(a) Whether such act constitutes an act of business distribution under the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act for bad loans extended by directors of mutual savings and finance companies (affirmative);

(b) Whether a director of a mutual savings and finance company has committed an offense of violation of business distribution under the Mutual Savings and Finance Act in the event that a director of a mutual savings and finance company loans without taking reasonable and reasonable measures to ensure the collection of claims (affirmative);

A. Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act is an aggravated provision under Article 356 (Occupational Breach of Trust) of the Criminal Act regarding the act of violating trust by a person in a position, such as a director of a mutual savings and finance company, and thus, the act of bad loans by the directors of a mutual savings and finance company constitutes an act of violating duties

B. In a case where a director of a mutual savings and finance company extended a loan without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as obtaining sufficient security to secure the collection of loan claims when he/she provided a loan, it cannot be deemed that there was no awareness that a third party obtained property benefits and caused damage to the said saving and finance company by business fraud.

(a)Article 39(1)2(a) of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act;

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)

Seoul High Court Decision 90No359 delivered on June 29, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the evidence of the first instance judgment of the court below, it is sufficient to recognize all the facts charged of this case against the defendants, so there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment below.

2. Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act provides an aggravated provision under Article 356 (Occupational Breach of Trust) of the Criminal Act on the act of violating trust by a person who is in a position such as a director of a mutual savings and finance company. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the Defendants’ act of violating trust constitutes an act of violating trust as prescribed by the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act. There is no error of law

3. If the defendants, who are directors of a mutual savings and finance company, have continuously made a loan without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as receiving sufficient security to ensure the collection of loan claims when they offer the loan in this case, it cannot be said that there was no awareness that the third party would acquire property benefits and incur damage to the above safe. Thus, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out in the judgment below to the same purport.

The Supreme Court's precedent is not appropriate, unlike this case. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)