The case holding that the president of the agricultural cooperative does not violate Article 174 subparagraph 4 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act by making loans exceeding the maximum limit on loans to the same person without the resolution of the board of directors.

The case holding that the act of lending by the president of the agricultural cooperative exceeding the maximum limit on loans to the same person without the resolution of the board of directors does not violate Article 174 subparagraph 4 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6018 of September 7, 199).

Article 173 (see current Article 170) and Article 174 Subparag. 4 (see current Article 171 Subparag. 4) of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 6018, Sept. 7, 199)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 9No1155 delivered on February 15, 2000

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to find the defendant guilty of all the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the defendant, the president of the non-indicted 1 agricultural cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "the non-indicted 1 cooperative"), was executed with loans of 1,137,549,000 won in the name of 13 persons such as strong and democratic three times in total without the resolution of the above board of directors, even though the board of directors of the above cooperative decided the maximum limit of loans to the same person as 100 million won on January 20, 197 at the meeting of the board of directors of the above cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "the above non-indicted 4 of Article 174 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act"), since Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that the defendant's act of lending 1,137,549,000 won to the non-indicted 13 persons under the name of the above 13 persons such as strong and democratic three times in total without the resolution of the board of directors, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of lending loans to the same member constitutes an excess of 10 percent of the above facts charged.

Article 47 of the articles of association of the above union under Article 45 (4) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (the articles of association of the newly established District Public Prosecutor's Office, 98-type and 18820 of the investigation records of the defendant's violation of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act against the defendant, hereinafter the same shall apply) is a matter to be resolved by the board of directors. "1. Qualification examination and approval of the union members, 2. Use of the statutory reserve, 3. maximum loan, 4. imposition and collection method of expenses, 5. Change of minor matters other than those provided for in Article 37 (2), 6. Appointment and dismissal of executive officers, 7. Acquisition or disposition of basic assets, 8. Acquisition or disposition of basic assets, 8. Determination of business regulations and business execution policies, 9. Matters delegated by the general meeting, 10. Other matters provided for in the statutes or the articles of association, and 11. Other matters submitted by the president of the union)", however, there were no other materials to be decided by the board of directors regarding loans to a specific person beyond the maximum limit on loans.

On January 20, 1997, the board of directors of the above union approved the proposal to change the maximum limit of loans to KRW 100 million from KRW 57 million to KRW 57 million to the same person. Although the establishment of the maximum limit of loans to the same person is the resolution of the board of directors of the above union, this case's loan is also a resolution of the board of directors, the resolution of January 20, 1997 is argued to the purport that it is a resolution of the board of directors. However, the resolution of January 20, 1997 is an amendment of the above provision, "An amendment of the provision", "an agenda of the bill," "an amendment of the provision of Articles 16 and 20-2 of the loan regulations and Articles 7 and 8 of the Guidelines for Handling Mutual Financial Loans and the provision of the above provision of loans to the same person, it is not possible to revise the above provision of loans to KRW 100 million from KRW 57 million to KRW 6 of the current union's original bill (which is an amendment of the above provision of loan regulations).

Therefore, even if the defendant executed a loan in violation of the above loan regulations on the maximum loan limit to the same person, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act was executed without the resolution of the board of directors (Article 173 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that the executive officers, etc. of a union shall be punished for the violation of the above Act or the articles of association) regardless of the violation of the above loan regulations. Thus, the decision of the court below which rendered a verdict of not guilty of the above facts charged are somewhat insufficient, but its conclusion is just, and it cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 174 subparagraph 4 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)