2012, 60, 2012, 548 (Joints)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

B. Occupational breach of trust

C. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

(d) Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies;

(e) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

1.(b)(d) A

2.(c)(B);

3.(a)(c) C

4.(c)(d)(D);

5.(c)(E);

6. D. F.

Jeju District Court Decision 201Hun-Ba114 delivered on April 1, 201

Attorney G (Defendant A)

Law Firm H, J, K, Attorneys L, Min-Law and Law Firm

N, Attorneys O, P (for the defendant B and C)

Attorney Q Q (Defendant D and E)

Attorney R (for defendant F)

January 14, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for Defendant C, D, and F, by imprisonment for two years and six years and by imprisonment for Defendant E, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years for Defendant B, C, D, and F from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for Defendant E for two years for two years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant A, 1: (a) Misappropriation with respect to the loan of KRW 1.5 billion to Defendant 2 on May 25, 2007; (b) Misappropriation with respect to the loan of KRW 1.5 billion; (c) each breach of trust with respect to the loan of KRW 1.5 billion with respect to the loan of KRW 1.5 billion with respect to the loan of KRW 1.5 billion with respect to UBS; (d) breach of trust with respect to the loan of KRW 2 billion with respect to the loan of KRW 2 billion from October 1, 2008 to Professor Violation of the Restriction on the loan limit of KRW 2 billion with respect to each individual borrower; and (e) 200 billion with respect to each of the facts charged against Defendant 2,000 million with respect to the loan of KRW 3.1 billion with respect to KRW 3 billion with respect to the loan of KRW 3.5 billion with respect to the victim’s breach of trust of KRW 2,500,0000.

Of the facts charged against Defendant D, each of the charges of violating the Restriction on the Limit of Loans to Individual Borrowers shall be acquitted.

Summary of Judgment

A person shall be appointed.

Criminal facts

Defendants’ Status and Criminal Power

Defendants’ Status

Defendant B, a holding company (hereinafter referred to as “YA”) with its principal axis, is the chairperson of the NN Group holding a total of 32 companies, such as the AI Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “AI Savings Bank”), the AJ, the AJ, the AL, and the AM Savings Bank, which holds 91.57% of the equity interest of the AI Savings Bank (as of December 31, 2010), and has 63.25% of the equity interest of the YA Bank holding 91.57% of the equity interest of the AI Savings Bank (as of December 31, 2010).

Since the decision of the general meeting of stockholders of the AI Savings Bank can be made, it is a person in a position to control the overall decision-making on management, such as the investment and receipt management of the AI Savings Bank, and the fund management, through the authority to appoint and dismiss the executives of the AI Savings Bank. Defendant C is not only a stockholder who holds not only 3.63% of the shares in the Y Savings Bank, but also a stockholder who holds 2.85% of the shares in the AI Savings Bank, from August 12, 2003 to August 17, 2004, from August 18, 2004 to August 9, 2007, 2007, a director, a non-registered president, a representative director from August 10, 2007 to October 17, 2008, and a person who has worked as a standing adviser from November 11, 2008 to November 11, 2008.

Defendant A is a person who has been in office as the representative director and the head of the AI savings bank from August 12, 2003 to August 30, 2010 and has overall control over the affairs of the savings bank, such as credit and receipt management, fund management, and execution.

Defendant D worked as the head of the management support division of the AI savings bank from January 1, 2007 to January 6, 2010, and was in charge of preparing and disclosing financial statements. From January 7, 2010 to August 30, 2010, Defendant D is a person who has overall control over the affairs of the savings bank, such as inn, receiving, managing funds, and executing funds, while working as the representative director of the AI savings bank and the head of the administration office of the AI savings bank. Defendant E is a person who has overall control over the affairs of the savings bank, such as inn, receiving, managing funds, and executing funds. From December 14, 201 to September 18, 201, Defendant E is a person who works as the representative director of the AI savings bank and the head of the administration.

Defendant F is a person who served as a director or an audit committee member of an AI savings bank from August 10, 2006 to August 30, 2010 and has audited all the tasks, such as savings bank accounts.

Criminal Power

On January 15, 2010, Defendant B was sentenced to the suspended sentence of three years in two years and six months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in Seoul High Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 22, 2011.

Criminal facts

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

A. Defendant A and B’s joint criminal conduct

1) On April 11, 2006, Defendant B, upon receipt of a request from AA to the effect that “A shall have the intention to obtain a loan from the AI savings bank.” On March 2006, Defendant A had a person AA who has implemented the construction project of the AO building, and the N Group had the opportunity to assist the AAP to take over the AAP. AA needs project funds. It is necessary for AA to take part in the project funds, and it is worth examining the loan from the AI savings bank.”

Accordingly, around April 11, 2006, Defendant A had a duty to investigate and examine the possibility of recovery of the land for the new apartment construction project promoted by AB 20 billion won in Gangwon-si, and to carefully determine the possibility of damage to AB 20 billion won after taking necessary measures to recover the bonds, Defendant A failed to examine the credit standing of AB 20 billion won in violation of this duty and to take necessary measures to verify the possibility of success of the above project, and to determine the above loan to AB 20 billion won without securing any collateral. Accordingly, Defendant AB would not be able to obtain 3.3 billion won property interest from AB 20 billion won in violation of its duties and would not be able to obtain 3.3 billion won interest from AB 20 billion won in the case of AB 20 billion won, and Defendant AB 208 and 14.7.7.7 billion won in the case of AB 200 million won in total.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit an act in violation of their duties, thereby obtaining property benefits of 1.4 billion won in AB (state) and causing damage to the Victim AI Savings Bank.

1) On May 9, 2009, the Defendant was asked to loan KRW 5 billion in total to the AI savings bank from T on May 9, 2009.

The content is to discount the AUV issuance bill in the name of the AU-affiliated Bank, and it was merely to lend the name to T in the name of the AU-affiliated Bank. Nevertheless, in determining the above loan, the defendant has sufficient provisions for the possibility of recovery.

The purpose of this study is to prevent damage to the AI savings bank by making a careful decision after taking necessary measures to collect claims, and thereby violates the duty of business to prevent damage to the AI savings bank, and to not investigate and examine at all the financial status of the AUBS and the KUV, the issuer of the bill, and without conducting any specific credit investigation about T, to T at a discount of AV issuance in the name of AV issuance in the name of May 9, 2009.

Accordingly, by doing an act in violation of occupational duties, the Defendant acquired 5 billion won proprietary benefits to T and suffered damage to the Victim AI Savings Bank.

2) W에 대한 2005, 11, 30.자 35억 원 대출 피고인은 2005. 11.경 B으로부터 "W는 AN그룹이 ㈜AP을 인수하는 데 도움을 주고 있는 AA의 동생인데, 대출을 검토해 봐라."라는 취지의 말을 들었다. 그 대출 신청의 내용은 W의 처 AW 명의로 AX㈜ 발행 35억 원 상당의 어음을 할인하는 것으로서, 위 어음에는 W, AW의 배서가 되어 있었다.

어음발행인인 AX㈜는 신용조사보고서에 의하면 현금흐름등급 CR6로 "현금흐름 창출능력이 거의 없거나 총 차입금 대비 현금 흐름 창출액이 매우 적어 현금지급능력 이 매우 불량"한 상태였고, 차주인 AW와 W에 대해서는 구체적인 신용조사를 거치지 않았을 뿐만 아니라, 위 대출금의 사용용도인 인천 서구 AY지구 사업에 대해 충분한 사업성 검토도 하지 않았기 때문에 AI저축은행에서는 위 대출의 회수가능성에 대해서 긍정적인 평가를 하여 위 대출을 승인할 만한 상황이 아니었다.

Nevertheless, on November 30, 2005, the Defendant decided to grant the above loan to W, following a sufficient investigation and review of the possibility of recovery, and after taking necessary measures to recover the claim, it violates the duty to prevent damage to the AI Savings Bank. Accordingly, the Defendant received an additional endorsement on the said bill, and decided to grant the above loan to W without securing any specific security without investigating the specific credit of AA. Accordingly, by doing an act in violation of the duty of duty, the Defendant obtained property gains equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion from W and thereby inflicted damage on the victim AI Savings Bank.

3) On December 28, 2006, 1.5 billion won loans to the AI savings bank around December 2006, 2006, V filed an application for a loan of KRW 1.5 billion with the AI savings bank.

The contents are to pay the capital increase with the third party's capital increase in the KAZ, and it was to provide 2,142,857 shares in the KAZ stocks in the amount of the market price to be acquired with the above capital increase.

However, on December 31, 2005, it was difficult to expect a small-scale company whose sales revenue amounting to KRW 500 million on the financial statements as of December 31, 2005, and the ordinary profit amount to KRW 300 million to repay the loan amounting to KRW 1.5 billion on its assets or sales, and the stocks acquired as security can not be disposed of for one year during the period of protection. In addition, since the stock price of the company in charge of the dispute resolution rapidly fell from the window dressing accounting problem around September 2005, the stock price of the company in charge of the dispute resolution, such as the commencement of joint management by the creditor banks, it was difficult to expect that the stock price of the company in charge of the dispute resolution will be maintained for one year.

Nevertheless, on December 28, 2006, the Defendant decided to grant the above loan without obtaining any other security except for the acquisition of the above stocks, by undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination of the possibility of recovery and by taking necessary measures to recover the claim, and in violation of the occupational duty to prevent damage to the AI Savings Bank. Accordingly, the Defendant decided to grant the above loan without any particular investigation and examination on the business prospects of the AI Savings Bank and without securing any other security except for the acquisition of the above stocks as security. By doing an act in violation of the duties of the duties of the Defendant, the Defendant acquired the property interest equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion to V and caused damage to the victim AI Savings Bank.

4) On March 30, 2007, the Defendant borrowed KRW 8.8 billion to X from B on March 30, 2007, “A intends to implement a new golf course construction project with BA along with BB, and it is considered possible to grant a loan to the Defendant for the funds to be used as the bid bond.” The content of the loan application is a loan of KRW 8.8 billion in the name of X (State), and as a security, there were 6 bonds and golf membership of apartment and 6 bonds of shareholders BA, executives BC, AA, and 3 billion out of the above loan, and W joint and several sureties for KRW 3 billion.

However, as of the settlement of accounts on December 31, 2006, X suffered a current net loss equivalent to KRW 1.232 billion, and KRW 3.196 billion, and the current net loss equivalent to KRW 3.1 billion was incurred. The current situation was that the current debt exceeds the current assets and the total debt exceeds the total debt amount of KRW 1.1 billion, and the total debt exceeds the total asset amount of KRW 5.2 billion, and the current situation was that the two bonds and six golf memberships offered as security for the above loan amount of KRW 8.8 billion was significantly insufficient.As the joint and several surety did not investigate specific credit for BC, BA, AA, and W, which are a joint and several surety, it was not a situation to approve the above loan by evaluating the possibility of recovery of the above loan.

그럼에도 피고인은 2007. 3. 30.경 위 대출을 결정함에 있어서, 그 회수가능성에 대한 충분한 조사와 검토를 거치고, 채권을 회수하기 위해 필요한 조치를 취한 후 신중히 결정함으로써 AI저축은행에 손해를 입히지 않도록 해야 할 업무상의 임무에 위배하여, 위 담보의 가치를 과대평가하여 약 60억 원 상당의 담보가 확보된 것으로 판단하고, 나머지 30억 원 상당에 대하여는 W의 보증을 추가로 받았을 뿐, 연대보증인인 BC, BA, AA, W에 대해서 구체적인 신용조사를 하지 않은 채 위 대출을 결정하였다. 이로써 피고인은 업무상의 임무에 위배하는 행위를 함으로써 X㈜에 88억 원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고 피해자 AI저축은행에 손해를 가하였다.

5) On January 19, 2006, the Defendant requested that “BD Savings Bank President AE intends to operate a golf course business, and five billion won loans shall be loaned for the purpose of the business fund.”

However, in the name of the above loan, BF and BG were all corporations established around January 16, 2006, and there was no business performance, and the capital was limited to KRW 50 million, and the value of BI real estate owned by BH was limited to KRW 1 billion, and the AI savings bank did not fully investigate BJ and BK's credit and property status.

Nevertheless, on January 19, 2006, the Defendant, when deciding to grant the above loan, has undergone a sufficient investigation and examination of the possibility of recovery, has taken necessary measures to recover the claim, and has made a careful decision to prevent damage to the AI Savings Bank, in violation of the occupational duties that should not cause damage to the AI Savings Bank, and has not taken measures to secure additional security such as receiving AE guarantee without conducting a specific credit investigation with respect to AE, and has given a loan of KRW 5 billion each in the name of the Bank Operating Fund and BG (State).

As a result, the Defendant committed an act in violation of his duties, thereby gaining proprietary benefits equivalent to KRW 8.8 billion to AE and causing damage to the Victim AI Savings Bank. Defendant A and C co-principals (a loan of KRW 11.3 billion to AF on January 18, 2008) have the duty to comply with laws and regulations and loan screening regulations in the event that the Savings Bank loans the fund for purchasing art works, as well as the duty to comply with the relevant laws and regulations, and the price of art works is not formed at an objective market price, and the demand for art works is limited due to market fluctuations, so there is a high possibility that the art works to be purchased will be sold more promptly than the purchase price in the market, and it is necessary to thoroughly verify whether high-priced art works remain in stock and to dispose of them at low price, and to thoroughly verify the economic value and value of the art works as security even in the case of purchasing the art works as security.

Nevertheless, the Defendants violated the duty of business to deal with loan business so that they do not incur any loss to the savings bank as above, and Defendant C, without closely examining the objective value and exchange of art works to be purchased by AF on January 208, 2008, ordered Defendant A to the effect that “IF loans KRW 11.3 billion for the purchase of art works in the name of BMF on condition that three points of the BL will be secured after the loan was executed,” and Defendant A extended KRW 1.3 billion to BMF under the name of BMF on condition that I would receive three points of the art works that cannot be provided as security under the loan regulations after the lack of market feasibility according to Defendant C’s instruction on January 18, 2008.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to act in violation of their duties and thereby, thereby causing damage to AF to the victim AI savings bank. D. Defendant E’s sole criminal conduct (a loan of KRW 3 billion, December 20, 2010, KRW 200,000) filed an application for a loan of KRW 3 billion with the AI savings bank in December 2, 2010. The content was that the ZF bank operated by BN applied for a loan of KRW 3 billion in the amount of KRW 3 billion in face value in the name of AH.

However, as of the end of 2009, the issuer of the bill and the actual borrower, have deteriorated their financial status with the total loans of 11.3 billion won and the cash flow after the payment of interest -18.4 billion won.

In addition, it was a financing bill that was used in the loan of this case, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., in 2009, the assets amounting to KRW 787 billion, and the sales amount to KRW 3.894 billion on the financial statements of the settlement of accounts in 2009. In addition, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., in the name of the Z Savings Bank, borrowed KRW 1.7 billion in the name of the Z Savings Bank, KRW 5 billion in the name of the Z Savings Bank, KRW 1.76 billion in the name of the Z Savings Bank, KRW 3 billion in the name of the BP, and KRW 7 billion in the name of the Z Savings Bank, and additionally borrowed KRW 3 billion in the name of the Z Savings Bank, it could be an issue of violation of the provisions on the restriction on loans to individual borrowers.

On the other hand, the AI Savings Bank did not investigate the credit of the guarantor or the endorser of the bill in detail.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around December 20, 2010, provided a sufficient investigation and review of the possibility of recovery and provided a careful decision after taking necessary measures to recover the claim to the AI savings bank to prevent damages to the AI savings bank. As such, the Defendant was provided as security for the existing five billion won loan to the Z savings bank, not only was provided as security for the Z savings bank, but also was provided as security for 1,992,440 shares of the AJ (State) which made it unclear whether or not it is possible to appropriately liquidate the loan immediately before the loan of this case as non-listed shares, but without securing any other security, loaned KRW 3 billion to the Z savings bank.

By doing so, the defendant has acquired the financial profit equivalent to 3 billion won in the decision-making bank and has caused damage to the victim AI savings bank.

2. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act;

A. Defendant C’s sole criminal conduct

No mutual savings bank may extend credit, make a deposit, or make a provisional payment to any shareholder who holds at least 2/100 of the total number of voting shares issued by the mutual savings bank, any executive officer of the mutual savings bank, and such shareholder or executive officer shall not receive credit extension, a deposit, or provisional payment from the mutual savings bank.

The defendant holds 3.78% of the shares of the AI savings bank, and served as the representative director of the AI savings bank from August 10, 2007 to October 17, 2008.

Nevertheless, the AI Savings Bank extended KRW 1.9 billion to the defendant in the name of B Q by the direction of the defendant around August 17, 2007.

As a result, the Defendant loaned KRW 1.9 billion to the principal who is the above shareholder and officer of the mutual savings bank, and at the same time borrowed KRW 1.9 billion from the mutual savings bank.However, the Defendant’s joint criminal conduct (the violation of the prohibition of cross-loan by large shareholders, etc.

In order to avoid the prohibition of credit extension to large shareholders, etc., a mutual savings bank shall not make cross-loan to large shareholders, etc. of another mutual savings bank. On December 2, 2010, the Defendants decided to make an cross-loan in a way that the AI savings bank would make a loan to BS, which is the large shareholders, etc. of the AG Savings Bank, and the AG Savings Bank would make a loan to the AJ, which is the large shareholders, etc. of the AG Savings Bank.

On December 29, 2010, the AI Savings Bank held 9.96% of the shares of the AG Savings Bank according to the direction of the Defendants, and loans KRW 3 billion to the BS corresponding to the majority shareholders, etc. of the AG Savings Bank. Accordingly, the AG Savings Bank around January 11, 201, in the AG Savings Bank, held 91.6% of the shares of the AG Savings Bank according to the direction of the president of the BR Savings Bank, and borrowed KRW 2.9 billion to the AJ Savings Bank, which falls under the majority shareholders, etc., in order to avoid the prohibition of credit extension to the majority shareholders, etc.

Around June 12, 2008, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 5 billion in the name of the KAI Savings Bank, KRW 2.16 billion in the name of the KAI, KRW 2.16 billion in the name of May 17, 2010, and KRW 7.46 billion in the name of BP around November 22, 2010, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 3 billion in the amount of KRW 7.46 billion in the name of BP to the Z. On December 20, 2010, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 10 billion in the name of the LIM and extended a total of KRW 60 billion in the amount of KRW 4 billion in the amount of KRW 2.6 billion in the name of the LAH.

3. A stock company subject to external audit (defendant A, D, and F) under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies shall prepare and publicly announce financial statements in accordance with the corporate accounting standards established and publicly notified by the Financial Supervisory Commission, and shall not prepare and publicly announce false financial statements in violation of the accounting standards;

In this regard, where the borrower is unable to pay overdue interest, etc., the mutual savings bank shall classify the loan balance to the customer who has a good financial expense, credit status, and business management for less than three months, but the borrower has a good bad credit, and shall accumulate 0.5% of the credit balance as the bad credit balance as the bad credit allowance. ② For the customer who has overdue credit for not less than three months but less than six months, but whose recovery is certain, 2% of the credit balance as the bad credit balance should be classified as the bad credit allowance, and as the bad credit allowance if it is ordinarily required for the follow-up management due to the financial transaction or credit conditions such as the total credit, etc., the bad credit balance should be accumulated as the bad credit amount. ③ In the case of a customer who has overdue credit for not less than six months, 20% of the credit balance should be classified as the bad credit amount as the bad credit allowance. ④ It is not possible to determine the amount of loss at present, or it is not clear that the bad credit balance can be accumulated as the bad credit amount as the bad credit account.

Nevertheless, as the Defendants anticipated that large amounts of loans are overdue in preparing and publicly announcing financial statements for regular audit reports of the AI Savings Bank and the net losses are increased during each fiscal period, the soundness of assets will deteriorate, such as the increase of net losses during each fiscal period, the Defendants were willing to prepare and publicly announce false financial statements by means of appropriating the bad debt allowances in order to indicate that the financial status of the AI Savings Bank is sound.

A. Financial statements (Defendant A) (from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008)

Around July 2008, the Defendant, in classifying asset soundness for the preparation of the 37th financial statements, included the bad debts allowance in the method of classifying the credit balance to be classified into "fixedness", "resumed statement", "presumed loss" as "normal", "principle", etc., and made up the bad debts allowance in the electronic public disclosure system through the Financial Supervisory Service through an electronic accounting corporation around September 12, 2008, as shown in the attached table of crime list (1) of the Financial Supervisory Service, even though the amount to be accumulated as the bad debts allowance as of June 30, 2008, as stated in the attached table of crime list (1) of the Financial Supervisory Service, is equivalent to KRW 59 billion, but the bad debts allowance as of June 30, 2000 and the amount to be accumulated as the bad debts allowance shall be KRW 8.91 billion,000,000 and the amount to be accumulated as additional allowances for bad debts.

B. Around July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009, the financial statements (Defendant A, D, and F) of the Financial Supervisory Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Statements") (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Statements") (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Statements") conspired the Defendants to accumulate the credit balance to be classified as "fixedness", "resumed", "resumed loss", "in order to prepare the financial statements of the 38th financial statements, and included the bad debts allowance under the method of classifying the credit balance to be classified as "normal", "inst", "instruent loss", "in order to prepare the financial statements of the 38th financial statements, around July 1, 2009, the amount to be accumulated as allowances for bad debts as of June 30, 2009 under the Rules of the Financial Supervisory Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Financial Supervisory Service"), and the amount to be accumulated as allowances for bad debts and the amount to be accumulated as additional allowances for bad debts on September 1, 20009.

C. The Financial Statements 39 (from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010) (Defendant D and F) (hereinafter referred to as Defendant D and F) made up the bad debts allowance under the Financial Supervisory Service’s provision, such as the following: (a) the Defendants conspired to make up for bad debts allowance in a manner that classifys the credit balance to be classified into “fixedness”, “resumed”, “presumed loss”, and “consumed loss” into “ordinary”, and “consumed loss”; and (b) make up for bad debts allowance under the Financial Supervisory Service’s provision as of June 30, 2010, even though the amount to be accumulated as bad debts allowance under the Financial Supervisory Service’s provision as of June 30, 2010, the bad debts allowance amounted to KRW 1.963 billion and to be accumulated as additional allowances for bad debts at around 1.4.3 billion won, and made up for bad debts allowance through an electronic accounting corporation’s false financial statements system around 1.9.

4. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Defendant D, F);

No one shall obtain money or any other interest in property by making a false description or representation of a material fact in connection with the trading of financial investment instruments (including public offering, private placement, and public sale in the case of securities) and other transactions, or by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled. In case where a company offers securities, such as subordinated bonds, an investor shall review the financial situation of the company, stability of its profits, etc., and make decisions in consideration of the possibility of continued existence as a continuing company and future profitability, and such decisions are based on the numerical value of the financial statements prepared and publicly announced by the company each fiscal year. Accordingly, the number of financial status of the company listed in the above financial statements constitutes an important matter concerning the sales of subordinated bonds.

