Defendant

A A A A with a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant B with a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C with a fine of KRW 2 million.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A, from June 2004 to September 2009, was working as the director at the I appraisal corporation office located in Ansan-si and was in charge of the field investigation, market price investigation, etc. of appraisal articles.

On May 24, 2006, the Defendant filed an appraisal report with the I certified public appraisal corporation that set the value of the above building at KRW 333,00,000,000, when the Defendant applied for a general loan by offering as security the “No. 102 of the first floor of the I-Sa-gu L Building in Ansan-si, Busan-si, the victims of which are the victims of the JJ in Bupyeong-gu, Busan-gu.

However, even though the Defendant purchased the above building in KRW 180,000,000 on May 18, 2006, the Defendant made the above false appraisal report by stating that he purchased KRW 350,000,00 to M who is a certified public appraiser belonging to the said appraisal corporation.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 220,000 on May 24, 2006, under the pretext of loans by the victim.

2. Defendant B is a person who, from around 2000, worked for the Victim’s K Saemaul Bank as a person who manages and supervises the affairs such as receipt, credit, debt collection, etc., and according to the guidelines for the management of housing loans to employees of the above community credit cooperatives, the eligibility for housing loan is limited to homeless employees who do not own a house under the name of the principal or his/her spouse as of the date of application for the loan, and shall take measures for mortgage preservation

On March 15, 2005, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties and was in violation of the above occupational duties, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 under his own name as a house loan money, although he owned Nos. 513 of the 3rd and 5th and 513 of the 3rd and the 50,000,000 at the time.

As a result, the defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to the above loans and sustained damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.