All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendant's appeal

(a) A person who does not have the personal relationship processed in an offense established in consequence of the personal relationship shall be held liable for co-principals in accordance with the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act;

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more persons jointly commit a crime, and is established by meeting the subjective objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through a functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, even if part of the conspiracys do not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime, if it is recognized that there exists a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime in full view of the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. as a whole, if it is recognized that there exists a functional control by taking into account the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do428, Apr. 26, 2007; 2010Do11030, Jan. 27, 201). Furthermore, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which are based on fact-finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Of the facts charged on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to an insolvent loan to the Victim CL Bank (hereinafter “CL Bank”), the lower court is reasonable to deem that (1) the Defendant was aware of the fact that (2) the Defendant’s act of making a borrowed borrower and making a false loan in the name of the borrowed borrower constitutes an occupational breach of trust against the Victim Bank, and (2) as above, the Defendant sought a borrowed borrower and received a loan in the name of the borrowed borrower.