Nevertheless, after the Defendants decided to issue subordinated bonds worth KRW 15 billion around May 27, 2010, the Defendants made a public announcement through the electronic public disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service of the last half year (39 billion won from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) in which the equity capital equivalent to the same amount has been excessively appropriated, because the amount of equity capital of KRW 51.989 billion was reduced from the judgment materials about the above amount on June 4, 2010, as the financial statements and the allowance for bad debts of KRW 27.35 billion was excessively appropriated, the Defendants made public notification of the registration statement attached to the financial statements of KRW 39, half years (from July 1, 2009 to July 12, 2009, and June 31, 2009) whose equity capital was excessively appropriated.

In addition, 525 ordinary investors judged the financial status of the AI savings bank according to the contents of the above registration statement, and purchased the AI savings subordinated bonds worth 14.3 billion won in total around June 25, 2010.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make a false statement about important matters in connection with the sale and purchase of subordinated bonds, thereby allowing ordinary investors who know such fact to purchase subordinated bonds worth KRW 14.34 billion in total, so allowing the AI Savings Bank to gain financial profit equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

AA loan of KRW 3.3 billion on April 11, 2006 to A; 1. Partial statement of Defendant A and B

1. Each legal statement of the witness AA, BT and BU;

1. A written statement (number 1526);

1. Loaning 1.4 billion won in total from July 2008 to AB (No. 1544) of loan documents, etc. (No. 1544);

1. Each legal statement of the witness BU, BW, and X;

1. A statement of BY (number 1,656);

1. Loaning 3.5 billion won on November 30, 2005 to the loan documents, etc. (1676OW);

1. Each legal statement of witness W, AA, and B;

1. The fourth protocol of interrogation of Defendant B by the prosecution on March 5, 2012

1. Defendant A’s suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecution on February 23, 2012

1. Loaning 8.8 billion won on March 30, 2007 to X (man 6123) 1. Partial statement of Defendant A

1. Each legal statement of the witness B, BU, B, B, Z, AA, and W;

1. Loaning a total of five billion won around May 2009 for loan documents, etc. (man 7832)O T; 1. Partial statement of Defendant A;

1. Second suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution on November 18, 201 against Defendant A

1. Fourth suspect examination protocol concerning T;

1. The prosecutor's statement dated March 22, 2012 on BU

1. A written statement of BT (No. 5273);

1. Loan documents, etc. (man 5749);

1. Loaning 1.5 billion won to Defendant A and B on December 28, 2006

1. Each legal statement of witness BU, CA and B;

1. Statement by the prosecution against CB;

1. Loan documents, etc. (man 6790);

1. (State) The current status of loans related to V (No. 7388) OE loans totaling 5 billion won on January 19, 2006;

1. The prosecutor's statement dated March 23, 2012 concerning BT

1. A written statement of the BE;

1. Loaning 11.3 billion won to the 81.3 billion won on January 18, 2008 against loan documents, etc. (man 8179) OF;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and BM;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against AF andCC;

1. Loan of KRW 3 billion, dated December 20, 2010, to a bank for the settlement of loans, etc. (water 9827) and violation of the regulations on the limit of loan to an individual borrower to the bank for the settlement of accounts, all of the legal statements of Defendant B, C, and E;

1. Each legal statement of the witness CD, BN, CE, and BP;

1. The third written statement made by the prosecution against CDs;

1. Each statement of CD (number 111137, 11147), CF (number 11151), CG (number 1151), and CG (number 11156); 1. Loaning the names of B Q (number 10655), 2007, and August 17, 190 billion capital investor; 1. Partial statement of Defendant C;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The second written statement made by the prosecution against D, and the second written protocol of examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution of Q;

1. A written statement of Q (No. 9382);

1. Loan documents, etc. (No. 9800), each record (No. 9579, 9589);

○ Violation of the prohibition of cross-loan by large shareholders

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B, C, and E in part;

1. A witness CH or legal statement of CI;

1. Part of the legal statement of the witness, CJ and CK;

1. Second written examination of the suspect of the BR by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning CK;

1. Defendant B’s written statement (number 12018);

1. Written accusation (man 1159);

○ Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

1. Legal statement of the CL;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning the CL;

1. Notice of audit and inspection (number 3466), confirmation (number 3467), meeting minutes of the board of directors (number 3474); 1. Audit report (number 4184), and date of public disclosure (number 435);

1. A previous record of judgment in relation to a registration statement (the number of 4372), the audit report (the number of 4499), the review report (the number of 4554), the performance report on the issuance of securities (the number of 4601), and the status of subscription (the number of 4609);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Defendant B’s legal statement and criminal history data inquiry;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A

○ 배임 | AF에 대한 2008. 1. 18.자 113억 원 대출 : 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조

- Loans of KRW 3.3 billion to AA, and loans of KRW 1.4 billion in total from July 2008 to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.: Each of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (However, the upper limit of imprisonment shall be 15 years prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Criminal Act").

- A total of KRW 5 billion loans to T on May 2009, KRW 5 billion, KRW 8.8 billion loans to X on March 30, 2007, KRW 5 billion on January 19, 2006: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act (However, the maximum amount of imprisonment shall be 15 years of imprisonment as provided for in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act) shall be 37 days of public notice of false financial statements: Articles 20(1) and 13(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act

- The 38th financial statements: Articles 20(1) and 13(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B

○ 배임 | AA에 대한 2006. 4. 11.자 33억 원 대출, AB㈜에 대한 2008. 7.경 합계 14억 원 대출 : 각 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조(다만 징역형의 상한은 구 형법 제42조 본문에서 정한 징역 15년으로 한다)

○ Intersection: Articles 39(2)3 and 37(2) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Defendant C0’s breach of trust: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Credit Extension and Credit Acceptance for Investors: Articles 39(2)2 and 37(1)1 and 27(2)2 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010)

○ Intersections: Articles 39(2)3 and 37(2) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 30(d) of the Criminal Act

○ Articles 20(1) and 13(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies with False Financial Statements, Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Articles 43(2)1 and 443(1)8 and 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

E. Defendant E.

○ Breach of Trust: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

○ Intersections: Articles 39(2)3 and 37(2) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, excess loans on loans to individual borrowers: Articles 39(4)6 and 12(1) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

F. Defendant F

○ Articles 20(1) and 13(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies with False Financial Statements, Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Unfair trading

- Articles 43(2)1 and 443(1)8 and 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant C.

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the provision of credit to an investor, each mutual savings bank due to the extension of credit to an investor, each violation of mutual savings bank due to the receipt of credit to an investor, and the punishment prescribed for the violation of mutual savings bank due to the extension

B. Defendant E

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to excess loans to individual borrowers, and the punishment prescribed in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with heavy punishment

1. Selection of punishment;

가. 피고인 A: X㈜에 대한 2007. 3. 30.자 88억 원 대출, AF에 대한 2008, 1. 18.자 113억 원 대출, T에 대한 2009. 5.경 합계 50억 원 대출, AE에 대한 2006. 1. 19.자 합계 50억 원 대출로 인한 각 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄에 대하여 각 유기징역형 선택, 각 주식회사의외부감사에관한법률위반죄에 대하여 각 징역형 선택

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor is chosen for the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. Defendant C: Selection of limited imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) and selection of each imprisonment for the violation

D. Defendant D: Determination of limited imprisonment for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and each decision of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

E. Defendant E: Determination of imprisonment for a violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

F. Defendant F: Determination of limited imprisonment for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; and determination of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [mutual between the above crimes and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 11.3 billion won loan to the largest AF on January 18, 2008, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to the loan of KRW 11.3 billion on January 18, 2008;

(b) Defendant B: Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to loans of KRW 3.3 billion from April 11, 2006 to the largest AA]. Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [a concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to loans of KRW 11.3 billion from January 18, 2008 to the largest AF]

(d) Defendant D: The weight of concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which is the largest penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

(e) Defendant E: Aggravation of concurrent crimes within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the crimes specified in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act to the punishment specified in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust

(f) Defendant F: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act which is the largest penalty);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing) 1. Suspension of execution

Defendant C, D, E, F: Determination on the facts charged under Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “contributative circumstances”)

violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and B;

A. Presumption

1) The part of the facts charged regarding the determination of whether a joint principal offender with respect to a loan in breach of trust is established is that Defendant B, a substantial major shareholder of the AI savings bank, instructed Defendant B, the representative director of the AI savings bank, to execute a specific loan recommendation. Accordingly, Defendant A neglected to examine the possibility of recovery of the loan and did not take necessary measures for recovery, and Defendant B and Defendant A performed the loan without taking necessary measures for recovery. Defendant B and Defendant A’s joint principal offender of the loan in breach of trust.

As a result, in this case, the question was whether Defendant B made a reference to each of the loans to Defendant A, and whether Defendant B made a reference to “the loan”, “the loan”, and “the direction of the loan.”

However, the degree of involvement in the individual loan process by Defendant B is bound to be diverse from the simple loan recommendation to the occupational breach of trust. The direction is to introduce the loan applicant as a matter of course to instruct the examination of whether or not the loan is made regardless of whether or not the loan conditions are met. Ultimately, the loan instruction is not followed by the conclusion that Defendant B is a joint principal offender of the loan in breach of trust without considering the substance of the instruction. Thus, more important attention in this case is rather important than whether Defendant B is the “loan” or the “loan” of the loan, rather than whether Defendant B’s involvement in the specific loan can be seen as having reached the degree that Defendant B should be held liable as a joint principal offender.

On the other hand, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Code is a co-principal who commits a crime jointly by two or more persons.

In order for the same criminal to be established, as a subjective requirement, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and control as an objective requirement, and the intention of co-processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to accept it without restraint, and it is one of the two to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift his/her own intention to practice by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008).

Therefore, in order to deem that Defendant B falls under a joint principal offender for a loan in breach of trust, the loan is implemented without reasonable and reasonable measures to recover the loan claims. Furthermore, it should be recognized that Defendant B has a control over the above meaning of the loan performance. To do so, it should be evaluated in a more concrete manner based on the following: (a) the status of loan holders; (b) the relationship between the participants in the process of performing the loan; (c) the business environment of the AI Savings Bank; and (d) the terms and conditions of the loan implementation; and (d) the details and degree of the loan implementation conducted by Defendant B, a major shareholder, in the process.

2) Evaluation of Defendant A’s statement

First, considering that the meaning and circumstances of the phrase “order” as seen earlier can be diverse, it does not lead to the conclusion that even if Defendant A made a statement that Defendant B had been given a loan order, Defendant B constitutes a co-principal of a loan in breach of trust without considering any other circumstances. Therefore, it is natural that Defendant A’s meaning while stating “the existence of a loan order” should be carefully examined along with examining relevant circumstances.

In addition, in judging the degree of the major shareholder of the AI savings bank's participation in a specific loan, as well as in judging the degree of the company's participation, the defendant B refers to the specific loan to the defendant A, and the defendant B's statement about it is important, but in evaluating the defendant A's statement about it, it is difficult to expect that the defendant B's statement itself as to various individual loans introduced by the defendant B is completely memoryed at the present time. This is because it is unclear whether the defendant A's statement was mentioned above at a certain time, except the words in special circumstances that may remain memory for a long time during the end used by the defendant B, and it is merely a reconsting the purport of the loan at the present time after the fact that the defendant A was received on the basis of relevant documents, and it is possible to combine other memory during the reorganization process.

However, the above circumstances to be considered in evaluating Defendant A’s statement should be reflected equally in evaluating Defendant B’s statement.

3) Relationship with a major shareholder and representative director

The duty to protect the property of the AI savings bank is basically to protect the property of the AI savings bank by faithfully examining the possibility of recovery and taking necessary and appropriate measures for recovery in the course of examining and implementing the loan. And the evaluation of the possibility of recovery of a specific loan belongs to the area of judgment by financial experts, so it is difficult for the AI savings large shareholders to understand it from the viewpoint of the AI savings bank unless they receive a report that there is no possibility of recovery through executives and employees of the AI savings bank.

However, in the position of appointing and dismissing the representative director of a savings bank, the major shareholder of the savings bank can exercise strong influence on the decision-making of the representative director, and the major shareholder also know such dynamic relationship. It cannot be denied that the major shareholder and the representative director are in a superior relationship with the president. Furthermore, considering that the major shareholder of the savings bank is in a position that it may actually affect the decision-making of the lending and management of the savings bank, etc. due to the strong influence of the representative director, the major shareholder of the savings bank is in a position to assume the duty to protect the assets of the savings bank like the representative director of the savings bank, even if it cannot be said that the representative director's duty is the same as the representative director of the savings bank. Accordingly, if the major shareholder in the mutual savings bank exercises an unreasonable influence on the personnel affairs or management of the mutual savings bank for his own interest against the interest of the mutual savings bank, it is difficult to view that the representative director of the bank's act of demanding a transaction with the major shareholder or a third party, as an act of demanding a loan from the representative director of the bank's own interest.

4) The degree of involvement of Defendant B, a major shareholder, the operation and major shareholder of the AI savings bank

Defendant A, on the operation of the AI savings bank, did not report semi-annual performance to Defendant B, but did not report in advance. In addition, Defendant B received a request from the president of the NN Group for the loan from the AI savings bank. In such a case, Defendant A made a recommendation on the loan, but even in that case, Defendant A made an explanation on the loan without considering the terms and conditions of the loan explicitly, and Defendant A instructed the executives to examine the loan received under the above circumstances, but Defendant A instructed Defendant B to report it and did not implement the loan if it received an opinion that it is difficult to grant the loan.

In addition, it is necessary to keep in mind that Defendant B is the chairperson of the NN group with more than 30 affiliated companies, and that he was not in the position of exercising the control over only the savings bank.

5) The business environment mutual savings bank of a mutual savings bank is a financial institution established in order to provide financial convenience to ordinary people and small and medium-sized enterprises that are difficult to lend funds by the first financial right. A mutual savings bank is bound to make a deposit on condition of interest rate higher than that of the first financial right in order to raise its financial resources, and a mutual savings bank is bound to make a loan on condition of interest rate higher than that of the first financial right in order to repay its interest. naturally, a mutual savings bank is bound to accept the loan in the first financial right. There is a relatively low possibility of refusing a loan in the first financial right, and it is inevitable to deal with a loan that shows a relatively low possibility of collection among those loans for a mutual savings bank's business. Ultimately, a mutual savings bank is in a situation in which it is bound to handle a loan by taking a risk higher than that of the first financial right. Therefore, in determining whether an individual loan is possible, such business environment of the mutual savings bank should be fully considered.

B. Determination of facts charged

1) Defendants’ assertion on the loan of KRW 3.3 billion to A [Gong8] on April 11, 2006 (A) of KRW 3.3 billion to A]

(1) As Defendant A’s instant loan was a hub theory, the Defendant prepared a legal safety device for withdrawal after reviewing the feasibility of business and approved the loan. Thus, Defendant A fulfilled his duties necessary for the review, approval, and recovery of the loan.

(2) Defendant B

While introducing A to A, the Defendant merely referred to as the “A” to review the loan requested by A while disregarding the terms and conditions of the loan, the Defendant did not instruct A to implement the loan without disregarding the terms and conditions of the loan. Since the Defendant did not have to obtain the assistance of AA in relation to the State P acceptance of the NN Group, there is no motive to instruct the Defendant to execute the loan.

B) Determination

(1) Defendant A refused to handle the loan of this case from the standpoint of Defendant A in accordance with the opinion of the officer or employee in charge, but again, the loan of this case was executed at the risk of opposing the officer or employee in charge after hearing the reference of “A”. Accordingly, even though a large amount of loan of 3.3 billion won or more, the loan of this case did not secure any security therefor. Although the loan of this case has the nature of a sort of hub theory that is scheduled to be used as the land purchase fund for the new apartment construction project in the original city promoted by A, the loan managers did not examine the possibility of success of the above implementation project, and did not confirm the documents on the land for which the contract was concluded. While the loan of this case was deposited in Nonghyup and controlled the use of the fund by directly remitting to the land owners, the loan managers did not temporarily withdraw the loan of this case after hearing the loan of 3.3 billion won on April 1, 2006.

Above all, the Defendant himself did not comply with the terms and conditions of the loan to A and recognized the problems of the loan in the court (as of September 27, 2012, Articles 28, 29 of the Examination Protocol of the Defendant’s Examination of Witnesses). Moreover, the Defendant stated that he dealt with the loan of this case in the judgment that it is necessary for the entire interests of the NN group after being given instructions from B, and it is reasonable to evaluate that he had priority over the interests of major shareholders and N groups rather than the interests of the AI bank, and has been at risk of causing damage to the AI savings bank.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the approval of the instant loan without taking necessary measures for recovery without examining and examining the possibility of recovery was in violation of the duty of the representative director of the AI savings bank who is obligated to protect the property of the AI savings bank, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intention of breach of trust.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(2) Defendant B

The defendant introduced AA to A with knowledge that it was not possible for A to receive a loan from the AI savings bank upon the request of B to receive a loan from A and that it was not offered as a security (the third page of the examination record of A).

The defendant introduced AA to "a person who will assist in the AP acquisition". At the time, the NM Group was in full force in the AP acquisition, and the CM Group's acquisition was also known to A as a group's largest issue. Whether the defendant was introduced to A as a person who would raise the AP acquisition fund for the AP acquisition, or not, a political right or state related to the AP acquisition.

The Defendant and A’s assertion on what the Defendant and A have been introduced to a person with the influence to form a favorable public opinion about the NN group, but from one side, it seems sufficient to obtain the recognition that NN group’s assistance is essential to take over the AAP in acquiring the KO building I and II. In addition, the Defendant has provided the purport that AA is a person with extensive experience in implementing a large project of AO building I and II, and that its credit status is excellent. In such a situation, even though A has expressed his opinion that it is difficult to grant a loan to the Defendant, the Defendant re-designated A to the next Defendant.

In addition, even in the process of withdrawal of funds, the defendant again mentioned the convenience of the AA to the effect that "A is not a person to use funds in another place".

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had exercised the influence on A, the representative director of the AI savings bank, in order to seek cooperation from AA, which has an influence on forming a favorable public opinion in connection with the acquisition of the AP, with the knowledge that it is difficult to handle the AA loan in the AI savings bank because the possibility of recovery is low. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant decided the instant loan in collusion with A.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2) Defendants’ assertion on AB’s total of KRW 1.4 billion loans [Gong1.2. A. 3.b.) around July 2008, 2008

(1) Defendant A

The defendant, who has the right to place an order for a YR business, has participated in the YB as a partner company of the YR business and held that it would be possible to collect the loan with the construction cost, so the loan is approved under the judgment that there is sufficient possibility of trust and possibility of recovery. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have an intention of breach of trust.

(2) Defendant B

The Defendant introduced AB to review the loan of AB recommended by BW as a collaborative company of the AB project, and did not instruct AB to do so. Because there is no personal interest with the AB-affiliated Bank or the BX, the operator thereof, and there is no interest, there is no reason for the Defendant to instruct AB-affiliated loan beyond introducing the loan in accordance with BW's request.

B) Determination

(1) According to Defendant AB Credit Rating Co., Ltd.’s Credit Rating Co., Ltd.’s credit analysis report (AB), the credit rating of the AB Co., Ltd.’s credit rating is not more than the CCC + the credit ability for commercial transactions, and was in need of due care due to the likelihood of the decline in the transaction stability. 10) In general, the loans to such a company were a case that would not be handled without certainty. Nevertheless, the Defendant promptly handled the instant loans to the officers and employees in charge, and accordingly, conducted the instant loans without any other review than the financial statements and credit analysis report. This part is also recognized as BU, including the Defendant, and the BU is also recognized.

If so, the collection of the loan of this case without any particular security is not expected to be a future cash flow of AB, and the future cash flow that the defendant or BU can expect to AB in this case means the cost of subcontract construction that the AB may participate in the AB R business as a subcontractor.

As to the reasons why the Defendant did not express the opposing opinion on the instant loan, the Defendant stated that the amount of loan is relatively small, but the AB M&A is expected to participate in the AR subcontractor business, and thus, it can be recovered from the construction cost.

However, around July 2008, the AR project was not rapidly planned, and the AB's participation in the said project was not finalized, and only such reference was made by the president B, who promoted the AR project.

However, it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to accept the subcontract price after the Party has been selected as a subcontractor and the Corporation has completed the construction after the Party has been selected as a subcontractor in the AR construction project, which was not included in the commencement plan.

This is because, in light of the developments leading up to the request for a loan by AB, the loan has the nature of an urgent fund to solve AB-based financial problem that prevents the payment of the construction cost from the Korean Teachers' Credit Union. However, since the Korean Teachers' Credit Union has difficulty in receiving the construction cost easily from the Korean Teachers' Credit Union (such as filing a lawsuit seeking compensation for delay against the State, it is difficult to expect AB-invested company to escape from the problem of financing in a short term. AB-based statement made by the Korean Teachers' Credit Union, it is difficult to expect that AB-invested company will not become a bill holder in a commercial bank at the time (166) and request B to provide a loan due to the lack of a bill holder in a commercial bank at the time (166). The AR- subcontracted company is basically selected by the City Corporation and the business operator is merely recommended by the subcontractor in the status of promoting the project in cooperation with the construction project. Even if there is a recommendation made by the subcontractor, it is difficult to readily conclude that the subcontractor will not participate in the subcontractor.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the AR project at the time was not influent in the commencement plan, and the construction is selected from the contractor after the selection of the contractor and the completion of the construction work as a subcontractor until the completion of the construction work and the receipt of the construction loan. In addition, it would be anticipated that a considerable time would take place even if the above process would be net, and the possibility of considerable delay in the process may not be disregarded due to any unexpected event in the process of the project. As such, it was sufficient to raise a question as to whether the AR project would have been influentd for such long period in the financial situation of the AB-affiliated Bank.

Therefore, the Defendant’s determination that AB (State) merely guaranteed the collection of the instant loan with the subcontract price to be participated in the AR business as a subcontractor shall be deemed to be merely a dance at the end of B without any reasonable investigation and review as to the loan. Therefore, it cannot be deemed to be within the scope of business judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

(2) Defendant B

It is true that the defendant did not have any direct seal or interest with BX or AB (State) in addition to the defendant's request from BW who was the same as his university.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have been in the financial situation at the time of ABism in the process of receiving the instant loan from BW, that the instant loan was dealt with urgently, and that the Defendant requested a direct BU to grant an additional loan, etc., the Defendant seems to have been aware that it was a situation where it was difficult to obtain a loan from a commercial bank due to the lack of substantial financial standing at the time of the Dispute Resolution Bank.

Nevertheless, the defendant tried to examine the loan of this case to A, and in addition, if the defendant wants to participate in the AR projects later as a subcontractor, then he added a reference to strengthening the credit. This is as seen earlier, which was a critical cause for implementing the loan of this case.

