All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A 7,000,000 won, and Defendant B 5,000,000 won, respectively.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to each of the instant loans, Defendant A (as to the occupational breach of trust), at the time of execution of each of the instant loans, only a full-time director of the Victim F Saemaul Bank, who is an executive of the Defendant, who is in charge of the administration of the affairs of the credit cooperative and supervises and supervises its employees under the order of the president, and was not in the position of the person in charge of overall management of the credit affairs of the said credit cooperative. In the process of execution of each of the instant loans, the Defendant was excluded from the principal affairs, and thus, Defendant B, a working-level officer, was entirely in charge of the appraisal and loan examination of the secured real estate. Since each of the instant loans was approved through the final

B. In each of the loans of this case, Defendant B (in the case of occupational breach of trust), it was true that the appraisal value of the collateral was excessively assessed and executed the loan to G. However, Defendant B performed each of the above loans in order to create the profit of the FF Saemaul Bank of Korea, and had gone through the loan-related procedure of the above FF Saemaul Bank of Korea, and thus, Defendant B did not have any intention to acquire the collateral intentionally or unlawfully.

B. (1) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

Shed public prosecutor (for the defendants), each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the Defendants conspired with each other to commit a crime of violation of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the crime list Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the judgment of the court below and the crime of occupational breach of trust in attached