All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (limited to six years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 851,923,655, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower court, which returned to the instant case, is too heavy in light of the substance of the specific case, or is too unreasonable.

1. The purpose of our legislators to strictly punish executives and employees of financial companies with money and valuables in relation to their duties is to impose strict duty of integrity on such executives and employees as general public officials because they have a public nature and have a significant impact on the national economic policy and the national economy because they have been established by special Acts and subordinate statutes and have a public nature.

The crime of this case is in violation of the purpose of legislation.

The defendant is an employee of a financial institution in charge of two recommended PF loans.