1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Considering the facts constituting the crime in the indictment of this case in light of various data in the case records, the court below's decision that the defendant 1, 2, etc. in the court below's judgment did not incur any damage to the new mutual saving and finance company since the defendant 1, 500,000 won, and the defendant 2 in the court below's decision delivered 375,00,000 won to the defendant, and the defendant 1, 2 in the court below's decision that the above money was not deposited in the new mutual savings and finance company, but in private transaction with the defendant, the defendant 1, and 2 knew that the above money was not deposited in the new mutual savings and finance company, and the new mutual savings and finance company did not have any liability for repayment, and therefore, the above new mutual savings and finance company did not have any damage to the new mutual savings and finance company under the Civil Act. Thus, the court below's decision that this part of the charge did not constitute a crime is just and

In the debate, it is a separate issue as to whether overseas transactions borrow loans in violation of Article 17 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and whether the funds raised therefrom are used for purposes other than the business purposes of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act. The facts charged of this case is not prosecuted itself, but the defendant used funds generated from such transactions personally for personal businesses, such as bond play, etc., and thus, it is reasonable to judge that the applicable provisions of the indictment of this case are stipulated in Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, and the above penal provisions are the elements of the act in violation of the duties of the company and cause damage to the Mutual Savings and Finance Company because the above penal provisions include acquiring financial gains or letting a third party acquire them, thereby causing damage to the Mutual Savings and Finance Company. Therefore, it is not a separate issue as to whether the funds are used for purposes other than the business purposes of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company, and there is no reason to judge that there was any error in the judgment of the court below as to the facts charged of this case.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the defendant's defense counsel and the defendant's defense counsel

If evidence is collected at the time of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, it shall be sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant in violation of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act at the time of the original judgment, and up to this time, the court below's deliberation process or the determination of the evidence cannot be conducted without hearing, or the determination of the evidence cannot be conducted in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles on the measures to apply Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company

We cannot accept the argument that, apart from whether so-called outdoor transactions are liable for repayment to the mutual savings and finance company in violation of Article 17 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, the court below held that in this case, the defendant takes overall charge of all the affairs of the same credit cooperative in the position of the representative director of the said mutual savings and finance company, and each other party to the transaction was involved in the loan of this case and the funds of the defendant were used in personal business, such as bond play, etc. of the defendant. Thus, the above credit cooperative is the defendant's employer who is liable for compensation for damages inflicted upon a third party in connection with the execution of its business, and therefore it cannot be viewed that the above credit cooperative suffered property damage to the above credit cooperative.

In the debate of the theory, the financial provider of this case is the precious airspace in Busan area, and it was made at the president office of the above credit cooperative, which is used by the defendant, with the knowledge of the transaction relationship with the credit cooperative and requested the management of idle funds, all of the transactions were made without going through the business counter, and a bill issued to the financial provider was entered by the hand, without using the paper, due to the fact that the paper was bad and bad, and there was no personal seal between the person in charge of the transaction and the revenue stamp and the revenue stamp were attached, and the agreement rate was also 15 pro through 27.6 pro rata per annum. In light of the fact that the agreement is the high rate of 15 pro through 27.6 pro rata per annum, the financial provider was not a transaction with the credit cooperative and the defendant, so the new credit cooperative and the financial company did not have any damage, and therefore there was no reason for all of these facts to recognize all of these facts, but there is no reason to criticize the fact that belongs to the exclusive right.

3. Therefore, the appeal by the public prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)