Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant A, B, and D and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D’s misunderstanding of the facts (limited to Defendant D) did not know that the purchase price under the real estate transaction agreement submitted by Defendant A and B during the course of loan examination exceeds the actual transaction price.

Since the approval resolution of the loan deliberation committee and the final approval of the president are obtained in accordance with legitimate internal procedures, there is no fact in violation of occupational duties.

The loan of this case is for the creation of profits of the treasury, and there is no intention in breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court ( ① 2 years of imprisonment for Defendant A; ② Defendant B: imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment for the first instance judgment; imprisonment for 10 months of probation; imprisonment for 2 years of probation; imprisonment for 2 years of probation; community service work 160 hours; additional collection amounting to 25 million won; ④ Defendant D: imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months of probation; suspension for 3 years of probation; community service 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (defendant C) and the defendant A paid KRW 36 million to the defendant C in the investigative agency and the court of the court below.

Comparedly, the statements are highly reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the remainder of 11 million won, except for the remainder of 25 million won, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The above sentence, which the lower court committed against Defendant C, is too uneased and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of changing the indictment as stated in the facts charged No. 2 and No. 4 as stated in the indictment of the court below as stated in the facts charged.

This Court permitted this and changed the subject of the adjudication.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A, B, and D cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal, Defendant D’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.