The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) if the Saemaul Bank knew that the land and buildings allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay are offered as security to the Saemaul Bank for sale, it would not implement the new loan of this case; and (b) it would not cause any property damage therefrom; and (c) therefore, a crime of fraud against the Saemaul Bank is established.

In addition, the Saemaul Bank of Korea did not extend the maturity of the loan with the knowledge that the defendant obtained the loan from the Saemaul Bank of Korea to repay the debt to the Saemaul Bank of Korea, but did not know of the establishment of the first priority collective security right of the Saemaul Bank of Korea. The defendant was transferred the loan to his own account and used the loan to pay the debt to the Saemaul Bank of Korea, and the act of establishing a collective security right to the Saemaul Bank of Korea constitutes a breach of trust to the Saemaul Bank of Korea.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination 1 on the assertion of mistake as to the fraud portion 1) The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant, as to the instant land and building allotted in recompense for development outlay, was immediately created a security right as to the instant land and building; (b) the E Saemaul Savings Depository did not incur any damage due to the Defendant’s act; (c) the Defendant, an employee of the above Savings Depository, stated that “the instant building was secured and loaned” at an investigative agency; (d) the E Saemaul Savings Depository confirmed that there was a security loan against the K under the name of H at the time of the loan; and (d) the E Saemaul Savings Depository’s loan was not executed as a large exchange loan; however, the Defendant was notified to the J of the Saemaul Savings Depository at the time of the loan, and that it was a loan to the K and K for the purpose of repaying to repay the loan to the K and K.

In other words, K claims the above remarks.