All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is difficult to see that there was an intention in breach of trust against the Defendant, or that there was a control over an act in breach of trust (the point of occupational breach of trust due to an insolvent loan), ② Since the Defendant provided real estate as collateral and obtained a loan from the Victim’s Treasury, the amount obtained by deducting the value of the security offered by the Defendant from the loan should be deemed as the amount of damages caused by the breach of trust (the point of occupational breach of trust due to an insolvent loan), ② If the amount of damages incurred by the occupational breach of trust due to an insolvent loan is deemed as the total amount of the loan, the termination of the security offered in the future constitutes an act in breach of trust after the insolvent loan (the point of occupational breach of trust due to the termination of the security) shall be deemed as an act in breach of trust (the two years and six years of imprisonment

B. Since the Defendant is not a company such as K et al., the subject who received a loan from the prosecutor’s credit cooperative, the Defendant constitutes a crime of violating the Community Credit Cooperatives Act.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding the assertion that there was no intention or control of an act of breach of trust (A) against the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 also argued the same purport in the lower court. The lower court knew in advance that N,O, P, Q, etc. had been liable for bad debts on the part of the victim’s safe, and promised to receive funds from the victim’s safe to receive five parcels of loans (hereinafter “the loan of this case”), such as Chungcheong Jincheon-gun L, etc. (hereinafter “the loan of this case”), and the Defendant borrowed KRW 7.318 billion from the victim’s safe, on 27 occasions. The Defendant was well aware that the loan of this case exceeded the limit of loans to the same person and did not properly assess the value of the collateral.