In addition, the defendant, around July 17, 2008, had BU, who did not contact with A to urgently support additional funds, carry out a loan of KRW 300 million on July 17, 2008.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant exercised influence over A, the representative director of AI low-scale bank, by participating in the AR business and expressing his/her opinion that it is possible to recover the loan from the subcontract price with knowledge that it is difficult to handle the loan to AB savings bank because the possibility of recovery is low, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant decided the loan in collusion with A.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

W. W. 3.5 billion won loan [Gong1.7.) dated 1, 2005 30.30 billion won

A) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant B around November 2005, “A” is a person who helps the NN Group take over AP, W is a partner of AA and has the right to act as an agent for the development of the urban development project in the Kimhae Sea, the size of which is 400,000 square meters. The NN group ordered that “If W is going to take part in the urban development project with AX bills and to get loans to the Savings Bank, I will have the right to act as agent for the urban development project in the above urban development project, and if W is going to get loans to the Savings Bank, I will have the right to act as specified in Article 1(A)(2) of the judgment of Defendant A, thereby obtaining the 3.5 billion won loan to W as described in Article 1(1)(2) of the judgment of Defendant A, thereby causing damage to the Victim Savings.

B) Defendants’ assertion

(1) Defendant A

피고인은 B으로부터 김해시 CN지구 도시개발사업의 개발대행권을 가진 W를 소개받고, W가 서울 영등포구 CO 주상복합건물 분양사업을 성공적으로 진행하고 있어 그 자력을 신용할 만하다고 판단하였고, 이에 더하여 AX㈜의 어음에 AO건물 시행사업 등 여러 건의 시행사업을 성공으로 이끈 AA의 배서를 확보하는 등 대출금의 회수를 위해 필요한 검토와 조치를 취했으므로, 피고인에게 배임의 고의가 있다고 볼 수 없다.

(2) Defendant B

The Defendant did not introduce the instant loan to A. The Defendant did not have any personal relationship with W at the time.

C) Determination

(1) 이 사건 대출에 대한 피고인 B의 언급이 있었는지 여부 이 사건 대출은 창구를 통해 접수된 것이 아닌, 피고인 A를 통해 접수되어 검토가 이루어진 것이다12), 피고인 A는 BT에게 위 대출을 검토하게 하였고, BT이 취급에 반대하였지만 "본사 연락 대출"이라고 하면서 BT에게 대출을 실행하도록 하였다. 그런데 할인할 어음을 발행한 AX㈜는 2005. 11. 29.자 신용조사보고서(수 6162)에 의하면 현금흐름등급 CR6로, "현금흐름 창출능력이 거의 없거나 총 차입금 대비 현금 흐름 창출액이 매우 적어 현금지급능력이 매우 불량 했고, 2004. 12. 31. 결산 기준 -357억 원 상당의 자본잠식 상태에 있는 등 AI저축은행 입장에서는 AX㈜의 신용만으로 35억 원이라는 거액의 대출을 실행하기 곤란했다. 그리고 이 사건 대출금이 사용될 인천 서구 AY지구 사업에 대해 충분한 사업성 검토가 이루어지지 않았고, 차주인 W, AW에 대해 적절한 신용조사를 하지 않았다. 한편, AX㈜의 어음에는 CP(AW)와 W의 배서가 삭제된 대신, W의 형인 AA의 배서가 추가되어 있다(수 6133). AA의 배서는 AI저축은행 측에서 W에게 요구하여 이루어진 것이다13). 그 경위에 대해 피고인 A는 이 사건 대출을 검토한 후 피고인 B에게 대출이 곤란하다는 보고를 하였고, 이에 피고인 B이 AA 측을 언급하여 AA의 배서를 받게 된 것이라고 진술하고 있는 반면14), 피고인 B은 수사기관부터 일관하여 피고인 A로부터 대출이 곤란하다는 보고를 받은 적이 없다고 진술하고 있다.

- W, which constitutes the actual borrower of the instant loan, did not have a single type prior to the instant loan, and it was difficult to receive and determine the loan without any proper credit investigation as seen above, since it was not between the AI savings bank and the existing transaction. Above all, the AI savings bank did not know the relationship between W and A. However, the person who introduces W other than the Defendant B to the Defendant, and in particular, the person who knows the relationship between AA and W, is not revealed in the record. Unlike the allegations in this court, the Defendant knew W 15 years prior to the instant loan, and around November 2005, it appears that it was reasonable to fully explain the circumstances of the instant loan to the investigation agency to the effect that W was presented while introducing W to the Defendant in relation to the business of the Daejeon Office by requesting for a loan from W, and considering the circumstances of the instant case, the Defendant’s statement was presented to the effect that it appears that it was reasonable to fully explain the above Defendant’s statement to the investigation agency.

(2) Defendant A also did not deal with the instant loan from the standpoint of the Defendant, in accordance with the opinion of the officer in charge.

Although it is determined that it is difficult to grant a loan, it is a case in which AA’s decision to execute the loan by receiving endorsement. Accordingly, even though a large amount of loan is KRW 3.5 billion, the borrower did not secure any security therefor, and the loan in this case has the nature of a kind of hub theory that is scheduled to be used as land purchase cost, etc. promoted in the Seo-gu Incheon AY area, but the borrower did not examine the possibility of success of the project in this case.

Although the Defendant stated to the effect that he was able to deal with the instant loan in the context of L and AA’s credit, the Defendant did not specifically investigate the Defendant’s financial capacity in light of the following: (a) around June 30, 2005, WW, the wife of W, purchased not only one commercial area of L and B from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and paid 30 billion won as down payment to Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (b) in this regard, W, there is a question that W, having the ability to mobilize funds of 1 trillion won, has been successful in the implementation of various projects; (c) it seems that W, as expected only in the reputation of S and A, is currently a successful implementation business operator, it appears that the Defendant did not specifically investigate the Defendant’s financial capacity. Unlike the situation where W or AA is carrying out various projects and its business funds are financed, it is deemed that the Defendant’s intentional breach of trust or duty to collect considerable amount of loans is not required to be considered to be more than 160 million won.

(3) Defendant B

(A) Details of the defendant's involvement

피고인이 이 사건 대출에 관하여 관여한 내용에 대하여 A는, "피고인이 'W는 ㈜AP의 인수를 도와주는 AA의 동생으로서, 40만 평 규모의 김해 CN지구 도시개발사업의 개발대행권을 가지고 있는 사람인데, AN그룹이 위 도시개발사업에 참여할 계획이니 W가 AX㈜) 어음을 가지고 AI저축은행에 대출을 받으러 가면 잘 협조해 줘라.'라고 지시하였고, 대출을 검토한 후 피고인에게 대출이 힘들다고 보고하였더니 피고인이 AA를 언급하여 AA의 배서를 받고 대출을 실행하게 되었다."라는 취지로 진술하였다.

① As seen earlier, the Defendant made a reference to the instant loan while introducing W to A, and the part mentioned to the effect that W was introduced as a partner of AA and that W was carrying out a large number of implementation projects in the said statement is believed to be in trust in light of the foregoing circumstances.

② As to the circumstances of endorsement of A, A reported that it is difficult for A to grant a loan to the Defendant, and the part that the Defendant referred to in A and thus made the endorsement of AA on the said bill shall also be deemed to be credibility. The reasons are as follows.

- In light of W’s statement (man 668) that deleted W’s endorsement and added AA’s endorsement due to the lack of W’s business performance in the AI Savings Bank, it is true that it is difficult to grant W’s loan when W’s endorsement is made in the AI Savings Bank.

- However, at the time, A was only divided into only one part of W at the time, and W was 18) and W was difficult to demand A to receive endorsement from A while referring to A, which is not directly related to the loan, to W. This is also the same in the working-level situation of AI savings banks. In addition, from the perspective of W, it was not easy to accept the endorsement from A to the point of view that W was 19) which was in a relationship between China and Japan as a monetary problem.

- Ultimately, it is natural to view that A filed a report that it is difficult for the Defendant to borrow a loan, and that the Defendant mentioned A and determined A to receive endorsement from the said bill and to enable A to do so.

(B) Whether the Defendant constitutes a co-principal or not, while introducing W, ordered A to examine the loan, and after receiving a report from A to the effect that it is difficult to grant the loan, referring to an endorsement of AA, and as a result, the instant loan was made. However, there are the following circumstances that are difficult to evaluate the Defendant’s involvement as an act of making the loan carried out without seeking reasonable and reasonable measures, by actively expressing the legitimacy of a specific loan or the possibility of its recovery.

① First of all, there is a face where it is difficult for the Defendant to determine the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the endorsement of A. In relation to this part, A stated that “A takes an additional endorsement and takes a loan,” but it is difficult to believe the content of the statement to the effect that there was such a decent order. This is because this part of the statement made by the Defendant concerning the specific contents of the reference was made only when A did not make any statement or when February 23, 2012. This is because, rather than that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that A made a statement to the effect that it was made, it appears that the relevant documents were reported, and that it appears that “a loan is a system for issuing a loan,” or “a given order” was merely an expression of the same sense received by A at that time.

② Meanwhile, it is difficult to readily believe the part mentioned to the effect that the NN group is planning to participate in the urban development project of the Kim Sea CN zone promoted by W. As seen earlier, this appears to have been reconstructed by reviewing documents related to A rather than dependent on A’s memory. As regards the urban development project of the above Kim Sea CN zone, the case, including reviewing the acquisition of the AJ dispute resolution and the participation of the NN group in the project in around 2007 after the above loan was implemented, and there is a possibility that the Defendant might confuse the circumstances after the loan was implemented as the situation at the time of the loan.

③ Based on the opinion of the working-level staff, A reported the difficulty in loan handling to the Defendant, and the reason for the loan handling is more likely to have been the doubt about the borrower’s repayment ability, etc., rather than merely means that A or BU and BT, which were involved in the loan, made it necessary to reinforce credit at a practical level due to the lack of business performance at the time of W. The support is supported by the fact that A or BU and BT, which were at the time of this Court, evaluated W’s credit at the time of this Court (for the reasons for the endorsement, BV and BT are not sp

④ Ultimately, the Defendant’s reference of the endorsement of AA after receiving a report from A is merely limited to the presentation of credit reinforcement at a practical level on the premise of the right to loan decision-making and the basic recognition of the borrower’s ability to repay, rather than having to implement the loan despite the awareness of the borrower’s ability to repay, and it cannot be easily ruled out that the Defendant is also receiving the loan.

Thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be seen as having been proved beyond the above reasonable doubt, and thus, it shall be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(4) A loan of KRW 1.5 billion (Gong1.b) on December 28, 2006 to the Bank of Bankruptcy V (Gong1.2)

A) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant B around March 2005, to Defendant A, there is an election of the president of the CSS Association, and to be elected by the president of the CTS, the CB’s assistance, which served as the president of the CSS Association. The CB ordered the CB to “The CB to make a loan necessary,” and the CB loaned KRW 1.5 billion to V, such as Section 1-b. 2 of the decision of Defendant A, by giving a loan of KRW 1.5 billion, the Defendants conspired to act in violation of his duties and thereby, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion to the CTS, thereby causing damage to the CTS Savings Bank.

B) Defendants’ assertion

(1) Defendant A

The defendant, along with the technical ability of the K&D, decided to grant a loan to V with the stocks of the K&A as security under the judgment that if the capital increase of the K&A, which has a unique technology relating to the precision control system, is successful, the stock price will increase. This decision is not the act of breach of trust, since the defendant completed a sufficient investigation and examination, and it is not the act of breach of trust.

(2) Defendant B

The Defendant did not introduce A with respect to BX, and did not mention A with respect to the instant loan. Even if the Defendant had introduced BX to A on or around March 2005, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant gave instructions to the instant loan that took place after one year and nine months or more.

C) Determination

(1) Around March 2005, Defendant B introduced BX to Defendant A as a witness on the 111st trial date, and Defendant A stated to the effect that “A, at the time of lending KRW 3 billion to CUB to the CUB Electronic Co., Ltd. on March 2005, the Vice-Chairperson B intended to leave CB to the Chairperson of the CS Association, who is the Chairperson of the CS Association, and would help CB.” (Article 22, 23 of the CB examination protocol of September 27, 2012 against A). The Defendant also appeared as a witness on the 11th trial date and appeared to know CB on what CT would be, and the CB introduced CB to the effect that CB was able to report its transactions with the KUB bank and made a statement to the effect that the CB was “A” and made a statement to the effect that CB was “A.”

Defendant B’s statement is sufficient in light of the following: CB’s statement (No. 7823); Defendant B’s statement (no. 6 pages of the witness examination protocol with respect to B); Defendant A and CB’s statement that it had been purchased at a higher level than 15 billion won compared to the market price; Defendant A and CB did not know each other prior to the loan amounting to KRW 3 billion to CUU dispute resolution committee on March 16, 2005.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion to reverse this cannot be accepted.

(2) Defendant A

(A) First, the instant loan needs to take part in the capital increase issued by the third party to the KAZ. It is applied for the purpose of the loan, and it is secured as security the AZ shares 2,142,857 shares to be acquired through the above capital increase.

However, the share price is prepared to change according to time, and the interval or width of the change is relatively large, as well as is affected by various factors, and thus it is difficult to expect its trend. Accordingly, in a case where a loan is made as security, if ex post facto measures such as realizing the value of security or securing additional security are not timely taken by examining the trend of the value of security, it is highly likely that the loan can be lost due to the failure to maintain the value of the first security. Due to the characteristics of these shares, whether the stock secured as security can be immediately realized or not is very important in maintaining and managing the value of the security ex post facto. In this regard, Article 41 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Securities by Mutual Savings Banks provides that the securities falling under an issue recognized as having no market value is not evaluated as a security.

However, in the instant loan, the shares secured by the AI savings bank as collateral has been acquired by participating in the capital increase with capital increase and should be protected by the Korea Securities Depository for one year, so it cannot be disposed of during that period. Therefore, the Defendant’s lending of the shares with no marketability in violation of the Securities Survey Regulations is to be implemented.

(B) Of course, the act of lending is not always an act of breach of trust by violating the loan-related provisions. However, as long as the above provisions are established to minimize the possibility of damage to the AI Savings Bank, the act of violating such provisions is ultimately at risk of damage. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the act of lending is an act of breach of trust as a decision beyond the scope of the business judgment given to the representative director, unless it can be viewed that the above determination is reasonable because it is reasonable to consider that specific risk that the representative director did not know about the existence of the AI Savings Bank is lower than the above abstract risk, and that it is reasonable to consider that the above determination was made carefully after sufficient review and investigation, and that it is reasonable to consider that the act of lending is an act of breach of trust.

(C) On the premise that the instant loan was made in violation of the said collateral inspection provision, the following circumstances are recognized:

V was equivalent to KRW 50 million in sales on the financial statements as of December 31, 2005, and KRW 300 million in ordinary profits. It was limited to the extent that the loan of this case can be recovered only when all of the sales revenue of the LAC in the KACB is used to fully repay the loan for three years. In other words, the interest on the loan of this case may be anticipated to be repaid in the business condition of V, but it was difficult to expect to recover the principal.

- Thus, the decision-making criteria to determine the possibility of collecting the loans of this case is the stocks of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which are secured as collateral. However, it must be noted that the stocks of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. cannot be disposed of for one year.

- The defendant asserts that the share price of the AZ will be maintained for a period of up to one year. The reason is that the AZ is a promising company that the AZ has a unique technical ability in connection with the precision control system, and that the operation performance, business performance, and past operation performance of the AZ and the loan related to the AZ have been repaid normally.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s determination exceeds the scope of management judgment as it did not undergo sufficient review, investigation, and deliberation even though it is necessary and necessary for the Savings Bank’s manager to provide loans for the purpose of using the paid-in capital increase.

① At the time of September 2005, the KCAB had been under investigation into the problem of the window dressing accounting of the financial statements in 2004, and the stock price has rapidly decreased, and around October 2005, the KAB had been significantly deteriorated in its financial status, including the commencement of joint management by the KAB, and around September 2005, the KAB had been trying to improve its financial status by selling the CV, which is its subsidiary company, and repaying the loan and paying the loan with capital increase on or around December 29, 2005.

(2) The shares of AZ have been released from the category of investment bond around December 5, 2005, when the Korea Exchange of the Bank for the Settlement of Disputes has designated the investment bond as the category of investment bond.

③ In this situation, there should have been more careful consideration as to whether the crisis of the KCAB is temporary or not, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. The loan documents in this case are not accompanied by an analysis report on the financial status or business prospects, etc. of the KCAB.

The defendant's judgment is a promising company with a unique technical ability concerning the precision control system. However, it is acceptable to assess the potential of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. throughout the operation performance and operating power of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., but the operating profit of the AZ is recorded in two consecutive years from 2004 to 23 years, so it is not a situation where the potential can be avoided, and without a thorough examination of the cash flow or capital structure of the AZ at the time, it is very poor (or several 7662), and it is insufficient for the owner of the AZ to be maintained for one year. Rather than this basis, the defendant was aware of trust, i.e., introduction of B, the defendant's trend, and the defendant's social status as the president of the CSSU, and there is no more reasonable ground to determine the AZ as a loan of this case as a loan of this case, and there is no more reasonable ground to determine the AZ as a loan of this case.

(D) In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s decision to grant the instant loan to the Plaintiff as collateral, without making sufficient and adequate investigation and examination into the trend of the owner of the LAB, and without disposing of it for one year, constitutes an act of breach of trust. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intent of breach of trust.

(E) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

(3) The part acknowledged as Defendant B’s participation in the instant loan is only that the Defendant introduces CB to A on or around March 2005. The Defendant’s above act committed one year and nine months prior to the instant loan, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had exercised influence over the instant loan decision, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant conspiredd with A.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

5) X (AFFS) loans of KRW 8.8 billion on March 30, 2007 (Gong1.C) 8.8 billion on March 30, 2007

A) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 B이 2007. 3.경 피고인 A에게 "AA가 BA과 함께 BB 부지를 낙찰받아 퍼블릭 골프장 사업을 추진하려고 하는데 입찰 보증금으로 사용하고 곧바로 상환한다.고 하니 AA의 동생인 W의 보증을 받고 대출을 해 줘라."라고 지시하여 피고인 A가 판시 제1의 나. 4)항과 같이 X㈜에 88억 원을 대출함으로써 피고인들은 공모하여 업무상의 임무에 위배하는 행위를 함으로써 X에 88억 원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고 피해자 AI저축에 손해를 가하였다.

B) Defendants’ assertion

(1) Defendant A

The Defendant secured a security equivalent to KRW 6 billion for the instant loan, took necessary measures to recover the remainder of the loan, such as obtaining a guarantee from AA and W, and approved the instant loan, and thus, cannot be deemed to have committed an act in violation of his/her duties.

(2) Defendant B

The Defendant introduced the instant loan to A, and did not instruct A to provide a loan, after hearing the horses that some of the collateral is insufficient from A, but did not instruct A to provide a loan. Rather, if there is a WW guarantee from A, the possibility of recovery was known as a sufficient loan, and there was no intention to implement a loan difficult to be repaid.

B) Determination

(1) Defendant A

(가) X㈜의 2006, 12. 31. 결산 기준 재무제표에 대한 감사보고서에 의하면, X㈜는 12억 3,200만 원 상당의 당기 영업손실과 31억 9,600만 원 상당의 당기 순손실이 발생하였고, 유동부채가 유동자산을 110억 원 상당 초과하고 총 부채가 총 자산을 52억 원 상당 초과하는 상태여서 부채 상환 능력에 의심을 품을 만한 상황이었다. X주는 실제로 이 사건 대출일로부터 약 1년 후인 2008. 4. 30.경 폐업하였다. 또한 X의 연 매출액은 30억 원 상당으로, 골프연습장의 현금 매출로 이자를 납입할 것은 기대할 수는 있었겠지만, 88억 원이나 되는 원금을 위 회사의 매출만으로 회수하는 것까지는 기대하기 어려웠다고 할 것이다.

Ultimately, the collection of the loan of this case should be conducted through future cash flow according to the use of the loan, and the risk following the failure should be avoided by securing a security with a value equivalent to the loan.

(B) The instant loan was intended to be used as a bid bond for a golf course development project promoted by the Korea Airports Corporation in the vicinity of BB, and if the loan is used as a bid bond, it may be repaid through the recovery of the future bid bond to be made. Therefore, the actual use of the loan in the bid bond is an important part related to the collection of the loan. However, the AI savings bank did not take measures to restrict the purpose of the loan, and did not confirm where the loan was used ex post facto.

(C) The first secured golf membership as security for the instant loan was 6 golf membership and 2 apartment buildings. The AI Savings Bank determined that the security value of apartment 2 bonds is KRW 745 million, and the security value of 6 billion in golf membership is calculated as KRW 500,000,000 and KRW 6 billion has been secured, and that the remainder of the loans is KRW 3 billion, AA and W have been secured.

The defendant or loan practitioners at the time stated to the effect that they were able to recover the loans by securing such security. However, the following problems were found in evaluating and securing the security for the loan of this case.

The security value identified in the AI Savings Bank is not reflected in the risk of decline in the value in the realization process, but was the market price. In particular, in the case of golf membership, the security value equivalent to 60% of the actual market price has been assessed as the market price. It would be 40% of the total market price. In addition, in the case of CX, there was a lawsuit following the change of a business entity, and there was a refusal to change the name due to the transfer of membership because golf membership was sold in lots, but the AI Savings Bank did not know it as it did not investigate it.

In light of the above, even if the collateral price was assessed in excess of KRW 3 billion, and even when the collateral was guaranteed by AA, the collateral price was insufficient. Accordingly, the Defendant received W’s guarantee for KRW 3 billion and decided to approve the loan of this case. However, the Defendant has a reputation as an executor, and the Defendant only has relianceed on the re-performance of AA and W, which was introduced by B of the N Group, and did not conduct a specific investigation on AA and W’s credit at the time. Prior to the instant case, the amount of KRW 2 billion out of the loan of KRW 3.3 billion on April 11, 2006 was still in excess of the repayment of KRW 3.5 billion against W, and it is still in excess of the repayment of KRW 3.5 billion on November 30, 200, and it cannot be deemed that there was a reasonable reason to recognize that W did not take any reasonable measures to believe that only the specific credit standing was a 3 billion loan without investigating the reputation.

(D) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant neglected to examine the instant loan and did not take necessary measures to recover the loan. Moreover, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant violated such duties was under the risk of bad faith in the instant loan for the benefit of the major shareholder, taking into account the position of the major shareholder B rather than for the benefit of the AI savings bank. Therefore, the Defendant’s intent of breach of trust is also recognized.

(E) The Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

(2) Defendant B

(A) The Defendant visited A and BU directly in an AI Savings Bank room to request A and BU to review the instant loan, and even if the Defendant received a report from A that it is difficult to grant a loan due to lack of security, referred to a second W additional guarantee, and requested B to directly post a telephone to guarantee the loan.

