The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. In the case of loans extended by an agricultural cooperative in Busan Metropolitan City, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a sales contract on behalf of the Defendant according to the actual transaction details with C and D; and (b) the Defendant did not know of the seller’s H and did not have been engaged in the loan; and (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty by recognizing a public bid relationship with C and D.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court, including the witness X’s legal statement on the part of the fraud against the South Busan Agricultural Cooperative, were duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant in the lower court and the first instance court stated in the facts charged only that the Defendant gave advice to C and D on the loan, and did not know in detail on the process of purchasing the Macdong land and lending it as collateral. However, in the course of the investigation, the Defendant was the time when the Maci purchased the Macdong land from C in substance in the process of investigation, and ② the Defendant was the real final contract on June 15, 2010, stating that the purchase price of the above Macdong land was KRW 380 million.

4. 20.자로 작성된 매매대금이 2억 3,000만 원으로 기재된 계약서는 폐기된 가계약서에 불과하다는 취지로 발뺌하고 있으나, 매도인 C이 2010. 6. 7. 미지급 잔금에 대한 이행최고 및 해지의 의사표시를 기재한 내용증명을 매수인 G에게 발송한 사정에 비추어볼 때 피고인의 위 변명은 믿을 수 없고, 2010. 4. 20.자 매매계약서에 기재된 2억 3,000만 원이 위 토지의 진정한 매매대금으로 봄이 상당한 점, ③ 피고인이 실질적으로 운영하는 ㈜AA의 본부장 N와, 위 ㈜AA의 대표이사이자 위 우암동 토지의 매매계약서상 매수인으로 표시된 G의 수사기관 및...