A. In light of the following circumstances, unlike misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendants recognized the instant loan as an individual loan to six debtors, and did not know that Q Q (hereinafter “ Q”) was a loan to one debtor.

① The instant loan was made as a proposal by the M Saemaul Fund’s proposal. The N explained to the Defendant C that “the instant loan will be made to executives and investors of Q Q, who are not construction enterprises, and they will make investments in the said enterprises to build a primary complex building.” It did not explain that the instant loan was actually made to Q1.

② Although the loan of this case was urgently needed to receive a high interest rate of 9% due to the lack of considerable management difficulties, the Korea Saemaul Savings Depository and the Korea Saemaul Savings Depository did not have any reason to implement the loan of this case until the risk is observed, since the operation performance of the Korea Saemaul Savings Depository (hereinafter referred to as the “victim’s Saemaul Savings Depository”) has very good quality.

③ It is true that the owner of the land of the Daegu Jung-gu P and 20 lots (hereinafter “instant land”) who is the secured real estate for the instant loan is Qua, but it is not in conformity with the debtor, i.e., to carry out the loan under the security of the surety, not only is a normal transaction but also frequently.

④ A credit cooperative shall not only report the instant loan to the board of directors, contrary to ordinary procedures, but also provide 21 parcels of land as security, unlike the original 24 parcels of land scheduled for the instant loan, but also establish an individual security for each debtor, rather than a joint security, and the security is assessed individually.