The defendant mentioned that he added a guarantor who did not have any relation to any non-related loan is not the attitude of a third party who does not have any interest in the execution of the loan, and therefore, he could be inferred that the defendant is desiring to implement the loan from A.

(B) However, there are the following circumstances where it is difficult to deem that the Defendant committed an act of allowing a loan to be executed without taking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover the loan claims by actively expressing his/her opinion on the legitimacy of a specific loan or the possibility of its recovery.

① There was no clear motive for the Defendant to participate in the instant loan, and furthermore, it is difficult to readily conclude whether the motive is necessary to exercise influence over the instant loan. On March 2007, the AP takeover problem has already been terminated, and there is suspicion that the Defendant had decided to participate in the instant loan business, but there is no evidence other than a rumor.

② Based on the opinion of the working-level staff, it does not seem that the reason for the loan transaction by A was the significance of the borrower’s ability to repay, etc. Rather, if the loan is to be used as a bid bond, it would not have any problem in recovering the loan. On the other hand, it would have been deemed that the loan would have been possible if there is additional security by ascertaining the credit standing and security status of the borrower company. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, in the process of receiving the report from A, was aware that the instant loan was a loan that cannot be treated in the AI savings because the possibility

③ Ultimately, the Defendant’s reference of W’s guarantee is not aimed at making the borrower implement the loan despite the awareness of the borrower’s ability to repay, but rather, on the premise of the basic confirmation of the loan decision-making authority and the borrower’s ability to repay, it seems that A presented the extension of credit through W’s guarantee, which is the affirmative acceptance of W’s guarantee.

(C) If so, this part of the facts charged cannot be seen as having been proved beyond such reasonable doubt, and thus, it is not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

(a) A loan of KRW 1.5 billion (Gong1.23) on May 25, 2007 to the SUBC

1) Summary of the facts charged

S had not been engaged in sales since its commencement around October 2005. As of the end of 2006, S had been in a capital erosion of KRW 4.25 billion, its liabilities KRW 4.434 billion, its capital - capital - 182 million, and thus there was no ability to repay even if it has been granted a loan from AI Savings Bank. Nevertheless, around May 25, 2007, the Defendant violated the occupational duties that should not cause damage to AI Savings Bank, without entirely examining the financial status and possibility of the repayment of the loan, and provided a loan of KRW 1.5 billion to SF Bank without entirely being provided with a security necessary for the collection of the loan. Accordingly, the Defendant committed an act in violation of his duties, thereby causing damage to the victim’s property interest and acquiring damage to AI Savings Bank.

2) Defendant’s assertion

According to the judgment that the Defendant may expect a considerable amount of profit because the loan was made in the construction project of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Complex Complex Complex Construction Project (hereinafter referred to as the “SUG”), which is in progress by the KUY, after receiving a guarantee from the KUY and T which is its major shareholder, and taking measures such as receiving a claim equivalent to KRW 1.95 billion out of the proceeds from the waiver of the business rights to the KUG in the KUG, as security, and approving the loan in this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed an act in violation of his duties or the Defendant committed an intentional breach of trust.

3) Determination

It is true that at the time S or DA Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. was not a good financial position in the form of capital. However, in light of the statement of the defendant and BU, the loan in this case was not made based on the credit of the borrower, which is the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and the DA, but it appears that the loan could be recovered with the guarantee of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (No. 5279, 4692). The expectation of the Yongsan Industrial Project implemented by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. can be divided into apartment sales profit and sales facility operating profit. The Korea Credit Information Credit Information Asset Resolution Co., Ltd. was estimated to sell apartment sales profit in the amount of KRW 310,00,000,000 in the amount of KRW 1,73.1 billion in the case of selling sales facilities as of February 14, 2007, and the amount of the PFF Co., Ltd. was predicted to be KRW 427 billion in the amount of KRW 8.75 billion in the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation.

If this situation is in this situation, it is reasonable to assess the success possibility of the AI savings bank in an affirmative manner, and predicting that the Dispute Resolution CoY will gain a profit of more than 90 billion won as the Yongsan Project.

Although it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant would not investigate the loan status of the KY in the case of other loan status of the KY, it is difficult to conclude that the loan of KRW 1.5 billion with the credit of the KY in the case of the KY in the case of expected to be held by the KY in the case of the KY in the case of a loan of this case, it is difficult to conclude that it is possible to lend the loan of KRW 1.5 billion with the credit of the KY in the case of the KY in the case of a loan of this case. Since the KY in the case of a loan of this case has the nature of the compensation for transfer and renunciation of the right to the KG in the case of the KG in the case of a loan of this case to the KG in the case of the KG

In full view of the above circumstances, there was an objective reason to view that the defendant can recover the loans of this case with the guarantor's credit, and accordingly, it is determined that he/she has taken necessary measures to recover the loans, such as taking over claims against the KY in the dispute resolution committee.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant did not fully examine and investigate the loan, or did not take necessary and appropriate measures to recover the loan.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(b) 21.4 billion won loan relating to the implementation project of T;

1) Summary of the facts charged

The defendant has been aware of the fact that it is difficult for the AI Savings Bank to borrow more loans than 16 billion won from the AI Savings Bank, and the appraisal price of the collateral to be offered by T-B is 1.838 billion won (1.86 billion won in the order of priority, 32.0 million won in the household, 1.86 billion won in the household, and 1.5 billion won out of the loan is expected to be appropriated for the service cost of the D-C project, and it is expected that 1.5 billion won in the loan will be appropriated for the service cost of the D-C project, so it is too high to bear a risk.

Nevertheless, around December 28, 2007, the Defendant violated the occupational duty that should not cause damage to the AI savings bank in lending business funds to the name of the borrowed borrower, and did not take necessary measures to collect claims, such as not properly analyzing the credit standing of the DB and T and receiving additional collateral, and loaned 4.6 billion won to the DB in excess of the loan limit to an individual borrower under the Mutual Savings Banks Act. From around that time to January 29, 2009, the Defendant extended 21.4 billion won in total to the actual borrower 4 times in the same manner as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (4) from that time, from that time to January 29, 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the actual borrower, by performing an act in violation of his duties, has gained property gains equivalent to 21.4 billion won, which is the real borrower, and has inflicted damage on the Victim Savings Bank.

First of all, loans to the Bank of Korea, DB, and DD listed in the separate list of crimes (4) Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are loans to the Bank of Korea, and the defendant has executed a loan under the judgment of feasibility through a review of the possibility of success of the Suwon DC project. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed a breach of trust.

In the case where it is inevitable to respond to the demand of the PF lender to arrange loans to the KFC in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (4) No. 2 in the attached Table No. 2, an AI Savings Bank, and the KFCY did not have sufficient means to repay the above loans and repay the above loans by carrying out loans in the name of the KFE in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a breach of trust, since the Defendant took measures to recover the loans in the name of the KFB in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which is equivalent to 15 billion won against the KFG, such as securing the claim for operating profits of the KFS as security, etc.

3) Determination

A) On December 28, 2007, 4.6 billion won loan (1) to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (4) No. 1, 2007, in relation to the construction project promoted by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (DB in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Seoul, to support the initial project fund, such as land purchase fund, etc.

In carrying out a real estate development project, the Brazil theory loans funds necessary for the initial project implementation cost, such as land purchase cost and service cost, which are necessary for obtaining authorization and permission for designating an urban development zone. In the event that a project is not carried out by acquiring the ownership of the land itself, it is difficult to secure physical security for the above loan, and most implementing companies make it difficult for them to secure sufficient human security due to lack of financial resources, making most implementing companies take cash flow to be held in the future through a real estate development project rather than physical and human security as the main source for repayment. Therefore, the appraisal of repayment possibility in the loan in this case depends on the feasibility assessment of the real estate development project, and it is difficult to conclude that there is a violation of duties solely on the fact that there is a lack of physical and human security.

(2) However, this part of the facts charged merely focuses on evading the limitation on the lending limit to individual borrowers due to the instant loan to TR, and on the lack of the borrower’s financial resources or security therefor, and it does not point out whether the instant loan was subject to adequate investigation and examination on the feasibility of the projects, and whether the instant loan was subject to necessary measures for the management and execution of the funds.

Rather, according to BT’s statement 28), there is room to see that BU has reviewed the feasibility of the above project, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant did not fully investigate and examine the DC projects, or did not take necessary measures for the management and execution of its funds.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant did not properly evaluate the feasibility of the above business when implementing the above loan.

(3) Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that most of the instant loans were used in the business of the Suwon DC (in addition, increase No. 54-1) and otherwise, the instant loans were against T and to avoid the provision on the restriction on the amount of loans to individual borrowers (see, e.g., the part of the self-employed loans in violation of the Restriction on the Amount of Loans to Individual Borrower).

(4) If so, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant approved the instant loan without taking necessary measures to recover the loan without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting the loan of this case.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

B) On September 30, 2008, 10.4 billion won loan (1) to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (4) Nos. 2, 2007, 2007 and 5.22, after the loan of this PF loan to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (1) has been granted to the AI Axis Bank in an amount of KRW 9.0 billion from May 22, 2007, and around October 10, 2007, extended the limit and additionally received a loan in an amount of KRW 2 billion.

However, according to this PF loan agreement, ACY is prohibited from bearing a debt to a third party without prior written consent of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation until the principal and interest of the PF loan is repaid in full, so the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation demanded the KFCY to adjust the above loan to the KFS AI savings bank on August 20, 208 due to the violation of the above loan agreement.

Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to pay CY's operating profit in an amount equivalent to 15 billion won to the DE of other companies that operate T, and agreed to pay the above operating profit claim of the KY to the KY DE as collateral for the loan of this case to the KY and paid the amount equivalent to KRW 9.34 billion in the balance of the KY's loan to KRW 9.34 billion.

(2) Examining the above facts, the LABCY could not refuse the request of the lender to arrange the above loans to the AI savings bank, and it seems that the AI savings bank did not have sufficient means to repay the loan amounting to 9.3 billion won.

In such a situation, it seems that there is no alternative to change the name of the borrower by repaying the above loan of the AI savings bank with the loan to another company. In such a case, if the AI savings bank enters into the collection measures of the existing loan to the savings bank, it is inevitable to suspend the loan business of the savings bank, and in such a case, it is not a situation where the loan can be repaid properly from assets at the time of the savings bank agreement.

(3) In order to avoid the insolvency risk of loan claims that the borrower changes to the KF Loan Co., Ltd., the AI Savings Bank, which implements an industrial complex project, tried to secure subordinated profit certificates on the land for the industrial complex project in order to avoid the insolvency risk of loan claims that the borrower changes to the KF Loan Co., Ltd. (No. 5274), but the KF Loan Co., Ltd. did not enter into an agreement to transfer business profits to the KF Loan Co., Ltd., and the KF Loan Co., Ltd. could not secure other collateral except for the transfer of business profit claims to the KF Loan Co., Ltd. as collateral.

(4) In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s decision to grant the instant loan seems to have been an inevitable decision to recover the existing loan to the KY, and accordingly, the Defendant intended to choose the best method in the circumstances at the time to secure the collateral. Therefore, it is not deemed that the Defendant did an act in violation of his duties, and it is difficult to recognize the intention of breach of trust.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

C) The loan of KRW 300 million on October 14, 2008 to DB listed in the annexed crime list (4) Nos. 3 is applied for the purpose of paying the balance of land purchase and sale with respect to the above DC project. The loan of this case was made on the extension line of KRW 4.6 billion with respect to the above DB. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the loan of this case was made by using the cash flow that will be held in the future through the DB EC project, and thus, the evaluation of the possibility of repayment would result in the evaluation of the feasibility of the DC project of the won DC project.

However, according to the loan review report (A. 2333), the AI savings bank still reports the prospects of the revenue source DC business to be positive, and there is no evidence to prove that the AI savings bank did not conduct such an investigation and examination. Moreover, the AI savings bank secured a collateral, such as establishing a collateral security on real estate equivalent to KRW 190 million in available volume. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant cannot be concluded to have approved the loan of this case without taking necessary measures for its recovery without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting the loan of this case.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

D) On January 29, 2009, the loan (1) of KRW 11 billion against the credit rating bank (4) No. 4, 2009, the loan of this case was made in the extension line of each loan against the above DB by the AI Savings Bank for the purpose of the land purchase fund necessary to continue the project, etc., and the loan of this case was made in the extension line of each loan against the above DB.

In addition, it is reasonable to regard the loan of this case as the cash flow that the LAD will be held in the future through the LAD project as the repayment source. Thus, the priority of judgment on the possibility of recovery is also evaluation of the LA project prospects of LA (the loan executed in the name of DD is to avoid the lending limit to the same borrower with respect to T, but such circumstance alone is not enough to readily conclude that the defendant has the intention of breach of trust).

(2) Around January 2009, when the instant loan was executed, the real estate construction competition was chilled due to the depression of Lbaman Synas situation that occurred around September 2008, and thus, it seems that the outlook of LbC business was not the same as that of LbC business. Therefore, from the AI savings bank’s standpoint, it is necessary to pay attention to supporting additional funds for LbC business.

The Dispute Resolution D Co., Ltd has changed its plan to operate the project by significantly reducing the scale of the existing source DC project due to the decline of the above construction competition, and it seems that in the Dispute Resolution D Co., Ltd., it was likely that the AI Savings Bank has reviewed the feasibility of the changed plan, while it is highly probable that the AI Savings Bank has reviewed the feasibility of the changed plan, and it is not revealed in the records that it has conducted any investigation, examination, and evaluation in relation to the change of the business prospects. Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the AI Savings Bank neglected to conduct the necessary investigation, examination, and examination in relation to the project prospects in the execution of the instant loan in this case. The burden of proof for conviction is a prosecutor. In such a case, it cannot be said that the AI Savings Bank did not properly evaluate the business feasibility.

(3) In addition, in light of the above circumstances, the remaining 6.1 billion won, excluding the above 4.9 billion won of the repayment of the existing loans of DB, appears to have been actually used in the DC business (increased No. 54-2). (4) In light of the above circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant approved the instant loan without sufficiently investigating and examining the possibility of collecting the instant loan and without taking necessary measures for its recovery.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The defendant's assertion on a total of five billion won loans (Gong1. b. 3) around May 2009 related to T's acquisition of the Savings Bank (Gong1.

Since the Defendant, without knowing the purpose of the loan of this case, believed the credit and ability of T to conduct an industrial complex business and decided to grant the loan of this case, the Defendant cannot be viewed as having the intention of breach of trust.

2) Determination

The Defendant, without confirming the purpose of the instant loan, determined a large amount of loans worth KRW 5 billion. AU State was merely the lending of the name, and AV, the issuer of a bill, was also an enterprise lacking credit in lending KRW 5 billion. Although the Defendant alleged that he/she believed the credit and ability of T, he/she did not undergo a specific investigation and examination, and did not receive T’s guarantee, nor did he/she take measures to receive a specific repayment plan or to secure a security from T. The Defendant did not secure a security against CY which implements the Yongsan Project.

In light of these circumstances, since the defendant did not take necessary and appropriate measures to recover the loan of this case, and simply decided the loan of this case with trust in T’s horse, it is reasonable to deem such defendant’s act as an act of breach of trust.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(d) Loans related to loans to be sold to camping co (Gong1.b.4)

1) Summary of the facts charged

In principle, executives and employees of the Savings Bank shall not grant a loan to a person with overdue loans, and in exceptional cases, even if the person with overdue loans has extended additional loans to the person with overdue loans in order to maintain the financial soundness, only the amount equivalent to overdue interests shall be loaned to the extent necessary for the collection or reorganization of overdue loans, and in cases where a separate business fund or operating fund is loaned in addition to overdue interests, a certain debt recovery measure such as receiving additional collateral from the person with overdue loans shall be taken, so

Nevertheless, around December 28, 2006, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties, and did not take all measures to collect claims, such as receiving additional security from the DF, etc. in arrears, and granted a loan of KRW 1.15 million to the borrower on June 23, 2005 for the purpose of increasing interest on the loan of KRW 6 billion and allowing him to withdraw KRW 1.17 million from the loan to use it as land purchase funds. From September 15, 2006 to July 2, 2009, the Defendant allowed to withdraw the loan of KRW 3.1 billion on a total of 18 occasions from around July 15, 2006 to use it as land purchase funds.

As a result, the Defendant committed an act in violation of his duties, thereby obtaining a total amount of KRW 3 billion from each borrower to each other, and causing damage to the Victim AI Savings Bank.

2) Defendant’s assertion

Each loan specified in attached Table 2(5) is to be used for the purpose of repayment of interest on the hub loan and additional project funds already received from the AI Savings Bank in relation to the real estate implementation project promoted by the borrower. Under the judgment that each real estate implementation project has been delayed but still has been feasible, the defendant still has been determined that the execution project has been discontinued by immediately taking measures to recover the loan and that it is necessary to continue the operation of the project rather than to recover most of the existing loan. Therefore, the defendant's decision constitutes a reasonable business judgment to recover the existing loan, and thus, it shall not be deemed a breach of trust.

3) Determination

A) Criteria for determination

(1) In a case where an executor is unable to repay a loan as well as interest payment, even though the time limit for the existing hub loan comes more than that initially anticipated, if a savings bank enters into the collection measures of the loan without extending the time limit, the business under way will return to prisoners of war, and due to the characteristics of the hub theory where the collateral is insufficient, savings banks will not recover most of the loan.

Of course, if the project outlook is very weak and it is expected that the project will eventually failed, it is merely to increase the scale of insolvent loans to provide additional funds to the implementing company. In such a case, it is reasonable to take measures to recover immediately even if it bears losses of existing loans.

However, it is also possible to operate a savings bank to extend the term of existing loans and to recover existing loans through business progress by providing business funds additionally, rather than immediately taking measures to recover the existing loans where the business prospects are judged positive. In such a case, if the implementing company fails to pay interest, it becomes a overdue loan and it is difficult for the savings bank to extend the term of the loan or to grant additional loans without taking measures to repay the interest. Therefore, the savings bank will make an additional loan to the implementing company for interest payment.

(2) This part of the facts charged is related to loans made by AI savings banks for the purpose of redemption of interest on the hub loan and partial additional financing already implemented on real estate development projects. In particular, the part concerning additional financing is an issue. In the event of overdue loan, it is logic that additional financing in addition to interest is possible only when certain recovery measures such as securing additional financing have been taken.

(3) However, this part of the additional loan is made on the top of the extension of the existing loan on real estate development projects, and therefore, if the additional loan is not made, it is inevitable to return to the failure of the project and eventually, it is impossible to recover most of the existing loan. Since the existing loan is made by using the so-called "cash flow to be held in the future through the real estate development project," which is promoted by the executing company rather than physical and human collateral, as the main source of repayment, this part of the additional loan should also be approached from the above perspective.

(4) Therefore, whether this part of the additional loan is an act of causing damage to the AI Savings Bank as it concerns a loan with no possibility of recovery should be determined with an emphasis on whether the decision was made on a reasonable investigation and review of business prospects and whether the decision was made.

B) Specific determination

(1) On June 23, 2006, December 28, 2006, the amount of KRW 1150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to the LAF, in order to implement the main apartment development project in Ulsan-gu DG around June 23, 2005, the AI Savings Bank borrowed KRW 6 billion from the LAF, KRW 8 billion from the LAF Bank to the LAF Bank, KRW 2.5 billion from the LABD Savings Bank, while the project was promoted, around August 2005, the above area was designated as an overheated speculative zone, and the DH Investment Bank, which was to participate in the project, has been unable to implement the project by giving up the participation of KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

In light of the fact that the business prospects at the time of the loan of this case did not appear to have been more than the time when the loan of this case was made on June 23, 2005, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant extended additional business expenses without making sufficient investigation and examination on the business prospects at the time when the loan of this case was decided. Rather, in light of the fact that the Korea Development Bank (BD Savings Bank), the additional loan of KRW 80 million was executed around December 28, 2006, and that the Korea Development Bank (BD Savings Bank) extended additional loans of KRW 2 billion around September 28, 2007, nine months after the said loan of this case, and that the Korea Development Bank (BD Savings Bank) extended additional loans of KRW 2 billion at around September 28,

There is sufficient room.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant approved the instant loan without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting the instant loan and without taking necessary measures for its recovery.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(2) On December 28, 2006, in order to implement a new housing construction project in the Busan DJ around December 16, 2005, a loan agreement of KRW 750,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the DI Resolution Bank was to obtain a business approval from an AI storage bank and to implement the said project around June 2006. The DK, which decided to participate in the construction thereafter, has been suspended due to the cancellation of the agreement. The above loan was to contribute to the use of the funds jointly with the savings bank participating in the above loan, and accordingly, the AI Savings Bank additionally loaned KRW 7,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

In light of the fact that the business outlook at the time was higher than the time of the loan on December 16, 2005, it seems true that it was more than the time of the loan on December 16, 2005, but not more than six months have passed since the business approval was granted, it was not only the situation where the negotiation was continued with the DK KK savings bank that gave up participating in the construction, and the AI savings bank has decided to provide additional financial support with other savings banks, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant extended additional business expenses without sufficiently examining and examining the business prospects at the time of the decision on the loan of this case.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(3) On July 2, 2009, in order to implement a new housing construction project in the Young-si City on November 30, 2007, the AI Savings Bank borrowed an amount of KRW 8.59 billion for land purchase deposit from the AI Savings Bank and paid an intermediate payment to the wind that could not select the construction project while carrying out the said project, and eventually, the down payment was confiscated on February 11, 2010.

The facts charged of this case pertains to KRW 2,00,000,000, which was used as litigation costs following the termination of the contract for the sale of land among the above loans of KRW 530,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as KRW 3646). In the situation where the down payment was fully confiscated and the existing loan of KRW 8,590,00,000 against DL is not repaid, it is deemed that the payment of additional litigation costs of KRW 2,00,000 is within the scope of management judgment as a reasonable act for the interest of the AI bank, and thus, it does not constitute a breach of trust.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(4) On March 20, 2008, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., (400 million won), around December 15, 2005, borrowed KRW 6 billion from the AI Savings Bank and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (2.5 billion), in order to implement a new apartment-family housing construction project at the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DO, Seoul, with a view to obtaining a loan of KRW 6 billion from the AI Savings Bank and KRW 2.5 billion. Around November 2008, DDP, a related company, was classified into credit management subject to the credit management. Around November 2008, DP, a related company, assumed the debt of DN. The instant loan was made in the name of DM to pay interest on the loan of KRW 6 billion.

However, this part of the facts charged is related to the amount equivalent to KRW 800,000,000,000 used as the notarial deed among the above loans of KRW 400,000,00, and according to the statement of Q Q (No. 3696), this part of the facts charged seems to have been incidental to the above loans, and thus, this part of the loans cannot

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(5) On February 23, 2009, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., obtained a loan of KRW 6 billion from the AI Savings Bank and acquired a new construction project of the main complex facilities, which was implemented in Daejeon-gu DV, Daejeon-gu. After receiving a loan of KRW 9.8 billion from the AI Savings Bank until December 28, 2007, they received a loan of KRW 9.8 billion from the AI Savings Bank and repaid the debt of the DaU with the above project and conducted the above project. The construction deliberation was passed on August 8, 2007 with KRW 5-story, the highest floor of the Daejeon-gu area, and it was scheduled to obtain a traffic impact assessment deliberation around November 26, 2007, and it was decided that it was rejected on April 28, 2008.

