The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant of the facts charged is a person who actually operates the F Co., Ltd. F (Change to H in the Dong-gu G Co., Ltd. on July 12, 2011, hereinafter “F”), and the J in the Gwangju Mine-gu I, who purchases rice from the victim L Co., Ltd. located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “victim”) and M is a person who is in charge of selling rice on behalf of the victim corporation while working in the victim corporation.

M In case of the credit supply of a product to a trader, M shall make a transaction within the agreed credit transaction limit, and shall not make an agreement exceeding the agreed credit transaction limit per one person according to the credit transaction method of the agricultural cooperative. In case of the credit sales slip after the supply of the product, there was a occupational duty to manage rice sales and credit accounts by accurately stating the actual sales place and details of the supply.

Nevertheless, the defendant and M, despite being aware that the defendant is the actual operator of F and J, have conspired to enter into a credit transaction agreement exceeding the credit limit per single person of agricultural cooperatives.

On November 2, 2010, the Defendant entered into an agreement on credit transactions with M to set the maximum amount of credit transactions at KRW 2.1 billion in the office of the victim corporation.

In addition, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with J on November 2, 2009, with J on August 17, 2010, with J on credit transaction amounting to KRW 800 million and KRW 500 million, respectively. Since F and J were businesses operated by the Defendant under the name of another person, the Defendant’s credit transaction agreement amounting to KRW 4.4 billion with the said M exceeded KRW 2.74 billion per single person’s credit limit according to the Agricultural Cooperatives’ Credit Business Act.

The Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with M as above, and supplied rice from M on credit, and exceeded the amount of credit transaction limit. Accordingly, the Defendant around April 6, 201.