1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B.

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. A. A summary of the grounds for appeal (1) (1) (misunderstanding of the legal principles on breach of duties, intentional intent, etc. in relation to occupational breach of trust by Defendant A, B, C, and D) was erroneous in failing to comply with the internal regulations, such as somewhat Saemaul Savings Depository’s credit business regulations and credit business manuals, by omitting objective evidence in the course of preparing and deliberating an appraisal report on each loan that the lower court recognized as a breach of trust.

Even if it was based on the occupational practice, and the above Defendants were to inspect the land offered as security and to visit the nearby real estate brokerage office, etc. to verify the market price, etc., and make a decision on the appraisal and deliberation. Therefore, each appraisal by Defendant B was excessive.

Therefore, the above Defendants had the intent to commit a breach of duty and a breach of trust.

not, but caused damage due to a violation of the duty.

No assessment may be made.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts, violation of duties, intentional act, occurrence of damages, etc. in occupational breach of trust.

(2) [Judgment of the court below as to the establishment of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) of Defendant A and B] In the case of a secured loan such as this case, the value of property gains acquired by the debtor as a breach of trust should be calculated by deducting the actual value of the collateral provided by the debtor. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles and deeming the total amount of the loan as the amount of damages and putting the amount of damages exceeding 500 million won by the actual debtor as the crime of violation of

(3) [Judgment of the court below as to the establishment of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (private financing brokerage, etc.) by Defendant A and B], the above Defendants shall pay their money to E.