In the situation where it seems that there is room for dispute against the rejection of the application for approval of the housing construction project plan of Daejeon Viewers at the time, even though there is a little risk of recovery due to the lawsuit for security, it is possible to fully pay the litigation cost and the project cost in order to recover the existing loan amounting to KRW 9.8 billion, and it is within the scope of management judgment.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(6) ㈜DW에 대한 2008. 6. 18.자 4억 6,000만 원 대출DX㈜는 용인시 수지구 DY에서 공동주택 신축사업을 진행하던 중, 토지 잔대 금 지급을 위해 AI저축은행에서 2006. 12. 14.경 40억 원, 같은 달 29.경 24억 원 합계 64억 원을 대출받았다. 위 사업은 용인시가 사업계획을 승인하지 않음에 따라 진행이 지체되다가, 2009년경부터 이어진 경기도 행정심판위원회의 재결을 통해 2011. 4. 29. 경에야 비로소 용인시가 사업계획을 승인하였다(수 3770). 이 사건 대출은 위와 같이 사업계획 승인이 지체되고 있는 상황에서 위 대출금의 이자 상환 및 세금 납부 등의 용도로 실행된 것인데, 이 사건 공소사실은 위 대출금 4억 6,000만 원 중 세금을 납입하는 데 사용된 6,300만 원 상당에 대한 것이다.

(A) Although the approval of a business plan was delayed as seen earlier, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, at the time of determining the loan of this case, extended additional project costs without making a sufficient examination and review on the prospects of the project of this case. In light of the fact that DX entered into a land trust agreement with the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. on November 3, 2008 (No. 3791), around 2009, there was a ruling revoking the approval of a business plan by the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on Administrative Appeals of Gyeonggi-do (Administrative Appeals Commission of Gyeonggi-do) after the execution of the loan of this case, there is sufficient room to expect the normalization of the project of this case.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant approved the instant loan without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting the instant loan and without taking necessary measures for its recovery.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(7) On September 28, 2007, the Dispute Resolution Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "AF") of 1.4 billion won loan to the Z was implemented for the purpose of using the interest repayment of the existing loan and the additional project (service cost) loan, etc. Around July 19, 2006, in order to implement a new apartment construction project, the EA was financed with the land purchase fund of KRW 6 billion from the AI Savings Bank, KRW 2.5 billion from the Young-si Mutual Savings Bank, and the project was promoted for the same purpose as on December 29, 2006, with additional loans of KRW 70 million from the AI Savings Bank for the same purpose, but it was delayed due to delay in the authorization. Although there was a delay in the approval of the project plan as seen earlier, it is not possible to deem the Defendant to have given up the existing loan and to have given up the additional loan of KRW 600,000,000,000,000.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant approved the instant loan without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting the instant loan and without taking necessary measures for its recovery.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(8) On November 5, 2008, in order to implement a golf course construction project in the YY, the 1.4 billion won loan mediation committee of the EB, around March 24, 2006, borrowed from the AI savings bank a total of KRW 8.1 billion from the AI savings bank until February 15, 2007, such as borrowing KRW 3 billion from the AI savings bank, and promoted the above project by borrowing KRW 5.1 billion from the KB savings bank before May 22, 2008. The loan in this case was executed for the purpose of the additional project, such as repayment of interest on the existing loan to the KB and land purchase fund.

Considering the fact that at the time of the instant loan, the authorization was obtained for the golf course business at the time of the instant loan, and the selection of the contractor was delayed, but it was at the time of five months after the authorization was obtained, and that the first collateral security was secured for the project site equivalent to KRW 14.369 billion in the secured value, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant extended the additional project cost without sufficiently examining and examining the business prospects at the time of the instant loan decision. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(9) On September 15, 2006, 1.3 billion won (1.3 billion won), February 16, 2009, and 1.9 billion won (1.9 billion won) to EE in order to implement a new apartment construction project in Ansan-si E in September 15, 2005, AI Savings Bank out five billion won (5 billion won) to use land purchase cost, etc., and 3 billion won from the LABD Savings Bank, and it started to intervene in the establishment of district unit planning and the selection of service companies for this purpose at the time of implementation of traffic impact assessment around May 27, 2007, and the decision of urban planning was announced on December 31, 2007, and the new urban planning was announced on September 15, 2005 to 19.6 billion won (the new urban planning was announced on October 27, 2008 to 206) to be used for the existing urban planning project.

In light of the above circumstances, each of the loans in this case appears to have been made in the process of continuing the above business, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant extended the additional business cost without sufficiently examining and examining the prospects of the above business at the time of determining each of the loans in this case.

Thus, each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(10) On September 18, 2007, a loan of KRW 1.3 billion to EF, and a loan of KRW 1.2 billion to EG on September 25, 2008, in order to implement an urban development project at Cheongju-si EH, a loan of KRW 4.8 billion from AI Savings Bank from November 18, 2005 to KRW 1.2 billion around July 12, 2006. On the same day, while a loan of KRW 2 billion was promoted by a mutual savings bank in Young-gu in charge of the urban development project, it was required for a long period of time for authorization and permission due to the nature of the project being implemented, and after the cancellation of construction by DH Bank in the process of performing an urban development project, the repayment of the loan was notified to the Corporation and the repayment of interest for the purpose of the existing urban development project.

In the event each of the instant loans was carried out, the approval of the instant business plan was delayed at the time of the lapse of one or two years from the date on which the additional funds were provided. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, at the time of determining each of the instant loans, did not fully examine and examine the project prospects and did not provide any sufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant extended a loan for the additional project costs. In light of the fact that all eight savings banks, including future savings, participated in the instant projects and extended a total of KRW 40.2 billion, the outlook for the said projects appears to have been at least at the time of the first loan.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant approved each of the loans of this case without undergoing a sufficient investigation and examination on the possibility of collecting each of the loans of this case.

Thus, each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(11) On May 4, 2007, the KK hotel and commercial complex construction project, around March 2009, and around March 20, 2007, by the KJ, there was a problem of delay in authorization and permission in the course of carrying out the project with four savings banks, including AI low-scale bank 8 billion won, in order to operate the project. In addition, it was difficult to select the project with real estate economy.

Accordingly, the savings bank which participated in the loan except the savings bank with the largest savings bank has decided to execute the loan in order to repay the interest of the existing loan, and accordingly the loan in this case has been executed.

Considering the fact that the instant loan was carried out according to a joint decision with another savings bank, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, at the time of determining the instant loan, extended additional business expenses without making a sufficient examination and examination on the prospects of the said project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

(12) The amount of 1 billion won loan to the EL, the amount of 300 million won loan to the KLM on October 8, 2007, the amount of 50 million won loan to the KN on June 28, 2007, the amount of 50 million won loan to EN on June 28, 2007, and the amount of 80 billion won loan loan to EN on June 3, 2008, the amount of 2008 loan to the KN was extended from the KO bank in 2005 in order to implement the construction project of the main complex facilities at the Seosung-gu, Daejeon EO in 2005, the amount of 6.7 billion won loan to participate in the construction project was delayed, and it was difficult to select the construction project due to the decline of real estate market. In this situation, each of the loans of this case was implemented for the purpose of redemption of interest and other existing loan to EN.

Although the selection of the contractor has been delayed, and the real estate competition has been with a decline, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, at the time of determining each of the loans in this case, did not fully examine and examine the prospects of the above project and extended the additional project cost, and solely on the foregoing basis, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant neglected to review the feasibility of the project

Thus, each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(13) On December 27, 2006, in order to implement a new apartment construction project in the Gu-U.S., Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Inc. Around December 28, 2005, an AI Savings Bank borrowed KRW 6 billion from the AI Savings Bank for the purpose of land purchase funds. At the time, the company entered into a business agreement with the Si-U.S. Investment Bank Co., Ltd., and there was a problem of delay in authorization and permission. The instant loan was implemented for the purpose of repayment of interest on the existing loan to Q and additional project funds, etc. under the above circumstances.

Although the authorization and permission was delayed, considering that the loan of this case was executed one year after the date on which the existing loan was executed, it would be somewhat reasonable to waive the above project, and other provisions are sufficient for the prospects of the above project at the time when the defendant decided to grant the loan of this case.

There is no evidence to deem that the additional project cost was loaned without the resignation and review. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, the innocence is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

E. Loans of KRW 1.5 billion (Gong2.a.) to U (U) on July 9, 2007

1) Summary of the facts charged

U(U) applied for a loan of KRW 1.5 billion to the AI savings bank around July 2007.

The content offered 80,000 shares of AZ as security for transfer, and loaned 1.5 billion won to U with the guarantee of ET, EU, CB and EV related to U(ownership).

However, since U(U) did not receive an external audit by a certified public accountant as a limited company, the financial statements were not reliable, and even according to the financial statements, the financial statements did not meet loan requirements such as guarantor E-T, EU, CB, and E-V’s credit and property status at the AI Savings Bank as well as at least KRW 12.5 billion, KRW 12.5 billion, KRW 18.3 billion, KRW 5.7 billion, net income at the end of 2006, KRW 200 million, KRW 200 million, and KRW 138 million, the market price offered as security for the above loans was designated as a management issue at the time of 80,000,00 won.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around July 9, 2007, followed a sufficient investigation and review of the possibility of recovery, followed by taking necessary measures to recover claims, and subsequently decided to prevent damage to the AI Savings Bank, thereby in violation of the occupational duties that should not cause damage to the AI Savings Bank. In doing so, the Defendant granted a loan of KRW 1.5 billion to U without closely examining the possibility of repayment of loans and the feasibility of U’s business, and without being provided additional security necessary for the recovery of loans. Accordingly, the Defendant obtained property gains equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion to U by performing an act in violation of his occupational duties, thereby causing damage to the victim AI Savings Bank.

2) Defendant’s assertion

Since the Defendant reported the growth potential of U.S. and decided to grant the loan of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the intention of breach of trust.

3) Determination

U (U) on December 31, 2006, the assets of 12.5 billion won as of December 31, 2006, the liabilities of 18.3 billion won, the capital-5.7 billion won was in a state of capital erosion, and the shares offered as security for the loan was designated by the Korea Exchange of the Korea Exchange.

However, U(U) had 89 member shops and member shops across the country on the ground of the English education program called "EW" as an English education franchise. On December 31, 2005, the amount of sales as of December 31, 2005, the net income - the net income - the sales amount of 14.8 billion won as of December 31, 2006, the net income - the net income - the sales amount of 200 million won as of December 31, 2005, and the amount of net income -5.7 billion won as of December 31, 2005, as of December 31, 2006, as of December 31, 2006, -2.1 billion won as of December 31, 201, the loans amounted to 200 billion won as of December 31, 2007, and the loans amounted to 9.5 billion won as of December 31, 2009.

Although the borrower's assets and liabilities also are important to determine whether to grant a loan, it is unreasonable to view that the borrower is unable to repay a loan on his/her own on the ground that the borrower is in a status more than assets because it takes into account the situation in which the borrower is able to repay a loan with assets remaining after discontinuance of business, rather than whether to continue to conduct a business and repay a loan. Considering the above U's sales or growth rate, the repayment of the loan by other financial institutions actually takes place, and the fact that the mutual savings bank is located in a business environment where it is inevitable to handle a loan by taking risk than the first financial right, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant's judgment that the loan of this case is able to be able to be borne by U is significantly erroneous.

Of course, since the financial statements submitted by U (U) to the AI Savings Bank are not subject to external audit by a certified public accountant, it is true that there is any doubt about objective reliability. In particular, in the situation where the repayment of loans, such as the loans in this case, is mainly based on the growth potential of U (U) recognized by the financial statements, it is more desirable to undergo an actual inspection without easy trust of the financial statements. However, it is not revealed that the AI Savings Bank received and examined the value-added tax return (number 7561), sales statement (number 7580), copy of passbook (number 7593), etc. in addition to the financial statements, and that the above financial statements were falsely prepared. In this regard, it is difficult to judge that the verification conducted by the AI Savings Bank is insufficient.

Therefore, the decision of the Defendant to grant the instant loan is within the scope of management judgment.

It is reasonable to see that it is "."

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(f) A loan of KRW 2 billion (Gong2.2.B) on October 2008, 2000,000.

1) On September 2008, V applied for a loan of KRW 2 billion to the AI savings bank.

그 내용은 ㈜AZ의 유상증자에 참여했던 EX㈜의 풋백옵션 행사에 따른 주식매수대금 용도로 ㈜V에 20억 원을 대출하는 것이었다.

However, as of the end of 2005, KFFFFR 1.37 billion won in its assets, debt of 1.77 billion won in its equity capital, 1.58 billion won in its equity capital, net income of 24.8 billion won in its net income, 11.16 billion won in its assets as of the end of 2006, liabilities of 9.7 billion won in its equity capital, 2.88 billion won in its assets, 8.6 billion won in its assets, 2.6 billion won in its assets, 2.6 billion won in its assets, 5.7 billion won in its assets, 5.7 billion won in its equity capital, 2007, 5.7 billion won in its assets, 7.7 billion won in its equity capital, 200 million won in its assets, and 3.7 billion won in its trust in its assets, and 3.7 billion won in its assets, which were not acquired in its own assets as collateral by the public accountants bank.

2) Defendant’s assertion

The instant loan was made in order to avoid the insolvency of KRW 1.5 billion against the AI Savings Bank 2006, 12,28.28. It can be said that it constitutes a management judgment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant had the intention of breach of trust.

3) Determination

A) Facts of recognition

In December 28, 2006, the AI Savings Bank borrowed 1.5 billion won for the purpose of the capital increase with capital increase to the Dispute Resolution V around December 28, 2006.

On September 208, 2008, EX, which participated in the capital increase of the LAC, requested the LACB to purchase 1,364,292 shares of the LACB, and the representative director of the LAB requested the LAF to lend 2 billion won of the above stock purchase fund to the LAFF. EV proposed that EV will provide the above stocks of 1,364,292 shares and 63 million won of the effective collateral as collateral, but at the time, it was designated by the KAFF as management issues in the KAF. In addition, EV would visit the AI savings bank together with the KAB and offer additional guarantee of the EU (EU) to the KAFF.

B) Determination

AI저축은행이 V에 주식 매입대금을 지원하지 않는 경우, EX㈜가 AZ 주식을 장내에서 매도함으로써 AZ 주가가 하락하게 되고, 이로 인해 주식 담보 대출이 많았던 ㈜AZ는 연쇄적으로 담보보강이나 대출금 상환을 요구받게 되어 부도처리가 될 가능성이 있었다. 그렇게 되면 AI저축은행은 2006. 12. 28.경 ㈜V에게 실행한 대출금 15억 원의 상당 부분 회수하지 못하게 되는 위험에 처하게 된다.

However, even if it is difficult to expect that additional increase will occur later as the shares of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. have been designated as the management issues in the Korea Exchange, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. also did not have good financial standing, so it was difficult to expect the collection of the loan easily. For this reason, it seems that the AI Savings Bank first refused the loan in this case.

However, U(U) subsequently decided to guarantee the loan of this case, and at that time, the EZ, which was the director of the business division at the time, sought to implement the loan at the end with the FA of the business division. From 2006, U(U) with the rapid growth of the business as the guarantor, appears to be due to the fact that he had weighted the expectation that he will participate in the business as the guarantor and redeem part of the loan.

As can be seen from the first refusal of the instant loan by the AI Savings Bank, there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant had motive to promote the instant loan in addition to the circumstance that the Defendant was somewhat friendly with CB. The instant loan was received through the counter, and the Defendant had already expressed his opinion to implement the loan in the prior-user company, and the written application for the approval of the loan was prepared. BT stated that the Defendant had been instructed after the refusal of the instant loan, but 30) in light of the foregoing circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s reference to the instant loan was beyond the degree of opinion that the Defendant could have expressed in the process of determining whether to implement the instant loan, and that it was “an order to recognize the crime of occupational breach of trust.”

In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s decision to grant the instant loan is determined by comprehensively considering not only the possibility of repayment of the instant loan, but also the repayment of the existing loan to V. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intention of breach of trust.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(g) AE-related loan of KRW 5 billion (Gong2.C.) in total on January 19, 2006;

1) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of handling the instant loan, it was time to actively attract the PF loan due to the high prospect of the real estate development project, and it was a loan for a business directly executed by AE, a large stockholder of the Bank, which is a large stockholder of the Bank, which is a large stockholder of the Bank, and thus, it is determined that the possibility of recovery is sufficient, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have

2) Determination

On the other hand, it is clear that the security of the instant loan is insufficient.

Although the Defendant believed the AE’s self-sufficiency, the Defendant did not take any measure that considers the AE’s self-sufficiency as the security for the instant loan at the time of the loan.

In the end, from the viewpoint of the AI savings bank, it is inevitable to expect the repayment of loans to the success possibility of the project to be implemented by the AE.

However, the AI Savings Bank did not fully examine the above project, and did not confirm the existence of a contract for the project site, and did not limit the use of the loan or check the use of the loan. The measure of the AI Savings Bank seems to be a result of the direction that the defendant is given convenience to AE upon the request of the head of the operation of the savings bank in a mutual cooperative relationship with the bank, which was a major shareholder.

In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant approved the instant loan without closely investigating and examining the possibility of recovery on the grounds that the borrower of the instant loan is a major shareholder AE of the BD Savings Bank, and without taking necessary and appropriate measures to recover the loan. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a breach of trust and the Defendant’s intent to breach of trust is also recognized.

3. Breach of trust in relation to Defendant B’s victim Y-related LAS-related LAS-related LAS-related LAS-related LAS-related LAS-

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, around August 28, 2008, was well aware that there was no business that has deteriorated credit in the FB and actually been in progress at the time, and that it is impossible for YB to receive repayment even if it was given a loan to FB, an affiliated company, and thus, there is a duty to prevent any damage to FB by not granting a loan to FB owners.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take measures to collect loans, such as receiving collateral, in violation of such occupational duties, and instructed the person in charge of the KYA to lend KRW 2 billion on the same day, and KRW 1.5 billion on November 27 of the same year, to the FBA in charge of the FBA. Accordingly, the Defendant obtained the financial benefits equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion in the FBA by performing an act in violation of his/her occupational duties, and caused damage to the victim YABA.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant decided to grant the FB a loan of this case under the judgment that the FB’s failure to repay is consistent with the interest of the KB, which is within the scope of management judgment, and does not constitute an act of breach of trust.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

Y On April 8, 2005, the KFC Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with the FC District Land Partition Association in the amount of KRW 43 billion for the construction project for the land partition rearrangement project in the Mineyang City, which is promoted in the FD in the lightyang City. On June 20, 2005, the KFF subcontracted the construction cost of the above construction with the construction cost of KRW 15 billion in the construction cost of KRW 70 billion in the above construction cost of KRW 15 billion in the middle of the above construction work to the FE operated by the Defendant FE, a high school window

On the other hand, the FE requested the Defendant to lend the purchase fund of the vessel to be used for a business transporting sand, etc. from North Korea, and the Defendant, around July 8, 2005, demanded the FB to lend to FB six promissory notes with a total face value of KRW 3.5 billion. The FE used the loan to purchase the vessel at a discount from a financial institution.

However, as expected later, the profitability of the FG's sand transport business was not high, and FE was unable to pay the construction cost by the FC District Land Partitioning Association, and FB re-issued the bill several times to extend the due date. Among these, the prosecution conducted search and seizure for the entire NF Group on September 2008, and the financial institutions did not discount the bill re-issued by FB on the ground of group risk.FB was placed at the situation that the bill will be in default if the due date is not settled, but the bill was insufficient to pay.FB requested funding to the FB Business Center.

Y The KB determined to support the FB's default, and lent the FB a total of KRW 2 billion around August 28, 2008, KRW 1.5 billion around November 27, 2008, and KRW 3.5 billion around November 27, 2008.

2) Determination

On August 2008, YB LB LAB owned 72.88% of the FB’s shares. Moreover, FB’s name as an affiliated company did not have an interest in YB, but did not directly affect the rights and obligations of YB.

YThe KB Co., Ltd. has jointly and severally guaranteed the FB’s FC land zone and guaranteed the FB’s financial debt amounting to 15 billion won, and if FB defaulted, the KB would have the risk that the KB would have to discharge the above guaranteed debt. And YB would have been directly connected with the FB’s interest because FB entered into an agreement with the FC land subdivision, after completion of the construction of the FC zone, to implement the new apartment construction project in the development recompense area, and the FB completed the construction project. These losses are likely to lead directly to FB’s default.

On the other hand, the FB is in progress with the FC zone land zone construction, and there was a possibility that it will be able to pay the Y's subsidy as the construction cost.In addition, from the viewpoint of the FYB, the risk of not collecting the funds should be borne, but if the financial status or FB becomes insolvent at the time of the FYB resolution, it seems that there was no risk of not being able to accept when considering the risk of damages to the KB resolution plan, the anticipated damage size, etc.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant decided to grant the loan in this case under the judgment that even if the FB is at least at risk of not collecting funds than the FB's default due to the failure to provide financial support, it is consistent with the interest of the KB to prevent default. Therefore, the defendant's above decision is within the scope of management judgment and it is difficult to view that the defendant has the intention of breach of trust.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

4. Loans of KRW 11.3 billion to Defendant A and C for January 18, 2008 (Gong5.5.)

(a) Facts of recognition;

Defendant C requested from AF and BM on October 2007 that “AF may obtain a loan necessary for purchasing BL’s works. Since there exists a person who wishes to purchase BL’s works, Defendant C demanded to review the loan to D who was the responsible manager of the IB team at the time, but D considered it difficult to obtain a loan.

After that, as the AF requests the re-loan of the defendant C with the BM, the defendant C again requested that the loan be reviewed once again, and the D also presented an opinion that it is difficult to grant the loan at this time.

Accordingly, Defendant C said that “I would like to know how to grant a loan,” and eventually, the AI Savings Bank decided to deal with the loan. However, as AF did not have a domicile in the Republic of Korea and is inappropriate as a borrower due to the lack of residence in the Republic of Korea, Defendant C’s arrangement to lend the name in the above loan.

On January 18, 2008, the AI Savings Bank decided to execute a loan of 11.3 billion won in the name of BM to AF. Of the above loans, US$ 11.2 million out of the above loans is remitted to the account designated by FH, which was owned by FH, and on January 26, 2008, the said BL’s three points of the work was transferred to the said loan as a security for transfer.

However, unlike the original plan, AF was unable to repay the loan because it was impossible to sell three points of the above BL works.

B. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant A

In a situation where there is no art art art art, the Defendant did not have any choice but trust the explanation of art collateral loans that is strongly recommended by C, a joint representative director of the AI savings bank, and decided to repay the loan in accordance with the plan. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intention of breach of trust.

2) At the time of Defendant C., the world art market was formed a bL, and BL has increased the value of the works, such as setting a million won in the case of sculptures in a world-known modern art shop, and it is also the fact that AF, a global artist, has secured a place of sale, so the Defendant cannot be deemed to have ordered A and D to take advantage of the loan of this case under the judgment that the above loan can be recovered, and there is no intention in breach of trust against the Defendant. In addition, the AI Savings Bank acquired three points of the loan of this case as security of the loan of this case, and thus, the amount of profit is the balance obtained by deducting the value of the loan of this case, and as long as the amount of profit cannot be calculated on the basis of the value of the above three points of the work, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes cannot be applied to this case based on the amount of profit.

1) Defendant A

A) D opposed to the instant loan transaction several times, and the Defendant also expressed the negative opinions on the instant loan to C or D. It is doubtful that art works intended to be purchased with a loan are realized too high, and there was difficulty in calculating the value of art works in the AI Savings Bank, as well as in the absence of experience in making a loan as security. Nevertheless, under the situation where the aforementioned questions have not been resolved by the affirmative recommendation of C, the Defendant decided to handle the instant loan.

B) In a situation where it is apparent that the financial resources of the AF, a borrower of the instant loan, are insufficient to recover a large amount of loans worth 11.3 billion won, the repayment of the said loan would not be deemed to have reached the sale of the said art product. However, since the said art works are considerably limited to the purchaser, it is not easy to make a transaction, but it is difficult to expect a large amount of price fluctuations in nature. Therefore, high-priced art works cannot be immediately realized at the time they want, and can be deemed to be inappropriate as security because they could not anticipate the value at the time of realization. Nevertheless, it is because the trust in the realization of the said art works, that is, the place of sale of the said art works, and trust the horses of the AF.

If so, the AI Savings Bank should have taken measures to specifically confirm the selling place of the art works.However, the AI Savings Bank only trusted the sales place of the art works in a little detailed reference to the AF and confirmed it.

After all, AF does not have any specific reference to AF, which is a place that is merely merely an indication of the intent to purchase to AF, and AF has not yet found the place of sale due to the chilling of the art market.

C) In addition, the AI Savings Bank did not accurately grasp the value of the above art works by securing as collateral and carried out the loan in this case. Although it is not easy to grasp the value of the art works, it seems to have been sufficiently possible to investigate the past transaction price of the above art works in order to measure the value, or the past transaction price, etc. of the similar art works of the same author (number 9790). In the AI Savings Bank, the market price estimate (number 9848) was prepared by the above method, but it was made after the loan execution, and the value of the work of BL was prepared by the CD andCC, a staff member of the AI Savings Bank, based on the insurable value, and thus, it was not possible to view that the above art works were reliable. In the AI Savings Bank, there was no appraisal of the above art works.

Ultimately, the Defendant trusted the explanation between AF and C on the value of the above art product, which is the security for the instant loan, and decided to grant the instant loan without any particular investigation and examination thereon.

D) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant carried out the instant loan without taking necessary measures to fully review the possibility of collecting the instant loan and to secure the recovery of the loan.

The defendant's act is causing damage to the AI savings bank and gaining profits to AF, and it constitutes a breach of trust, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant had an intention to commit a breach of trust.

E) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

2) Defendant C.

A) Whether a co-principal is established

The Defendant demanded A and D to review the instant loan, and as seen earlier, A and D expressed their opposing opinions on the handling of the instant loan several times. Nevertheless, the Defendant had been secured by the seller of art products and expressed the need to avoid the intent of the collection of the instant loan and to attempt to borrow the loan for the purpose of the purchase of art products. Accordingly, A and D approved the instant loan without resolving any doubt that there was the possibility of the collection of the instant loan. Moreover, A and D stated that both the Defendant and D had no choice to implement the loan by strong means.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had exercised the influence on A, a representative director of the AI savings bank, by strongly expressing his opinion that the source of art goods can be secured and the loan can be collected clearly without preparing a solution with the knowledge that the loan could be recovered in the position of representative director of the AI savings bank, as a major shareholder, and the defendant is in the position of representative director of the AI savings bank, and as such, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and A have decided the loan of this case in collusion with the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B) Whether the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes applies

The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides for the aggravated punishment of specific property crimes based on the amount of profit of property or property acquired by a person who commits a specific property crime or has a third party acquired by such crime.

Where a loan has been executed by a bank due to an act of breach of trust, the profit gained by the person who has received the loan shall be the whole of the loan, and the value of the security provided by the person who has received the loan shall not be deducted.

This is because the value of security is changed, and there is a situation in which realization itself is difficult, so even if a loan is executed by a bank due to an act of breach of trust, it cannot be concluded that the recovery of the value is certain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the bank immediately after the loan has been executed that the risk of property damage to be lost in the collection of all the loans has occurred, and even if part of the loan is recovered by realizing the collateral secured thereafter, it is reasonable to regard it as the recovery of damage after crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

5. Loans of KRW 3 billion on December 20, 2010 related to Defendant B, C, and E [Gong8. A] Summary of the facts charged

On November 2010, Defendant B received the request from BN, the representative director of the KF in charge of the KF in charge of the settlement of accounts for “to have money borrowed from the AI savings bank in order to raise the operating capital of the company and pay interest on the loan,” and Defendant C instructed executives and employees of the AI savings bank, such as Defendant E, etc. to give a loan of KRW 3 billion, by giving an order to the executives and employees of the AI savings bank, and thereby, the Defendants acquired the financial profit of KRW 3 billion in the KF and caused damage to the victim AI savings bank.

B. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant B

Although the defendant received a loan from BN, he did not refuse and return it, did not talk to BN that he would leave the door to the AI savings bank, and did not require C or E to instruct the executive officers and employees of the AI savings bank or review the loan.

2) Defendant C.

Although the Defendant had the CD review the CD upon the request of BN to assist in the securitization of the shares of the AJ savings bank, the Defendant did not receive instructions from B for the instant loan, and did not instruct an executive officer or employee of the AI savings bank to provide the instant loan.

3) Defendant E

The Defendant merely reviewed the documents related to the instant loan and decided to grant the instant loan, did not receive instructions on the instant loan from B or C, and did not receive reports from the practitioners. In addition, in determining the instant loan, the Defendant was subject to sufficient review on the possibility of recovery and taking necessary measures to recover, and thus, cannot be deemed to have committed a breach of trust.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

FK acquired, from July 25, 2007, the AJ (State) shares of KRW 10 billion in its name in the process of accepting AJ, and entered into an agreement with Defendant B to carry out joint projects with respect to FL development projects around October 11, 2007. The FK died of an accident of fire around January 19, 201, and around that time, BN, a dynamic, operated the Z.

However, it is difficult to pay interest equivalent to KRW 28.1 billion in total of future savings and loans received from the Korean bank in order to pay down payment and intermediate payment of the FL development project because the financial standing of the Z is not good.

On May 2010, BN asked Defendant B to take over the FL development project.As a result, BN asked Defendant B to help and receive a loan from AI savings bank. On the introduction of Defendant B, B borrowed KRW 1.76 billion in the name of AI savings bank around 5, 2010.

However, even after that, the financial standing of the Z has not been improved, and it was still the burden of paying interest on the loan related to the purchase of the FL land.On the other hand, the ZJ dispute resolution was entitled to demand that the AJ stocks be paid to the amount calculated by adding the profits of 7.5% per annum to the par value to the AJ stocks at the par value after three years from the date of the conclusion of the agreement in accordance with the shareholders agreement concluded with the Y when acquiring the shares of the AJ dispute resolution committee around July 25, 2007.

BN found Defendant B at around December 2010, and requested Y to acquire FL development projects. However, Defendant B rejected the FL financial standing of Y, and Defendant B was extremely difficult to use YB financial standing. Meanwhile, Defendant C, who was working as a full advisor of the AI Savings Bank, was found to have been working as a full advisor of the AI Savings Bank at around that time, requested to change the securitization of stocks. Defendant C was unable to find the method of obtaining the loan of 2,00,000 shares through the CD, and Defendant C was not able to process the loan of 2,000,000 won. The loan of 2,000,000,000 won and 3,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won and 1,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000 won and 2,00,000,00 won and 1,000,00.

2) Determination

A) Whether Defendant B and C participated in the instant loan

(1) The direct evidence proving that the BN’s statement was involved in the instant loan is only the statement made by the investigation agency of the BN. The content is that “AN” means “AN who asks for the loan to the AI savings bank to find Defendant C,” and Defendant C’s order to provide a CD and “The specific matters are agreed upon with the CD.” (No. 10865). However, at the court, BN requested the Defendant B to provide a loan to the AI savings bank, but the Defendant B merely introduced the CD to the Defendant and introduced it to the Defendant, but the agreement on the loan was merely made to the CD and the agreement on the loan was not made to the Defendant, and the Defendant CN’s order was not made to the effect that the Defendant CN made the loan to the effect that the Defendant CN was not aware of the contents of the loan. In full view of whether the Defendant CN made the loan to the Defendant’s employees and officers and employees, the Defendant CN’s statement was not made to the effect that the Defendant CN made the loan to the Defendant CB.

Therefore, the credibility of BN’s statement and whether Defendant B and C participated in the instant loan should be determined by the different circumstances revealed in the instant case.

(2) The circumstances revealed in this case

(A) Defendant B’s receipt of the instant loan from ZN was made at AJ shares 1,92,40 shares of ZJ (Y) and was rejected in the financial situation upon the request of BN to take over the FL development project. Although Y was required to purchase the said shares in an amount equivalent to KRW 10 billion in accordance with the stockholders agreement with ZBA, it seems necessary from Defendant B to provide funds to B as possible;

(B) According to the statement of Defendant C and CD, Defendant C asked BN to “AJ stock securitization” and had it reviewed through CDs, and thereafter, Defendant C sought to find Defendant C again, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant C received a report from the CD that it is difficult to make stock-backed securitization and present BN with the intent of the report. Defendant C demanded “BN” loan from Defendant C’s room, and it was between Defendant C and the CD.

However, it is difficult to understand that it is difficult for BN to take account of the financial difficulties of the KN in finding the financial situation of the KN in several times and requesting the CD only without requesting the Defendant C to make a loan. The fact that BN still stated in the court that it requested Defendant B and C to grant a loan (as seen earlier, Articles 13 and 14 of the Examination Protocol of BN), as seen earlier, there was a need to provide funds to Defendant B and C in the relation between the KN and the State of the KN in the KN Bank. At that time, BN continues to provide financial support to the KN Savings Bank, and the stock securitization seems to have been considered as one of the methods of financial support in the situation where it is difficult to lend the KN Savings Bank, and as seen later, it is natural to view that the instant loan was carried out by the handling personnel, contrary to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C received the loan from the KN and whether it was possible to receive the loan from the KN.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view Defendant C as mentioned above solely on the ground that Defendant C was merely a circumstance, and there is no other motive to deem that Defendant C had no direct interest with BN. It is natural to view that it was necessary to provide funding to B, that is, Defendant B, and so, Defendant C would consider at least BN’s financial support from Defendant B.

(C) From the standpoint of a working-level, the instant loan constituted a case in which the instant loan is handled. The CD stated that the instant loan could have been handled, but, considering the following circumstances, the CD’s statement is difficult to believe.

① Since CDs received a request for loans from BN, it was known that the use of loans without relation to the borrower of the instant loan is the ZAB. In such a case, the loans to the ZAB Bank were caused by the total amount of KRW 10 billion, thereby causing the problem of violation of the Restriction on Limit on Loans to Individual Borrower, and the CD was also aware of this.

② On the other hand, the request for the instant loan was made immediately after the answer that BN is difficult to make stock-backed securitization from Defendant C, and therefore, BN did not have to carefully consider the structure of the loan. On the other hand, from the point of view of the AI savings bank, it was impossible for BN to implement the loan in the name of the KAH or the relevant company due to the violation of the Restriction on Limit on Loan Amount to individual borrowers. In other words, borrowing the name of the KAH, a subcontractor, by taking into account the position of the AI savings bank rather than BN.

The AJ (1,992,440 shares of the KAJ) of the KAR Co., Ltd. offered them as a security for the loans in this case, and the AI AH-related loans were managed together by the KAR AH-related loan.

In light of these circumstances, it shall be deemed that the AI Savings Bank, at least the CD was aware that it was the actual borrower of the instant loan, and that it was in the name of the Fund in the name of the Bank of Bankruptcy H.

③ In the application for the approval of the extension of the instant loan (A.1032), the bill issued in the instant loan was stated as the advance payment of the FM construction work in the Z to the K. However, as seen earlier, from the CD’s perspective that the K.A.B. may know that the K.B. borrowed the name of the K.B. H. and used the instant loan, the K.B. would use the bill discount issued in advance for the instant loan, and at least there was a risk that the K.B. would not properly proceed with the instant loan because the advance payment was used as the construction fund, and there was a risk that the K.B would be issued for the instant loan. Moreover, as seen earlier, the KF would not handle the instant loan as a problem (as seen earlier, the K.C.).

(D) Nevertheless, it is reasonable to view that the approval of the instant loan by the AI Savings Bank was due to the reference to the major shareholders or management of the AI Savings Bank.

① Although the CD attempted to allow the instant loan to be handled at a corporate financial team, the corporate financial team vice president notified the head of the corporate financial team CG vice president of the company financial team that he would not handle the instant loan, and the CF said notification that he would not deal with the instant loan to the CD “Korea would have decided to go to go to our country” (as for the examination of the CD, No. 39), and from the standpoint of the CF or CD, there was no motive to deal with the said loan.

② In addition, even though Defendant C was aware that he had an interest in the financing of BN twice or more regarding the stock securitization, it seems that Defendant C did not report it to Defendant C while dealing with the loan of BN.

③ The term “general collateral acquisition plan” proposed by the CD states that, for efficient credit management, the term “ZH-related loans shall be managed together by the KAH-related loans, and the term “ZJ-related loans” in the KAH-related KAH-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related LA-related L

④ As seen earlier, the instant loan has a problem of violation of the Restriction on the Limit of Loans to Individual Borrower. It is difficult to easily understand that the representative director, who is wholly responsible for the instant loan, did not report such problem. This is because the instant loan has no reason to be promoted in the line between AI Savings Bank’s major shareholders or management executives and future practitioners.

(3) Conclusion

In full view of the statements of BN and the above various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B was aware that Defendant C had been aware that at least Defendant B had applied for the instant loan by lending the name of ZH and that there was a reference to the instant loan.

B) Specific determination

(1) Considering that at the time of Defendant B’s discovery of the Defendant several times, the financial support of the Z was difficult and the financial support of the Z was considered to have been considered to have been known to the Defendant that it was difficult to grant a loan to the KAB bank. In such a situation, the Defendant mentioned to the effect that the Defendant would review the financial support of BN to C who worked as a standing adviser at the AI Savings Bank.

However, such circumstance alone is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant has the intention in breach of trust. This is because, although the defendant was aware of the circumstance that it is difficult for the defendant to lend a loan to Zin savings bank abstractly, there may be cases where the loan can be made according to its structure, such as the borrower's credit standing or collateral. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant, at the time of such mentioned above, allowed the AI savings bank to promote a loan with no possibility of repayment.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(2) Defendant C. The Defendant seems to have been aware that it is difficult to lend funds to the Bank of Korea.

Nevertheless, the Defendant considered that he would examine BN’s funding from B, and mentioned that he would examine the CDs’ loans to BN. Furthermore, according to the circumstances acknowledged earlier, the Defendant appears to have received a report from the AI Savings Bank as to the fact that the Defendant, at least, prepared a structure for lending to the KAI Savings Bank to conduct a loan.

However, such circumstance alone is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant has the intention in breach of trust. This is because, although the defendant was aware of the circumstance that it is difficult for the defendant to lend a loan to the Zzin savings bank abstractly, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant has allowed an AI savings bank to carry out the loan without possibility of repayment to the Zin savings bank at the time of making the above mentioned. In addition, even if the defendant received a report that the loan of this case is carried out by the Z in the process of reporting the possibility that the above loan of this case is carried out as a borrower, it is possible that the above loan of this case might not be considered as being carried out in the AI savings bank due to lack of possibility of collection. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant knew that it is difficult for the defendant to treat the loan of this case in the Zin savings bank.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(3) Defendant E

(A) As seen earlier, the instant loan was filed by the Z in the name of the KGH, and there was a violation of the regulations on the restriction on the lending limit to individual borrowers. The KGB, the actual borrower of the instant loan, was highly lacking in financial resources, such as the total loan amounting to 11.3 billion won as of December 2009, and the cash flow after the payment of interest amounting to -18.4 billion won. The KGH was limited to the sales amount of 3.8 billion won as of December 2009. In addition, the scale of the subcontracted project that the KG has received from the KGH was planned to obtain a loan amounting to 3.0 billion won with the bill issued by the KGH, and it was doubtful that the KGG would not be able to obtain a false contract with the subcontract construction cost of KRW 9 billion as of December 2009, and that it was at least 3.0 billion with the bill issued by the KGM as at the time of the instant construction project.

In addition, KRW 1,992,440 of the AJ shares offered as security for the instant loan was a non-listed share, and it was clear whether the CD could be realized properly, such as the failure of securitization, prior to the instant loan to the instant loan. (B) The Defendant is determined to have received a report from the lender on these circumstances.

① Although a loan was executed before the lapse of a week from December 14, 2010, when the Defendant assumed office as the representative director, it is difficult for the Defendant to easily obtain approval without notifying the problems and prevent of the loan of this case and there is no reason to do so.

2. The following are made by the relevant persons:

The CD stated in the court that CF reported the issue of the department dealing with the instant loan to the Defendant, and that CF later reported to the Defendant. CF also stated that it was the same as that it reported to the Defendant at an investigative agency. CG stated that it was not accurate memory as to whether it reported to the Defendant. While CG stated that it was not memory as to whether it reported to E in the court, the investigative agency notified the CF that it would not handle the instant loan, it stated that it would be desirable for the Defendant not to deal with the instant loan in the TF in the parallel-rating.

(C) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, even though he was aware of the lack of possibility of collecting the instant loan, decided the said loan on the ground that he was mentioned B. Such an act constitutes an act of breach of trust, and the Defendant’s intent of breach of trust is also recognized.

(D) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

violation of terms in the Mutual Savings Banks Act

1. Violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers A

A. Summary of the facts charged

No mutual savings bank may extend credit in excess of 20/100 of the equity capital of the relevant mutual savings bank to any individual borrower.

(i) A loan to T;

Before December 28, 2007, the Defendant extended a total of KRW 16.9 billion to T in the name of T, etc. and extended a total of KRW 4.6 billion to 21.5 billion on December 28, 2007, and extended a total of KRW 11.38 billion to 10.1 billion. The Defendant extended a loan exceeding the limit of loans to each individual borrower over 10.1 billion from around that time until May 20, 2009, as shown in attached Table (6) No. 4 to 13 of the daily List of Crimes No. 13, 2009.

(ii) AC loans;

Before December 28, 2007, the Defendant loaned a total of KRW 26.5 billion to AC in the name of the FFN, etc., and loaned a total of KRW 2.4 billion in the name of FO on December 28, 2007, and borrowed a total of KRW 11.389 billion in the name of FO and borrowed a total of KRW 2.4 billion in excess of KRW 12.1 billion in the loan limit, and thereafter, extended a loan to AC in excess of the loan limit of KRW 11.389 billion in the name of FO from that time until September 30, 2009, as shown in the attached Table (7) No. 6 to 14, a total of nine times, from that time, from that time to September 30, 2009.

3) Loans to AD

피고인은 2009. 10. 28. 이전까지 AD에게 ㈜FP 등 명의로 총 29억 8,000만 원을 대출한 상태에서 2009. 10. 28.경 FQ㈜ 명의로 170억 원을 추가 대출하여 총 198억400만 원을 대출함으로써 대출한도액 171억 8,600만 원을 26억 1,800만 원 초과하여 대출한 것을 비롯하여, 그 무렵부터 2010. 1. 5.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 (8) 연번 6 내지 8 기재와 같이 총 3회에 걸쳐 AD에게 각 개별차주에 대한 대출한도액을 초과하여 대출하였다.

B. Determination

1) Meaning of and criteria for determining individual borrowers

A) Each holder of a loan has a formal identity or independent legal personality, and a loan based on the holder of a loan does not exceed the lending limit to the same person. Even if the lending limit is based on a person to whom the loan actually belongs, if the lending limit exceeds the lending limit, such lending goes against the provisions on the restriction on lending limit to individual borrowers under Article 12 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7018, Oct. 15, 2004).

B) Article 12(1) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act provides that a mutual savings bank may not extend credit to an individual borrower in excess of the limits prescribed by Presidential Decree within the extent of 20/100 of its equity capital.

Although the Mutual Savings Banks Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes do not provide for the meaning of "individual borrower", the latter part of Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the same Act provides that "any credit extended on the principal's account regardless of its name shall be deemed to be the credit extended to the principal." Thus, a borrower under the Mutual Savings Banks Act shall be deemed not the nominal owner who is responsible externally, but the person who bears economic benefits and responsibilities arising from the credit extended between the parties.

In addition, considering the legislative intent of the provision on the restriction on lending to an individual borrower, if a mutual savings bank concentrates financial support to a certain enterprise, it is difficult for ordinary people and small-medium-sized enterprises, one of which is one of the purpose of the mutual savings bank system, and the increase in the risk of losses to the assets of a certain enterprise due to the increase in the size of funds difficult to recover due to the management status of the specific enterprise, making it difficult to perform the role of "protection of traders who are the other purpose of the mutual savings bank system and maintenance of credit order", even if the nominal owner of each loan is different, it is reasonable to understand each loan as a loan to a specific individual borrower, in special circumstances where it can be evaluated that a loan has been made based on the credit of a specific person or enterprise from the standpoint of the respective individual borrower.

C) Therefore, in order to deem that “a person to whom a loan actually belongs” belongs, and who is not a nominal owner is an individual borrower, a person who actually intends to use a loan under the name of another person is merely a person who intends to use the loan, and there should be an express and implied agreement between the two parties that the person who intends to use the loan actually uses the loan, as well as an express and implied agreement that the person is responsible for the interest and repayment of the loan. From the perspective of a mutual savings bank, it should be recognized that the person who actually intends to use the loan was able to use the credit

2) Specific determination

A) T-related loans (Gong 2.A.)

(1) According to the evidence, the fact that the AI Savings Bank has implemented a loan as shown in attached Form No. 6, and that the actual controlling and operating person of the Dispute Resolution CY, the Dispute Resolution DB, the Dispute Resolution DB, and the Dispute Resolution DD is T. (2) The prosecutor claims that each of the above loans is a specific company that T or T is substantially controlled and operated by T. The reason is that each of the above loans is a company that is substantially controlled and operated by T. and, in particular, CY and the Dispute Resolution DE are identical to the address on the register, FR, the FS, and the FT are merely lent to T, and part of the loans was used by T.

