The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A and the loan against Defendant B on May 8, 2009.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C (M)’s loans of KRW 2,498,916,470 (hereinafter “second loans”) to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K” in the name of all companies) of the new bank (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), from May 8, 2009 to May 14, 2009 (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) were planned by the credit group’s graduation decision on April 30, 2009. Defendant C was merely a practical business, and Defendant C did not actually perform an act of breach of duty by complying with Acts and subordinate statutes, bank regulations, and procedures, and there was no motive to deny loans between Defendant A and B, and even if X did not intend to do so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the above facts, thereby deceiving Defendant B’s new loan and committing an offense of breach of trust from around 1, 2009 to 300 million.

(2) Upon receipt of the above loan and the second loan, K did not have the intent or ability to repay, and therefore, K had the above X used only as the material purchase price, but used it in repayment of the loan not for the material purchase price, and the above loan did not occur if it was notified of the real use. Therefore, even though the above defendants obtained the above amount, the court below erred in finding the above defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the above defendants could not be viewed as deceiving the above defendants by mistake of the facts. (2) The defendants A and B conspired to secure the guarantee of the right to guarantee (1).