The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant violated the duty to observe the loan review guidelines and recognized the intent to commit a breach of trust, thereby establishing a crime of occupational breach of trust.

The details of the loan and the facts that occurred after the loan execution do not affect the gender of the occupational breach of trust, but only the reason for sentencing is the only reason for sentencing.

From an economic perspective, considering the financial status of the victimized safe’s entire assets, it cannot be evaluated that the victimized safe was compensated for the damage caused by the fraudulent loan case at once.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust and intent of breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is a person who exercises overall control over loan business, such as loan review and appraisal specialists, at the victim E Saemaul Bank (hereinafter “victim’s Saemaul Bank”).

On March 2009, the standards for land-backed loans by community credit cooperatives were 80% of the appraised amount in the case of land-backed loans, and the minimum interest rate at the time was 6.4%. Therefore, the Defendant was responsible for complying with the above standards when performing land-backed loans.

Nevertheless, on March 19, 2009, the Defendant was provided as collateral the H land owned by F in order to cover the loss apportionment of the case of the damaged credit cooperative's fraudulent loan amounting to KRW 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.