(3) However, solely on the foregoing circumstances, each of the above loans cannot be deemed as a specific company run by the individual borrower in whole or in part.

In our legal system where a legal entity of a juristic person and an individual is separated, the loans to each company cannot be determined as loans to a person who actually controls and operates the company immediately. This is because each company is de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto punished, and thus, it is difficult to see that the controlling and operating company was subject to loans that are not a company but are required by the controlling and operating company, and that the company was merely lent its name, unless there is any circumstance to see that the company and its controlling and operating company did not assume the economic responsibility for the loans, and that it is difficult to see that it was not a company's credit, but a mutual savings bank has determined the loans with the credit of the controlling and operating company.

Of the loans set forth in the attached Table No. 11 billion won, CY in each loan set forth in the attached Table No. 11 (6) is an industrial complex project, the Dispute Resolution DB, the Dispute Resolution DE, and the Dispute Resolution DD was actually running in several cities, and all loans to the above companies were carried out for the purpose of promoting the business carried out by each company. As seen earlier, the loans in the form of such hub loan are carried out as a security for the future cash flow of the business, and the future cash flow (the execution of this PF loan) of the business is not the credit of each company, but it is not the credit of the controlling company. Furthermore, according to the records, it has been predicted that T is using approximately KRW 1.81 billion out of the loans to the Dispute Resolution Co. Y, but the share of loans used by T is small, and it is reasonable to recognize each company's loan on each of the above companies' own account as being used for each of the above businesses.

- The loan of 300 million won to the FR shall not be deemed to be T inasmuch as the FR used the above 300 million won to repair its own building according to the FR’s statement (proof No. 8) submitted by the counsel.

It is true that the actual user of 1.8 billion won out of 2 billion won loans to FR is T, and it seems that the FR applied for the above loan at the request of T. However, the above loan is offered as security by FR in an amount equivalent to 1.9 billion won on its own, and there is an implied agreement between FR and T. However, from the point of view of the AI Savings Bank, it is reasonable to deem the above loan to be an individual borrower to be FR because it is believed the FR's credit and security rather than T and carried out the above loan.

- It is true that T has repaid each loan to FS. Accordingly, there is also a doubt that each of the above loans is not actually borrowed in the name of TOFS, but it cannot be concluded in the absence of an investigation as to who actually used each of the above loans. This is because there is a possibility that there may be other personal monetary transactions between FS and T. Accordingly, it is difficult for each of the above loans to view it as T.

However, as seen earlier, each loan to a AU-affiliated Bank is borrowed in the name of TU-affiliated Bank, and the defendant was aware of such fact, and the defendant decided to grant the loan as security for T’s credit. Accordingly, the individual borrower of each of the above loans is T.T. In addition, the defendant was aware that T is borrowing the name of FT. Accordingly, the individual borrower of the above loan is T.T. In addition, the loan to FT is also taking advantage of the name of FT. Accordingly, the individual borrower of the above loan is T.

(4) Ultimately, a loan that can be identified as a loan to T is limited to a total of KRW 5.6 billion loan to T on April 11, 2007, KRW 5.6 billion loan to FT on April 27, 2009, KRW 5.1 billion loan to AU-affiliated Bank, and KRW 1.1 billion loan to AU-affiliated Bank. Since the aggregate amount is equivalent to KRW 1.1 billion, which was presented by the public prosecutor around May 20, 2009, it did not amount to KRW 13 billion loan to individual borrowers around May 20, 2009.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

(B) AC-related loans (Gong 2.b)

(1) According to the evidence, the fact that an AI Savings Bank performed a loan as shown in attached Table 2(7), and the fact that the actual controller and operator of FN, FO, FU, FV, FV, FW, and FX is AC is recognized. (2) The prosecutor claims that each of the above loans is AC. The reason is that each of the companies listed in attached Table 2(7) is a company substantially controlled and operated by AC, and that each company is frequently engaged in monetary transactions.

(3) However, solely on the foregoing circumstances alone, individual borrowers of each of the above loans cannot be deemed to be AC.

‘‘(- As seen earlier, loans to each company cannot be immediately understood as loans to a person who actually controls and operates the company.

- The FN, FO, FU, FV, FW, and FX were actually working in different workplaces, and each of the loans to each of the above companies is executed for the purpose of implementing the above project. As seen earlier, each of the loans in the attached Table of Crimes (7) against each of the above companies constitutes a Brazil theory. Such sub-loans are carried out for the future cash flow of the project, and the future cash flow (the execution of this PF loan) of the project is carried out as a security for the future cash flow of the project, and it is not the control and operator's credit. Furthermore, according to the records, it is difficult to view that AC was carrying out a loan by lending the name of each of the above companies, and it is difficult to view that AC was actually carrying out the project. Accordingly, each of the above loans is carried out for the account of each of the above companies, and it is reasonable to view AC as a loan by each of the above companies.

(4) Ultimately, a loan can be identified as a loan to AC is limited to KRW 8 billion for AC on August 16, 2006, and KRW 2.2 billion for AC on February 25, 2008, and its total amount is equivalent to KRW 10.2 billion for AC, which was presented by the public prosecutor on February 25, 2008, and thus, it did not amount to KRW 13 billion for each borrower on or around February 25, 2008.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

C) AD-related loans (Gong2.C)

(1) According to evidence, the fact that the AI Savings Bank has implemented the loan as shown in attached Table 2(8), the fact that the actual control and operation of FP and F Q is AD is recognized.

(2) The prosecutor asserts that each of the above loans is AD. The reason is that both FP and F Q are companies that actually control and operate AD, and the address on the registry is the same, and FY is the wife of AD.

(3) However, solely on the foregoing circumstances alone, individual borrowers of each of the above loans cannot be deemed to be AC.

As seen earlier, loans to each company cannot be immediately understood as loans to a person who actually controls and operates the company.

- The FP has been established in 196 and is engaged in actual business activities, such as a landing place development project, a factory site development project, etc., and the wife FY of AD is a major shareholder and the representative director is in charge of AD. However, some of the financial transactions between FP and F Q have been discovered (the number of 574,575). There is no evidence to deem that the FP used each loan to FP. In this situation, it is difficult to see each individual borrower of the FP as AD solely on the ground that the actual control and operation of FP is AD.

- As to the loan of KRW 300 million to FY on July 1, 2008, the FY only took charge of AD and the FP stand joint and several sureties, the FP borrowed the name of FY. Even if there is room to regard it, it is difficult to deem AD borrowed the name of FY. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that individual borrowers of FY borrowed the name of FY.

- Loans to F Q were made by the AI Savings Bank for sale of the second floor in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, which was owned by the AI Savings Bank as non-business real estate, to lend the purchase price to F Q. F Q was established in 1995 and operated a ham processing plant in 1995, and GA, which is a major shareholder of AD, is in charge of the representative director. There is insufficient evidence to support that F Q is merely a Pucom, and it is merely a de facto lending to AD. Under such circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the said individual borrower is not F Q, but a AD.

(4) Ultimately, it is not possible to understand the loans to AD out of each of the loans set forth in the annexed Table (8) in the annexed Table of Crimes. The 17 billion won loans to F Q did not reach the amount equivalent to KRW 17.2 billion, which is the maximum amount of loans to individual borrowers, around October 28, 2009, as presented by the prosecutor.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. Violation of the provision on restriction on loans to the investors of Defendant C (Gong 4. Public)

A. Defendant’s assertion

Around August 17, 2007, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 1.90 million from the AI Savings Bank in the name of Q Q with the purpose of purchasing works of BL, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed as a loan to the Defendant only for KRW 950,00,000,000 corresponding to 1/2 of the above loans.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

B Q, around August 2007, at the request of FK, lent its name in the name of the instant loan upon the request of "FK to lend its loan from AI savings bank." On August 2008, Q made a statement to the effect that it was demanded FK to arrange the said loan by being aware that the loan was not arranged after being notified of the maturity of the said loan on or after the date of August 2008.

In this regard, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement to the effect that, first, the actual borrower of the instant loan stated as FK, but Q did not speak as the actual borrower, and that, thereafter, he and Q received a loan to purchase BL’s forest.

Meanwhile, before the maturity of the above loan, D stated to the effect that "the Chairperson had been the time to make a loan to the National Assembly member" from B Q before the maturity of the loan, and that C instructed C to make a loan under the name of GB to repay B Q by making a loan under the name of GB.

Of the five points of art works offered as security for the above loan, only one point was returned to B Q. The interest on the loan was paid in the name of B Q, but it was stated that B Q resolved interest on the part of the defendant.

In the recording recording of conversations between the Defendant and Q, it is written that the Defendant asked the Prosecutor to make a statement that the Defendant was the actual borrower of the above loan, such as the Defendant referred to “in-house, if the Defendant is the actual borrower of the forest, it shall go to the office of reduction,” etc.

(963)

2) Determination

If the Defendant received the instant loan from the Defendant for the purchase of BL’s work together with Q, there was no reason to not mention B Q from the beginning to the actual borrower of the instant loan. Moreover, B Q, while operating GC, was not a person who managed FK’s art work with the Defendant and was not in the position to purchase BL’s work and divide its profits.

Considering the above circumstances and the fact that the above loans were repaid with loans in the name of GB prior to maturity, GB is a company related to the defendant or FK and has no connection with B Q, and that 10,000 won out of the five points of art works offered as security for the above loans were returned to B Q, and that the defendant asked B Q to make a statement to the prosecution against the actual borrower of the above loans, the statement of B Q is more reliable than the defendant's assertion.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a person who borrowed BY to purchase BL’s forest was the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers by Defendant D

A. Summary of the facts charged

No mutual savings bank may extend credit in excess of 20/100 of the equity capital of the relevant mutual savings bank to any individual borrower.

(i) A loan to T;

Before March 22, 2010, the Defendant loaned a total of KRW 35 billion to T, etc. in the name of T, and extended a total of KRW 17 billion in the name of LABY and extended a total of KRW 51.7 billion in a total of KRW 5.7 billion on March 22, 2010, and extended a loan of KRW 17.186 billion in excess of KRW 34.33 billion in addition, from around that time to April 19, 2010, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 17.1.7 billion in the name of LABY and extended a total of KRW 5.7 billion to T in the name of LAB.

(ii) AC loans;

Before March 23, 2010, the Defendant extended a total of KRW 38.5 billion to AC in the name of the FN, etc., and extended a total of KRW 4.658 billion in the name of FU on March 23, 2010, and extended a total of KRW 35.78 billion in the name of FU, thereby lending a total of KRW 17.18 billion in the loan amount exceeding KRW 18.52 billion in the name of FU on March 23, 2010 as listed in the attached Table (7) No. 15 of the daily list of crimes.

B. Determination

1) T-related loans (Gong 7.a.)

A) Determination of Nos. 1 through 13 of the annexed crime sight table (6) is as seen in the determination of the violation of the limitation on the lending limit to an individual borrower against T.

B) A loan of KRW 17 billion, March 22, 2010, to the Dispute Resolution CoY Co., Ltd. (6) No. 14, 2010, which was executed by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., to use as land purchase costs in connection with an industrial complex project. As seen earlier, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. was actually conducting an industrial complex project, and there is no evidence to prove that the loan was not used in relation to the above project. Therefore, it is reasonable for the said borrower to regard the loan as a loan of KRW 30,00 as a loan of KRW 17,00.

C) A loan of KRW 4 billion on April 19, 2010, 2010, 15 GD on the attached list of crimes (6) Nos. 15, 2010, 15 GD was carried out for the purpose of auction withdrawal fund of KRW 2.5 billion and operating fund of KRW 1.5 billion on the attached list of crimes (6). In fact, the loan was used for the above purpose, and the defendant was also aware of it at the time of loan. GD did not have any special business, and real estate offered as security was difficult to lend KRW 1.8 billion in excess of the secured loan amount of KRW 1.8 billion. However, the defendant received T’s loan at the request of T and implemented the loan. Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to view that the above loan between AI Savings Bank and the above borrower would have implied responsibility for repayment of the loan.

D) Ultimately, it can be identified as a loan to T is equivalent to the total amount of KRW 11 billion and KRW 15 billion loans to GD on April 19, 2010, in determining the violation of the Restriction on the Limit on Loans to Individual Borrowers. Thus, the amount of KRW 17 billion, which is the maximum amount of loans to individual borrowers, offered by the public prosecutor around April 19, 2010, was below the amount of KRW 17 billion.

E) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2) AC-related loans (Gong(Gong7.2))

A) Determination of Nos. 1 through 14 of the annexed crime sight table (7) is as seen in the determination of the violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers AC.

B) As seen in the determination of the violation of the limitation on the lending limit to an individual borrower against AC, the FU is a company that actually has been carrying out a new apartment construction project in the GF district of GF district of GF. Loans equivalent to KRW 4.7 billion in the attached Table Nos. 15.77 billion in the attached Table Nos. 1570, are used for the FU’s driving capital, and there is no evidence to deem that the above loans were used by AC other than FU. It is reasonable to regard the above loans as FU. Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the individual borrower of the above loans as FU, and it is not deemed that AC is an individual borrower of the above loans solely on the ground that AC actually exercises control over and operates FU.

C) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

4. Intersections of Defendant B, C, and E [Gong8.B]

A. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant B

The Defendant was unaware of the instant loan. The Defendant was only aware of the fact that the AJ savings bank received a loan from the AJ savings bank.

2) Defendant C.

The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant loan constitutes a cross-loan. The Defendant was aware that the instant loan was made by an AI savings bank to an enterprise introduced by a major shareholder of the AG savings bank, and was unaware of the fact that it was a large shareholder of the AG savings bank.

3) Defendant E

The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant loan constitutes an cross-loan. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the AJ Savings Bank received a loan from the AG Savings Bank, and was unaware of the fact that the BS constitutes a major shareholder of the AG Savings Bank.

B. Determination

1) Defendant B

A) On January 10, 201, the Defendant denied all of the crimes in the first investigation agency, and led the instant crime to the effect that he received a report on the cross-loan from the GG of the AJ CK and the AG Savings Bank, and subsequently, led to the reversal of the facts in the court. The Defendant asserted that he/she made a false confession by an investigation agency, and that he/she denied the crime. The Defendant asserted that he/she made a false confession by his/her defense counsel, and stated that he/she made a false confession because he/she was subject to the prosecutor’s promise to prosecute the officers and employees of C and the AI Savings Bank.

B) However, the Defendant asserted that the aforementioned proposal was received by the prosecutor through a defense counsel, and the prosecutor did not reveal who is the prosecutor. Even though the Defendant proposed an important proposal for the refusal of detention and the promise of the relevant persons to prosecute, the Defendant did not specifically explain the process leading to such negotiations. Therefore, the background leading up to the reversal of the Defendant’s statement is not unreasonable in this respect.

C) Also, there are the following circumstances in which the statement to the effect that the Defendant recognized the instant crime committed by an investigative agency is more reliable.

(1) While the Defendant made a statement that recognized the instant crime, and received a report on cross-loan was made on January 10, 201, which was after the instant loan was approved. If the Defendant made a false confession at the prosecutor’s request and made a statement that received a report prior to the approval of the instant loan, it should have been made in line with the facts charged.

(2) At the time, the AJ may not raise funds equivalent to five billion won to be paid to the sub-contractors. Although the executives and employees of the AJ may request a number of financial institutions to provide loans, the AJJ may not provide funds to the financial institutions except for loans of KRW 4 billion in early 2010 to KRW 20 billion in early 2010, and KRW 3.4 billion in the business savings, due to the fact that the AJJ bank was taking a passive attitude in the construction company loans to the construction companies. Accordingly, the AJJ bank has no choice but to sell three factories in Changwon, Busan, and Cheongju, and to repay KRW 70 billion in repayment priority, KRW 25 billion in Korean bank loans, and KRW 25 billion in agricultural loans. At the time, the AJJ bank bank was raising interest in the officers and employees of the AJJ bank and the AJ bank was naturally interested in the funding in the NJ group.

(3) In such a situation, the AJ savings bank received a loan from the AJ savings bank, and the defendant, who was not the representative director of the AJ savings bank, was decided to stand joint and several sureties as the president of the NJ group, so there is a high possibility that the defendant would have received a report on the reasons for the loan through a working person. In addition, in light of the fact that the LAG savings bank made a strong demand for the defendant's guarantee at the AJ savings bank side of the LAG savings bank, the LAG savings bank did not approve the above loan before a confirmation that the defendant guaranteed the above loan is given, it is reasonable to view that the above loan was reported to the defendant before December 28, 2012.

D) In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant recognized the instant crime committed by an investigative agency is more reliable than the statement in this court to reverse it.

E) Considering the Defendant’s statement in the above investigation agency and the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant actively participated in the execution of the instant loan by guaranteeing the above loan of the AG Savings Bank even though it was aware that the instant loan was conducted on the condition of the execution of the loan to the AG Savings Bank in the AG Savings Bank. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold the Defendant liable as a principal offender for the cross-loan.

2) Defendant C. CH consistently reported to the investigative agency to the effect that “AG Savings Bank’s loans to security business entities are being reviewed.” Defendant C. CH statements to the effect that “AG Savings Bank’s loans are being reviewed.” The statements are very detailed and are highly reliable, such as there is no conflict with other circumstances revealed in the course of investigation.

Rather, as alleged by the defendant, it would be the case that the company is represented by the loan to the "in-house" company rather than the company operated by the office of the AG Savings Bank.

Furthermore, in dealing with the instant loan, CH was aware of the fact that the instant loan was related to the AJ loan of the AJ Savings Bank, and even if it was unaware of the fact that it was prohibited from cross-loan, it is difficult to view that the instant loan was carried out without reporting the risk of the instant loan to its large shareholders or management, in light of the following: (a) the interest rate, handling fees, and the date of approval and the same date of approval; (b) the loan to the AJ of the AJ Savings Bank of the AG Savings Bank of the LAG Savings Bank of Korea was approved on December 29, 2010; (c) the date of actual withdrawal was approved; and (d) the borrower changed from GH to BS.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was actively involved in the execution of the instant loan by demanding CH to obtain a loan from AG Savings Bank to the AG Savings Bank, even though it was aware that the instant loan, as the representative director of the AG Savings Bank, who is a major shareholder, etc. of the AG Savings Bank, is subject to the execution of a loan to the AG Savings Bank. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold the Defendant liable as a principal offender for the cross-loan.

3) Defendant ECH reported to the effect that “AG Savings Bank’s loan to a company operated by the error of the bank” in the form of the Defendant and C together with the Defendant, and received instructions from CG Savings Bank to find out whether it is possible to handle the loan from AG Savings Bank, and received answers from BG Savings Bank, that it is possible to grant a loan to the AJ savings bank, and reported that BR again responded to the above answer in the form of the Defendant and C together with the Defendant, and that the Defendant gave instructions to raise the goods to the review team, and consistently stated at the investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant gave instructions to raise the goods to the review team.

In this regard, the defendant filed a report with CH to the effect that CH will review the loans to the security company in the form together with C, and only ordered CH to raise the goods to the examination team, and there is no report that the AJ Savings Bank will handle the loans to the AJ Savings Bank.

However, C received a report from CH on the fact that it was reviewing the loan of AG Savings Bank's CH in the same place with the Defendant, and thereafter, CH recognized that AG Savings Bank was more likely to handle the loan to AJ) only once, and the Defendant ordered CH to raise the instant loan to CH in the examination team, based on CH's statement, CH considered that CH had an intent to handle the loan of AJ in the AG Savings Bank, i.e., the second report., the Defendant's above assertion is difficult to believe.

In addition, the defendant did not accurately understand the concept of cross-loan or its illegality.

Even if the loan of this case is determined, at least as seen earlier, it appears that at least the practitioners who decide to grant the loan of this case were aware that the loan of this case was likely to be indicated as cross-loan, and it is difficult to view that the loan of this case was carried out without reporting it to major shareholders

Furthermore, even though the defendant did not know how the nominal owner of the loan was changed from GH to BS, or how he/she owns the shares of the AG Savings Bank, the failure to investigate the relationship between BS and AG Savings Bank even though he/she knew that the loan in this case was a loan to a company operated by the large shareholder of the AG Savings Bank, would be unreasonable.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, as the representative director of the AI Savings Bank, was aware that the instant loan was subject to the execution of a loan to the AJ Bank in the AG Savings Bank, and the Defendant decided to grant the instant loan. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold the Defendant liable as a principal offender for the cross-loan.

5. Violation of the provision on restriction on the lending limit to an individual borrower by Defendant E (Gong9.)

A. Defendant’s assertion

The actual borrower of a loan to AH by the AI Savings Bank is AH. Even if the borrower is the Z, the defendant was unaware of the fact, so there is no intention to violate the limitation on the lending limit to the individual borrower.

B. Determination

In the case of the AI Savings Bank's loan of KRW 5 billion, KRW 2.16 billion, KRW 300 million, and KRW 7.46 billion, in the case of the AI Savings Bank's loan of KRW 7.46 billion, the sum of KRW 300,000,000,000,000 to May 17, 2010, and KRW 300,000,000,000 to the BP on November 22, 2010, all of the loans are borrowed from the AI Savings Bank's name, and the individual borrower shall be deemed to be the Z Savings Bank's loan.

In addition, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Z has applied for the loan in the name of AH, and the Defendant was aware of such fact.

Nevertheless, around December 20, 2010, the Defendant implemented a loan of KRW 3 billion to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and thereby, the total amount of the loan to the AI Savings Bank exceeds KRW 10 billion,000,000,000,000 to the individual borrowers of the AI Savings Bank at the time. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

Violation of the Act on External Audit of Periodical Corporation

1. The contents of each asset soundness classification attached to the facts charged for the re-classification of loans and the validity of the facts charged are as follows: (a) credits classified by the AI Savings Bank in relation to the establishment of allowance for bad debts, which are re-classified below fixed amounts in the case of loans in violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers; and (b) if the existing loans are arranged as repayment of interest on the existing loans by additionally implementing loans to pay interest on the existing loans, the arrears of the existing loans continue, and the asset soundness

To be reasonable for the classification of the above asset soundness, first of all, it should be recognized that the loan is in violation of the restriction on the loan limit to individual borrowers, and in the case of arranging to repay the interest of the existing loan through additional execution of the loan, there should be legitimate grounds in the accounting standards that the overdue loan continues.

However, as seen earlier, the following facts are revealed: (a) T, AC, and AD-related loans did not violate the limitation on loans to individual borrowers in the classification of unfair asset soundness; (b) each of them did not violate the limitation on loans to individual borrowers.

