All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) The Defendant did not have participated in the crime jointly committed by the Defendants.

In other words, the Defendant did not know that the instant loan was executed in the name of a person who is not the actual borrower, that the value of the collateral was excessive, and that it exceeded the limit of the same person’s loan to the actual borrower.

The defendant is prepared by A with qualification for credit review, and C, who is a working-level officer, has made an interim approval and made a final approval on the loan documents of this case reported as appropriate and approved in the form of formal approval.

Some of the loans in this case were implemented before the defendant's approval is granted.

In the case of loans to N, T, and D, the request for loans was made by them, but it was only part of the total number of loans, and even in the case of receipt of the request for loans, the Defendant merely ordered C, A to examine the feasibility of the loan, and there was no choice to instruct C, A to implement an unfair loan.

In the case of loans to Q, the Defendant did not personally meet Q, and there is no fact that Q was involved in the loan.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (7 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) In misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the Defendant actively participated in the act of breach of trust by instigating the joint Defendants to commit a crime or participating in the entire process in obtaining the instant loan.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(ii)..