The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) On July 31, 2015, the Defendant did not exercise the actual management right against F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) with the stocks and management rights after transferring them to the O. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant transferred F’s management right to M immediately after the termination of the contract for the transfer of management rights with the OO on September 25, 2015.

C. On August 2015, 2015, the Defendant continued to implement the instant loan through N while taking over M&F. Thus, the Defendant did not play a leading role in the overall part of the instant loan, and it was merely a passive attempt to facilitate the instant loan. (ii) Defendant offered the instant loan to the victim bank as security of 2,50 tons of current presses with the consent of H, the actual owner of G, as it did not constitute lawful deception. In the process of the instant loan application, the Defendant submitted a written contract to sell and purchase the land for G factories, buildings, machinery, equipment, etc. to the victim bank. However, the victim bank did not consider only the above unreshed sales contract as collateral assessment data, but determined that the instant loan was appropriate through the comprehensive examination of credit rating, financial statements, business loan outlook, business loan outlook, and credit rating, etc. of G factories, building site, machinery, equipment, and equipment, as a result of the appraisal of the results of the instant loan, and based on the comprehensive examination of credit rating, etc.

Therefore, it is not recognized that there is a causal relationship between the act of the defendant's submission of an unfilled transaction contract and the calculation of the loan amount of the victim bank and the adequacy of the security evaluation.

3) There is an error or omission in the fact that the injured bank failed to reflect the adequate value of the security due to the act of submitting a written contract for a trade which the defendant was unfilled

Even if there is an impact on the evaluation of the adequate collateral value.