Furthermore, in the case of arranging that additional loans for the payment of interest on existing loans have been implemented to repay the interest on existing loans, the issue of asset soundness classification of existing loans is examined. The asset soundness classification of loans is divided into five evaluations: normal, dominant, fixed, collection questions, and estimated losses, and the basic criteria for judgment are the evaluation of the possibility of collecting the existing loans.In the asset soundness classification criteria for the regulations for the enforcement of the regulations for the supervision of mutual savings banks, classification of the key soundness is only one example of the criteria for assessing the possibility of collecting the loans. Therefore, even if the AI savings bank makes additional loans to the implementing company and makes the repayment of interest on existing loans, even if the implementing company fails to pay the interest on the existing loans by itself, the fact that the repayment of interest on additional loans does not affect the evaluation of the possibility of collecting the existing loans, so if the existing loans have been adjusted to repay the interest on the existing loans by implementing the additional payment of interest on the existing loans, it shall be deemed that the existing asset soundness continues to meet the asset soundness classification criteria, unless there are special circumstances.

As above, the defendants' arguments are specifically determined on the premise of the judgment on the asset soundness reclassification standards.

2. Specific determination

(a) Defendant A (the 37 and 38 financial statements);

1) Defendant’s assertion

T, AC, and AD-related loans are not in violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers.

In the event of additional loans for the payment of interest under the accounting standards, the arrears of existing loans continue, and there is no ground to classify the asset soundness. Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have prepared false financial statements, and there is no intention to prepare false financial statements to the defendant.

2) Determination

A) Part on the violation of the Restriction on the Limit of Loan to individual borrowers

As seen above, T, AC, and D related loans, which are described as a violation of the limitation on the lending limit to individual borrowers in each asset soundness unfair classification, are not in violation of the limitation on the lending limit to individual borrowers. Accordingly, the part of each of the facts charged that reclassification assets soundness on the grounds of a violation of the limitation on the lending limit to individual borrowers cannot be accepted.

Thus, the facts charged in this part of the charges must be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of an unfair classification of asset soundness through loans for the payment of interest following a single crime, the court

B) It is deemed that the Defendant was aware that the illegal classification of asset soundness through loans for the payment of interest and the establishment of the allowance for bad debts is basically based on the possibility of collecting the claims.

In addition, the defendant was aware that the implementing company has been unable to pay interest on the existing loan by itself, and the additional loan was made to pay interest, and the possibility of collecting the existing loan has been settled. In assessing the possibility of collecting the existing loan, it should have been reflected that the borrower has failed to pay interest even after the maturity of the loan.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had an intention to classify the asset soundness differently from the fact, on the ground that the Defendant did not formally overdue loan.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. Defendant D (Financial Statements No. 38, 39) asserts that, in the event of additional loans for the payment of interest, the delay in the existing loans continues, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had intention to prepare false financial statements. However, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted for the same reason as in the judgment against A, on the same ground as in the judgment against A, for the same reason as in the foregoing. However, the part of each of the facts charged regarding the reclassification of assets on the ground of the violation of the Restriction on the Limit on the Amount of Loans to Individual Borrower cannot be accepted for the reasons as seen earlier.

Thus, the facts charged in this part of the charges must be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under the absence of proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of unfair classification of asset soundness through loans for the payment of interest following a single crime, it shall not be sentenced

C. Defendant F (Article 38 and 39 Financial Statements)

1) Defendant’s assertion

Since the defendant did not participate in the credit process, he was unaware of the fact that an additional loan was made in the AI Savings Bank for interest payment, and accordingly, he was unaware of the fact that he prepared false financial statements by classifying asset soundness.

2) Determination

A) Of the facts charged, the part reclassification asset soundness on the grounds of violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers cannot be accepted for the reasons as seen earlier.

Thus, the facts charged in this part of the charges must be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under the absence of proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of unfair classification of asset soundness through loans for the payment of interest following a single crime, it shall not be sentenced

B) Of the facts charged, the Defendant’s assertion on the unfair classification of asset soundness through loans for the payment of interest cannot be accepted. The reasons are as follows.

(1) According to Section 7 of Part III of the Commercial Act, a director shall prepare financial statements, such as a balance sheet (financial status sheet), income statement, and other business reports, and submit them to the members of the audit committee at least six weeks prior to the date of the ordinary general meeting after obtaining approval from the board of directors, and the members of the audit committee shall prepare and submit an audit report within four weeks from the date of receipt of the above financial statements and business reports to the director. The audit report must state the purpose and reason if the balance sheet or income statement does not properly indicate the company’s financial status and business performance in violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation. In other words, the audit committee has a duty to audit the appropriateness of the financial statements and to report their opinions to each other. The Defendant has a career experience working at the Securities Supervisory Board and the Financial Supervisory Service, who has worked as the audit committee member of the AI Savings Bank from August 206, 2006,

(2) The Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the AI Savings Bank extended additional loans to pay interest.

① The Defendant approved the application for credit approval. The application for credit approval includes the purpose of the loan, and if it is to repay the interest of the existing loan, it includes the same purpose.

② The problem of overdue loan has a direct impact on the BISD ratio of savings bank, and in particular, in the case of large-amount PE loan, the AI savings bank has chosen a method of additional loan to pay interest on the existing loan by means of resolving overdue loan from around the second half of 2006. In particular, since the second half of 2008, which began to chilled, the repayment of the existing PE loan was imprisoned, and the interest of the A or executive officers, who were the head of the bank and executive officers, was in charge of managing the asset soundness, appeared to have increased. The defendant was present at the meeting of the first half of each month at the meeting of the head of the bank, executive officer, head of the company, and head of the team, and the team leader, and there was a high possibility that there was a considerable discussion about the implementation of additional loan to pay interest on the existing loan on the same spot.

③ On November 2009, the Financial Supervisory Service conducted a regular inspection of the AI Savings Bank, and pointed out the fact that the AI Savings Bank unfairly classified the asset soundness of the credit by executing additional loans to pay interest on existing loans. On December 2009, the details of the regular inspection were notified to the Defendant (No. 3467). However, even after the above points were pointed out, the Defendant did not inquire into whether there were cases of unfairly classifying the asset soundness of the existing loans by the same method as the existing loans other than the loans pointed out by the Financial Supervisory Service.

(3) If so, the Defendant would have been aware or at least could have been aware of the fact that the Defendant unfairly assessed the asset soundness of existing loans by implementing the above loans in the AI Savings Bank. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not investigate the asset soundness classification of the financial statements prepared by the representative director, and did not express its opinion.

(4) Since it is reasonable to view that the above act by the Defendant, who is obligated to audit the appropriateness of financial statements and to enter the opinion thereon in the audit report, was acceptable while recognizing the possibility that the financial statements were prepared in a false manner, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had an intention to prepare false financial statements. In addition, as long as the audit committee is in a position that the representative director may have a considerable influence on the outside disclosure of financial statements by examining the financial statements and preparing the audit report, it is reasonable to evaluate the Defendant’s act as having actively participated in the outside disclosure of financial statements, and therefore, the Defendant constitutes a co-principal in preparing false financial statements

? Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

1. Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant D

The Defendant did not have any awareness of disclosing false financial statements. In other words, it was pointed out that the Financial Supervisory Service unfairly classified the asset soundness of the 38th financial statements into the 38th financial statements and thus did not disclose the 38th financial statements by modifying the 38th financial statements. However, it was not known that the 39th half-year financial statements prepared pursuant to the above pointed out and the 39th half-year financial

B. Defendant F

The Defendant did not know that there was an error in falsely classifying asset soundness in the financial statements due to the failure to obtain audit results from the Financial Supervisory Service, and did not participate in the preparation of the registration statement attached to the financial statements as a member of the board of directors resolution on the issuance of subordinated bonds.

2. Determination

A. As seen in the part of determination on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, there were parts unfairly classified the asset soundness of existing loans through a loan for interest payment in the financial statements of the AI Savings Bank 38 and the 39th financial statements. In addition, even though the Defendant knew that the classification of asset soundness and the establishment of the allowance for bad debts related thereto basically have the standards for the possibility of collecting claims, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had intention to regard the possibility of recovering the above loans differently from the fact, on the ground that the Defendant did not have any formal overdue loan.

In addition, the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service does not confirm that there is any problem in the matters pointed out, or against the contrary, that there is no problem. Considering the personal and time constraints of the prosecutor of the Financial Supervisory Service, it seems that there is no problem in the portion not pointed out as a result of the inspection.

Therefore, as a result of the comprehensive inspection conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service, even if only some of the parts unfairly classified the asset soundness in the AI savings bank through the above methods were pointed out, it cannot be said that the defendant did not have any awareness of unfair classification. In the end, it is reasonable to view that the defendant knew that there were parts of the remaining parts by falsely classifying the asset soundness in the 38th financial statements attached to the registration statement and the 39 half-year financial statements

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

B. As seen in the judgment on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that additional loans for interest payment have been made in the AI Savings Bank. Moreover, the Defendant is deemed to have known or could have known the fact that the Defendant unfairly assessed the asset soundness of existing loans by implementing such loans in the AI Savings Bank. Furthermore, when issuing subordinated bonds, the disclosure of financial statements, etc. of the AI Savings Bank’s financial status as judgment data for investors falls under the procedure that naturally entails the issuance of subordinated bonds.

Therefore, it is reasonable to evaluate that the defendant actively participated in the act of publishing the financial statements after attending the AI Savings Bank's board of directors on the issuance of subordinated bonds and making a resolution thereon.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

Grounds for sentencing

1. Defendant A

○ Scope of punishment that can be selected by this court: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than 6 months but not more than 11 years and three months; the scope of punishment recommended by this court

Since punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years (the crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the recommended sentence of multiple crimes is subject to the minimum sentence of the recommended sentence for each crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set, which eventually leads to only the minimum sentence of the recommended sentence for each crime. Among each of the crimes of this case in which the sentencing guidelines are set, the most severe punishment or punishment is the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) for a total of 5 billion won loans to AE on January 19, 206, and 36 of the recommended sentence for the above crime is 4 to 7 years, the recommended sentence according to

In light of the fact that the defendant has faithfully worked for about seven years of imprisonment with labor with the own criteria and principles as the head of the AI savings bank, and that this situation pointed out the error in the course of performing his/her duties is discussed, and that he/she is in charge of his/her own responsibility as the manager. However, although the defendant was judged to have violated his/her duties concerning loan handling as the head of the AI savings bank, it is inevitable to impose a strict criminal liability equivalent to the defendant, taking into account the fact that the amount of loan that the defendant approved in violation of his/her duties concerning loan handling as the head of the AI savings bank has not been recovered in total amount of KRW 39.8 billion.

In determining the specific punishment with the main circumstances, the defendant, as the representative director of the savings bank, was in a situation in which he cannot be free from the influence of the majority shareholder, and in determining the business environment of the savings bank, there was a relatively large risk in deciding the business environment of the savings bank, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained a breach of trust loan in order to pursue personal interests, and the lower court's sentencing against the representative director of another savings bank was determined as ordered.

2. Defendant B

○ The scope of punishment that the court may choose: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (the crime for which the sentencing guidelines have been set and the crime for which it has been set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime and the crime that has not been set. As such, the recommended sentence that handles multiple crimes follows the lowest limit of the recommended sentence for the crime for which the sentencing guidelines have been set, which eventually leads to only the lowest limit of the recommended sentence for each crime. Of each of the crimes of this case for which the sentencing guidelines have been set, among the crimes of this case for which the sentencing guidelines have been set, the largest penalty or sentence is the largest penalty is the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) for loans of 3.3 billion won to A, and 37 of the recommended sentence for the above crimes is the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than five years according to the minimum sentence).

The decision-making (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) of the AI savings bank has an influence on the loan handling of the AI savings bank as a major shareholder of the AI savings bank, and as a result, the amount of the loan which was found guilty reaches KRW 7.7 billion in total, and the amount of KRW 4.586 billion in total is not recovered. Although the defendant was not found guilty, if all of the loans that the defendant seems to have participated in the loan are not recovered, the amount is KRW 2.3 billion in total, and KRW 1.323 billion in that amount is not recovered. On the other hand, considering the fact that the defendant is in a position to exercise influence over the operation of the AI savings bank, it is reasonable to have the defendant bear strict criminal liability corresponding to the size of damage inflicted on the AI savings bank, taking into account the fact that the defendant is also responsible for the operation of the AI savings bank.

In determining the specific punishment with the main circumstances, considering the fact that the defendant cannot be deemed to have participated in the loan in order to obtain direct profits, the defendant's participation in the loan is distinguished from the major shareholders of other savings banks that exclusively owned a savings bank and participated in the entire management of the savings bank, among the cross loan of 3 billion won, all borrowed money from the AI Savings Bank out of the cross loan of 3 billion won, the current situation where the loan is repaid and the criminal liability of the defendant against the defendant is determined later, it is possible to recover damage by his own effort.

3. Defendant C.

○ Scope of punishment that can be selected by this court: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than 6 months but not more than 11 years and three months; the scope of punishment recommended by this court

Since punishment of imprisonment for not less than 4 years [the sentencing criteria are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the other crimes, the recommended sentence of multiple crimes is subject to the minimum sentence of recommended sentences for the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, and eventually, the minimum sentence of recommended sentences for each crime is at issue. Since the recommended sentence of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) for which the sentencing criteria are set is 4 to 7 years,

The loan amount determined by the defendant involved in the lending of the AI savings bank in the position of the major shareholder or the representative director of the AI savings bank is 16.2 billion won in total, and the amount of the loan amount is not recovered in 12.5 billion won in total, and the amount of 12.5 billion won in total is not recovered.

There is little room for criticism in that the defendant exercises influence over the loan handling of the AI savings bank from a person who is not a financial expert, and thereby causes damage to the AI savings bank.

In determining the specific punishment with the main circumstances, the 11.3 billion won loan to AF is provided as security and it seems that considerable damage will be recovered later. In the case of the 11.3 billion won loan to AF or the 3. billion won cross loan to AG Savings Bank, it is difficult to view that the defendant involved in the loan in order to obtain personal benefits, and if the scope of the defendant's criminal liability against the defendant is determined, it is possible to recover damage by the defendant's own effort.

4. Defendant D, F

○ The range of punishment that this court may choose: Determination of sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than 6 months but not more than 11 years and not more than 3 months (two years and six months, and three years of suspended execution)

The Defendants prepared and publicly announced the financial statements that classify them into false asset soundness, and used them to sell subordinate claims equivalent to KRW 14.33 billion, and the purchased ordinary investors have not yet been compensated for damages. The Defendants’ responsibilities are basically no exception in that they suffered enormous damages to ordinary investors due to the Defendants’ acts.

In determining the specific punishment with the main circumstances, there was no explicit provision on the accounting process in the case of repayment of additional loan interest in accordance with the accounting standards at the time. In the case of Defendant D, there was a circumstance to consider that the defendants were erroneously classified into asset soundness by treating the defendants in accordance with the accounting method that was made before the representative director was appointed, and there was no criminal power against the defendants.

5. Defendant E

○ Scope of the sentence that this court may choose: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (the crime for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime for which it is not so specified are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime for which it is not so, the recommended sentence that handles multiple crimes is subject to the lower limit of the recommended sentence for the crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set, and ultimately, the lower limit of the recommended sentence for each crime is at issue. Since the recommended sentence for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation in Trust) for which the sentencing guidelines are set is set is 2 to 5 years, the recommended sentence

In this case, the decision of sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) was that the defendant approved the loan in violation of the duty of dealing with the loan as the head of the AI savings bank, and the total amount of 6 billion won is not collected, and 3.95 billion won is not recovered.

Although the defendant's act causes a minor damage to the AI savings bank, the defendant's responsibility cannot be deemed to be less than that of the defendant in terms of his personal profit, the above loan cannot be deemed to have been involved in the loan in order to obtain personal profit, since all of the above loan was made within 15 days after the defendant assumed office as the representative director, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's participation is excessive, and the defendant also has a view that the representative director of the savings bank cannot be free from the influence of the large shareholder, and the decision on the loan in the business environment of the savings bank is placed in a situation where a relatively large risk is inevitable, and there is no other criminal power except once a fine is imposed on the defendant.

The presiding judge, senior judge

Judges Seo-won;

Judges

1) The serial number of the facts charged in the instant case No. 2012Gohap60 shall be stated, and the serial number of the facts charged in the instant case No. 2012Gohap548 shall be stated in arms.

2) the project of establishing cultural infrastructure, such as the metac, broadcasting media facilities, and complex entertainment complex, in ancient city AS, AT Japan 94,756m;

Y) On December 31, 2007, reference AR Nos. 1 and 282,352 meters of the AR’s equity interest was owned by 12.3% of the AR established for the progress of the project.

3) At the time of the instant loan, the limit of loan to individual borrowers is 20 billion won, not 20% of its capital due to a decline in the BISD ratio of the AI Savings Bank.

The plaintiff was the plaintiff.

4) On December 20, 2010, around 2010, the balance of loans to BO owners was KRW 1.76 billion.

5) Article 12 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 9-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act.

6) Article 10-6 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

7) 48,49 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witness A dated September 27, 2012

8) indicate that the facts charged are “public”, and, next to that, the sequences of facts charged in the case No. 2012 high-priced 60, and in general, the prosecution of the case No. 2012 high-priced 548

record the order of practice.

9) The loan of this case was reviewed by the original PF team, and it was rejected from the PF team for reasons of doubt about possibility of recovery.

section 5249 is dealt with in the credit team(5249).

10) The instant loan was also pointed out as a credit review negligence even in the Financial Supervisory Service’s comprehensive inspection, September 30 and September 30, 200 and as a standard (No. 1929);

11) The written application for approval for each credit for a loan of KRW 500 million from July 17, 2008, July 17, 2008, and KRW 300 million from July 17, 2008 (the number of 167, 1746) shall be approved by the person with the discretionary power.

The Credit Review Board is written as "through the Credit Review Board".

12) 8 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses as of August 10, 2012

13) Two pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses

14) Defendant A stated in an investigative agency that he was given the direction that “A is given an additional endorsement, and that the loan was given in order to offer the loan (as this number is 12524).”

15) The Defendant prepared a document as if it were a formal PF loan in order to carry out the instant loan at an investigative agency.

I stated to the effect (No. 12525).

W) It appears that W had been registered as a bad credit holder around March 2009 as a business failure after W (D 668).

17) On the loan documents of this case, the building project for the building of the Jung-gu Daejeon Complex Building to be promoted by W, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government sales and sales contract for the property in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and Kim Sea

CN District Urban Development Project Agency Contract is accompanied by attached.

18) A directly sent BV to W offices and treated them as if they were on a very wide scale by receiving W’s writing (Article 30 of W’s Protocol of Examination of Witnesses)

(i) the Party;

19) W stated that the relationship with A was significantly good at the time (the 8th page of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses).

20) The 80 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witness, dated September 27, 2012, against A

21) Protocol of the Examination of Witness against A, 19th and B on September 27, 2012, as of August 10, 2012, 68th. Protocol of the Examination of Witness against BU

ARTICLE 36,37 pages

22) It seems to mean a loan of KRW 1.6 billion in September 28, 2005 to CB-related loans.

23) The settlement date of December 31, 2004 - 2.8 billion won - the settlement date of December 31, 2004 - the operating income equivalent to 34.1 billion won as of December 31, 2005, and the settlement date of accounts 34.1 billion won.

12.31. As a result of the settlement of accounts, -1.7 billion operating income was recorded in an amount of 7639);

24) In the application for the credit approval, the loan of this case will be used for the purpose of paying 8.8 billion won out of total of 21 billion won for purchase of X site.

Although it is stated that it was stated that it was before the public notice of the golf course development project at the time, it could not be equipped with evidence documents related thereto.

For this reason, the application for credit approval is prepared for the purpose of the purchase cost of the site formally (the number of 12509).

25) On September 27, 2012, 59, 62 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witness as of September 27, 2012, and 24 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witness as to BU, and 30 pages of the Protocol of Examination of Witness as to B.

26) The Defendant was jointly and severally and severally and severally guaranteed by the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., but the DA Co., Ltd., as of the end of 2006, shall invest assets of 34.3 billion won, liabilities of 42.2 billion won, capital-7.9 billion won

The Defendant was a company with no capacity to repay in a potential state. In addition, the Defendant secured the non-determined claim that was to be received in the future from SY Co., Ltd.

A. However, this is meaningful only when the KY Co., Ltd. has succeeded in the project in the future and has made a profit to repay the above bonds;

Even until the date of filing a prosecution, the security value shall not be recognized.

27) The Brazil loan generally takes place after completion of the relevant authorization and permission for project implementation, and thus, is often repaid with a PF loan;

In the end, whether the procedures for authorization and permission are in progress (including securing land-related rights in a timely manner) and whether the sex of the PF loan will be in the future.

The determination of whether or not to recover the theory is an element for the determination of whether or not to proceed with the authorization or permission procedure is in compliance with the requirements of law required.

The evaluation of the time, expenses, etc. is subject to the evaluation of the feasibility of the development project that will be conducted after authorization and permission.

the Commission.

28) Protocol 8,19 pages of the Examination of Witness of July 6, 2012 with respect to B.

29) The Defendant secured AZ. Shares 1,364 and 292 Shares 1,48,000,000 won, which are operated by CB in connection with the loan of this case.

However, because the shares of the KAI have been designated as management issues at the time, it could not be provided as security under the AI Savings Bank loan regulations.

No provision of due security was made.

30) The investigative agency stated that the Defendant also instructed the instant loan (No. 12603).

31) Of the three points of work of the BL in question in this case, “FI” was transacted at USD 435,000 in 204, and “FI” was 1120,000 in 208.

It was transacted in US$.

32) At the time, N would exercise options to the AJ shares at that time, and there was a disturbance, such as requesting to change the amount of 13 billion won (the Defendant).

J. C’s statement, number 1232)

33) Article 1 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

34) The head of the AJ may grant a loan to the AG Savings Bank in connection with the AG Savings Bank's AG Savings Bank's loan to the AG Savings Bank's AG Savings Bank.

Along with the knowledge that it would have been known that it would have been, and reported it to the executive director in charge of the merger and re-election of the AI CK. However, CK in the court, the defendant

Then, the lower court stated that it did not report (CK No. 11 of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses).

35) An AI Savings Bank’s loans to the NoteBS are against KRW 3 billion, and a loan to the AS Savings Bank’s AS Savings Bank is KRW 2.9 billion, but this is against the AS Savings Bank.

It seems that it is due to the lending limit to individual borrowers of savings banks (the number of 11176).

36) The basic territory of Type 4 (at least five billion won, less than 30 billion won) of the Breach of Trust Crime Group

37) The basic territory of Type 3 (at least KRW 500,000, but less than KRW 5 billion) of the Breach of Trust Crime Group

38) The basic territory of Type 4 (at least five billion won, less than 30 billion won) of the Breach of Trust Crime Group

39) The basic territory of Type 3 (at least KRW 500,000, but less than KRW 5 billion) of the Breach of Trust Crime Group

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.