The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The FF (hereinafter “F”) following October 2004 aggravated financial standing and makes it difficult for other savings banks to obtain a loan easily. Defendant B, a F’s employee, has a friendly relationship with the F and has been in charge of credit implementation and management at H.

G with H’s request for a loan extended to 50 billion won or more in around 2007, the size of the loan extended to 100 billion won or more in around 2007, and 200 billion won or more in around 2010, F’s loan was continued only through G; F’s loan was made only by simple telephone, not bank visits; (3) H did not investigate the credit of F or borrowed loan in the process of loan implementation; and (4) even before and after the loan application was made, F was remitted only by means of prior to the loan application; (5) the Defendants were actively given a loan in the name of the borrower; (6) the Defendants were able to receive a loan under the name of the borrower; and (6) the Defendants were able to receive a loan under the name of the borrower; and (7) the Defendants were able to receive a deposit in the name of the borrower in the name of the name of the borrower.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.