belonging to Nonindicted 5’s cooperative through the executive council and the instruction letter, and collected political funds by withholding KRW 100,000 in a lump sum from their pay, and decided to make a person in charge of benefits to contribute political funds in a manner of collectively remitting one hundred thousand won in the name of the above executives and employees to the said supporters’ association of the National Assembly.

On April 21, 2010, Nonindicted 7 had Nonindicted 5 Cooperative Management Innovation Director 49 et al. take a lump sum deduction of 14.2 million won from 142 executives and employees belonging to the said Livestock Cooperative, each of which was kept in the Livestock Cooperative Receipt Account after deducting 1.4.2 million won from each of the above 142 executives and employees belonging to the said Livestock Cooperative. On August 11, 201 of the same year, Nonindicted 7 wired KRW 14.2 million in total to the said member’s supporters’ association account in the name of 1.42 members and employees of Nonindicted 5 Cooperative, and around that time, the said person in charge of Nonindicted 5’s benefits sent the list of 1.42 members of the said member’ association to the said member’s supporters’ association.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with the above Nonindicted 7, contributed to the political funds of KRW 14.2 million in relation to the solicitation of the proposal, examination, and resolution of the legislative bill, which is a public official's affairs, as a fund related to Nonindicted 5 Cooperatives, which is a corporation.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The record of this case reveals that Defendant 1 called Nonindicted 7, the executive director of Nonindicted 5 cooperative, around early 2010, for Defendant 4’s violation of the Political Funds Act in 2010 and the argument of the above Defendant. Defendant 1 called “ Nonindicted 48 National Assembly members think that the continuation of the livestock industry representative in relation to the amendment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is positive at least 80%, and it is in the position of representing the agriculture and livestock industry in our region. As such, Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 7 and 49 agreed to contribute one hundred thousand won per employee as in the next year.” Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 7 and 49 agreed to receive political funds from the livestock cooperative’s staff to make a lump sum deduction of KRW 10,000 for each applicant’s money to be paid for political funds, and on August 11, 2010, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 were able to recognize the fact that Defendant 1 and the vice-chairperson of the National Assembly members were remitted to Defendant 250,000 won for political funds.

2) Relevant legal principles

The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through the intent of co-processing and the functional control of the functional act by the co-principal. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the constituent act among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether he/she satisfies the above requirements. However, in order to be recognized as a co-principal by a co-principal who did not directly share and implement the constituent act as a co-principal, in full view of the status and role of the co-principal in the whole crime, and the control or power over the progress of the crime, etc., as well as the mere conspiracy, it should be recognized that the functional control through the essential contribution to the crime exists (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010, etc.

(iii) review;

Therefore, it was examined whether Defendant 1 was proven by the prosecutor about the fact that Defendant 1 had a fundamental functional control over this part of the facts charged, by inviting Defendant 4, Nonindicted 7, etc. to support political funds in advance and participating in the process of checking the applicants for political fund support, obtaining a lump sum deduction from the benefits title funds, and transferring them to the account of the supporters’ association, etc. However, even according to the facts charged in this case, Defendant 1’s act was said to be a donation to the effect that Defendant 1’s act was made by phone call to Nonindicted 7 and the National Assembly members, who are the vice-chairperson of the supporters’ association, were working in order to revise the law in a way favorable to the livestock cooperative.

그런데 ① 피고인 1은 다름 아닌 정치자금의 기부를 목적으로 설립·운영되는 단체인 국회의원 후원회의 부회장으로서 정치자금 모금이 주된 역할인 점, ② 당시 피고인 4 등은 축산대표이사 특례조항이 존속되기를 바라고 있었으나, 이는 공소외 5 협동조합 뿐만 아니라 모든 축협의 공통된 관심사항이었고, 특별히 공소외 5 협동조합이 직접적인 이해관계를 가진 것은 아니었으며, 해당 국회의원은 이미 지역행사 등을 통하여 자신이 축협에 유리한 입장인 점을 수차례 밝혀왔던 점, ③ 피고인 4 등은 이미 2008년도, 2009년도에도 피고인 1의 요청으로 축협과 관련된 자금으로 후원회에 기부를 하였고, 그 과정에서 피고인 1과 인사를 나누는 등 서로 안면이 있었던 점, ④ 피고인 1의 수차례에 걸친 기부 요청에도 불구하고, 피고인 4 등은 얼마든지 위 요청을 거절하고 정치자금을 기부하지 않을 수 있었으나, ◆◆시 지역구 국회의원이고 마침 위 국회의원이 축협에게 유리한 입장이며, 결정적으로 직원 1인당 10만 원씩을 기부하더라도 99,000원을 세액공제를 통해 돌려받는다는 점에서 직원들에게도 별다른 부담이 없다고 생각하여 정치자금을 기부한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 공소외 5 협동조합에서 이루어진 정치자금 후원 신청자 파악, 후원금 보관, 후원회로의 계좌이체 등 모든 과정의 시기와 방법은 공소외 7, 49가 피고인 4의 결재를 받아 결정하였고, 피고인 1은 어떤 식으로든 여기에 관여한 바가 없으며 달리 관여할 수도 없었던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 정치자금법 제31조 는 앞서 본 바와 같은 그 입법목적에도 불구하고 단체의 정치적 활동의 자유를 제한하는 것인 만큼 해석과 적용을 엄격하게 할 필요가 있고, 이는 공범인 피고인 1의 행위지배를 인정함에 있어서도 마찬가지인 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1이 공소외 7에게 전화를 하여 국회의원이 입법과정에서 축협에 유리한 방향으로 애를 쓸 것이니 정치자금을 기부하라고 한 행위를 두고 사전에 정치자금을 후원하는 행위를 공모하였다거나 기부과정에서 본질적인 기능적 행위지배가 있었다고 보기는 어렵고, 그보다는 후원회의 부회장으로서 정치자금 기부를 부탁하면서 축협과 이해관계가 있는 쟁점을 부각시켜 기부를 적극적으로 유도하기 위한 행위라고 봄이 상당하다.

4) Conclusion

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 1 had a prior public offering with Defendant 4 and an essential functional control over Defendant 1’s act. Thus, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 31 (Restriction on Contribution) of the Political Funds Act (1) No foreigner, domestic or foreign corporation or organization shall contribute any political funds. (2) No person shall contribute any political funds with funds related to any domestic or foreign corporation or organization.

2) At the time of November 25, 1999, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the portion of “labor organization” under Article 12 (Restrictions on Contributions) of the Political Funds Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3302, Dec. 31, 1980) (the Constitutional Court Order 95HunBa154, Nov. 25, 199); and thereafter, the provision on the contribution of a labor organization was deleted under the Act amended by Act No. 6270, Feb. 16, 200.

Note 3) Constitutional Court Order 208HunBa89 Decided December 28, 2010 see Supreme Court Order 2008HunBa89.

Note 4) Constitutional Court Order 208HunBa89 Decided December 28, 2010 see Supreme Court Order 2008HunBa89.