1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

2. Defendant B-.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant except the defendant who falls under each paragraph of the defendant A or below shall indicate only his name.

1) The prosecutor of the misapprehension of the legal principle (the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of each private document) is the Defendant’s Financial Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant bank”).

In collusion with AC, who was a staff member in charge of the instant loan, charged a charge of forging and submitting a sales contract at his/her request. According to that, it cannot be deemed an exercise of submitting a forged private document to co-offenders, and the crime of forging a private document is not established. In addition, the Defendant only submitted a false sales contract at the request of AC without any specific intention, and the Defendant knew that other officers and employees of the instant bank, E, D, C, B, etc., are different from the content of the sales contract. Since the forged sales contract did not have any influence on the instant loan, the Defendant did not constitute the crime of forging a private document and uttering a private document. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was in violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of credit under another’s name through a borrowed name loan, and there was no conspiracy with D, E, C, etc., merely decided to grant a loan to U by respecting the intent of the Credit Deliberation Committee, and the loan was not known that A’s loan interest was repaid.

The statements in the investigation agency of D, E, C,L and AJ against them are inconsistent with or inconsistent with each of their respective statements in the original trial court and thus, they are not reliable.

B. The Defendant violated the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the excess of the credit extension limit to 60 borrowers, including AE, etc.