(1) The principal of a branch without the approval of the board of directors to guarantee the payment of

Where the head of a bank grants unsecured guarantee in the course of performing banking guarantee affairs, and where the head of a branch office arbitrarily exceeds the guarantee limit amount, it constitutes occupational breach of trust where the head of a branch office provides security from the guarantor or prepares and issues a payment guarantee contract with the head of the branch office without obtaining the approval of the board of directors of the head office, despite the existence of an occupational duty to provide the guarantee amount, in violation of the duties.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

170 days out of the detention days before rendering a judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

From January 9, 1985 to July 2, 1986, the Defendant was employed as the head of the Chungcheong branch of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”) and from July 3 to November 13 of the same year;

1. At around 14:00 on June 27, 1986, the amount of guarantee limit which may be reduced at will of the head of the branch office if the payment guarantee is reduced to 15,00,000 won if the payment guarantee amount exceeds 50,000,000 won and the amount of the payment guarantee amount exceeds 500,000 won with the approval of the head office of the board of directors exceeds that of the above company in violation of the above duty, the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation in Gwangju-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si at the request of the representative director of the non-indicted 3 to issue the payment guarantee amount equivalent to 719,00,000,000 won for tourist facilities funds as security from the head of the Gun-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and the above amount of the payment guarantee amount is 7,000,00000,00000,0000.

2. From October 31 of the same year, around 10:00 to December 19 of the same year, at the dong branch in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, the amount equivalent to the above company's total par value of KRW 600,000,000 as security was requested by Nonindicted 3 to issue a payment guarantee letter in violation of the above duty, and without obtaining approval from the principal office, the above company violated the above duty, and the amount of the payment guarantee issued in front of the above credit cooperative, which is the creditor who is the creditor who is the creditor who is the creditor who is the creditor who is the creditor who is the creditor of the above credit cooperative, and from October 31, 1986 to December 19 of the same year, it shall prepare a payment guarantee certificate in the name of the head office of the non-indicted 2 corporation and the non-indicted 1 bank whose issue date was October 31, 1986, and shall submit the above payment guarantee certificate in the above 00,000,000 won and shall be issued at the above 000,000.

3. On November 15:00 of the same year, when the defendant issued a payment guarantee certificate of KRW 500,00,000 in the name of the head office of the non-indicted 1 bank to use the above company as a bill discount for the foregoing company as of February 8, 200 of the same year, the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security and a right to collateral security under the name of the non-indicted 1 bank shall be made in the name of the non-indicted 1 bank, and the payment guarantee shall be renewed as of May 23 of the same year and September 2 of the same year, and the above bonds shall be cancelled to the non-indicted 28,00 in the name of the head office of the non-indicted 10,000,000 in the name of the non-indicted 1 bank and the above bonds shall be issued to the non-indicted 28,000,000 in the name of the head office of the non-indicted 1 bank and the above bonds shall be cancelled.

4. On the 11th day of the same month, at the Gju-dong-dong-dong-si, Gwangju Metropolitan City, two promissory notes with 300 million won (30 million won) discount from the investment trust at the Gju-dong-gu, Gwangju-si, and upon the request of Nonindicted 3 to guarantee payment on the face of the note and to request endorsement on the back of the note, despite the fact that there was the duty set forth in paragraph (1) above, the above company violated its duty and without obtaining the approval of its principal office, and thereby, in violation of its duty, the number (number omitted) and (number omitted), face value (30,000,000 each due date of February 10, 1987, each of which was paid at the 300,000,000 won, and each of which was paid at the 300,000,000,000 won, and the issue date of the two copies of the promissory notes issued on November 11, 1987.

The facts of the judgment

1. Statements consistent with the accused in the first trial records;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the suspect interrogation records of defendants in the course of preparing administrative affairs by prosecutors and judicial police officers;

1. Each statement made by a public prosecutor and Nonindicted 3 and 4 regarding the preparation of administrative affairs involving judicial police officers, and each statement written by a prosecutor about Nonindicted 5, 6, and 7 regarding the preparation of administrative affairs involving judicial police officers, corresponding thereto;

1. Each statement corresponding to the statements in the preparation of Nonindicted 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11

1. Since it can be recognized by a copy of the payment guarantee agreement bound in the record, there is proof.

Article 3 (1) 3 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 shall be charged to the public prosecutor according to the rate of the amount of profit, but the sum of the amount of profit in the judgment shall be less than 24 but not more than 19 million won, so long as each of the above acts is prosecuted as concurrent crimes, it shall not be considered as an inclusive crime, and the amount of profit (719 million won) prescribed in the decision of the court with the largest nature of the crime among each act shall be punished according to the punishment prescribed in Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3 (1) 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. Since the amount of profit in the judgment is more than 100 million won but less than one billion won, the defendant shall be punished with the punishment prescribed in Article 3 (1) 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Article 35 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)