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

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. D. D. D.

5.(c)(E);

6. D. F.

Both parties

Jeju District Court Decision 201Hun-Ga44 decided May 1, 201

Attorney G (Defendant A)

Law Firm H (Defendant B and C)

Attorney 1

Attorney L (Defendant B, C, and D)

Law Firm GW (for Defendant E)

Attorney GX

Attorney GY (for defendant F)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap60, 2012Gohap548 Decided January 14, 2013

(Consolidated) Judgment

July 12, 2013

The conviction part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B shall be reversed. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. The prosecutor's appeal as to the non-guilty part of the defendants, such as the defendant A, C, D, E, and F, is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of occupational trust against Defendant A

(1) On May 25, 2007, DA, a joint and several surety, a loan of 1.5 billion won and a joint and several surety, as of May 25, 2007, constitutes a crime of breach of trust, since it did not take sufficient measures to recover the loan, such as security, even though it was not able to repay the loan due to capital erosion at the time of the loan, and it did not fully

(2) The crime of breach of trust is established since it is recognized that a loan was made without sufficiently reviewing the feasibility of the project and without taking necessary measures to recover the loan, due to the friendly relationship with the 21.4 billion won loan service related to the implementation project of T, as it is recognized that the loan was made without taking necessary measures to recover the loan.

(3) The crime of breach of trust is established since there was no proof that the borrower, who had been making an additional loan without being offered any security to the borrower in relation to the loan claim, had the possibility of business normalization at the time of the loan, and only the portion used for any purpose other than the collection of overdue interest out of the additional loan, was charged.

(4) On July 7, 2007, September 9, 2007, U.S. lending KRW 1.5 billion to U (U) was more than KRW 5.7 billion at the time of lending, and shares offered as security was designated as management issues and there was no value as security. It is established a crime of breach of trust to lend KRW 1.5 billion to AI savings banks even though there was no internal audit conducted in the course of lending by a certified public accountant as a limited liability company and there was no internal audit conducted in the course of lending.

(5) At the time of the loan of KRW 2 billion to the Bank of Korea, Co. 1, 2008, 2000, the financial standing of the Bank of Korea V was extremely bad, and the collateral was considerably deficient, and the joint guarantor did not investigate at all the credit and financial status of the joint guarantor, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is established.

B) Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act against Defendant A and D (the above provision against the restriction on the amount of individual borrowers)

Defendant A, in the process of prosecutorial investigation, led to confessions made several times in the process of investigation by the court below and the prosecutorial investigation, taking into account the statements, various materials, etc. of the persons in charge of the Financial Supervisory Service and the executives and employees of the AI Savings Bank, the persons in charge of the loans listed in the crime sight table (6) in the judgment of the court below, the persons in charge of the loans listed in the same crime sight table (7) are TAC, and the persons in charge of the loans listed in the same crime sight table (8) can recognize the facts that the persons in charge of the loans listed in the same crime sight table (8)

C) The part on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies against Defendant A, D, and F (the part on acquittal in the grounds)

Since T, AC, and AD-related provisions are recognized to be violated, it should also be found guilty of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies related thereto.

D) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant B

(1) On November 30, 2005, Defendant B, while introducing W, ordered Defendant B to conduct a loan review. After receiving a report from Defendant A to the effect that it is difficult to grant a loan, Defendant B is also liable to commit a joint principal offense against the instant breach of trust loan inasmuch as it is recognized that the loan was made after receiving endorsement from AA after referring to the endorsement from Defendant A.

(2) On December 28, 2006, Defendant A borrowed KRW 1.5 billion loan to Defendant B on December 28, 2006, without being provided with a proper security under Defendant B’s order on December 28, 2006, and extended the loan amount of KRW 1.5 billion to CB-related companies. Even if Defendant B did not have a clear order on December 28, 2006, Defendant B did not have a clear order on December 28, 2005, Defendant B was in need of the support of CB, the present president, to make the next president of the CTS Association. Accordingly, Defendant B also continued to provide a loan amount of KRW 3 billion to CB-U-U.S.-related companies operated by CB, and Defendant B is also liable for the crime of breach of trust against the instant joint principal loan.

(3) X㈜에 대한 2007. 3. 30.자 88억 원 대출 피고인 B이 직접 AI저축은행 행장실을 방문하여 피고인 A와 BU에게 이 사건 대출의 검토를 요구하였고, 피고인 A로부터 담보가 부족하여 대출이 곤란하다는 보고를 받았음에도 재차 W의 보증을 받고 대출을 해주라고 한 사실이 인정되므로 피고인 B은 이 사건 배임대출에 대하여 공동정범의 죄책을 진다.

(4) In the case of each company belonging to the 3.5 billion won trust agreement to the victimY Co., Ltd., each company has a separate legal personality, so whether the company is in breach of trust or not shall be determined based on each company. The crime of breach of trust shall be established upon Defendant B’s instruction, as it was impossible for the victim YB to lend KRW 3.5 billion to the FB trust agreement with no ability to repay loans

E) The part regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) on the loans of KRW 3 billion on December 20, 2010 related to the state against Defendant B and C

The instant loan was extended KRW 3 billion to Defendant B in order to resolve personal debt relations linked to the network FK. As such, Defendant B and C were aware of the fact that the financial resources of the ZB in the process of exercising the Z option with respect to the shares of KRW 2 million, the instant loan was very difficult, and thus, the instant loan was established in the State, even though it was aware of the fact that the financial resources of the ZB in the process of exercising the ZH option with respect to the shares of KRW 2,000,000.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

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

(1) On July 2008, Defendant B and YB’s president (AB) will select an engineering work company in the AR project as a sum of KRW 1.4 billion loans and have the AB repaid the loans with the cost of construction. In addition, Defendant A believed that the loan of the same type of GZ was normally repaid in the past, and Defendant A did not have an intention to commit a breach of trust. In addition, Defendant A did not have an intention to commit a breach of trust, since the AR project was planned and has been promoted for a long time, and the loan of this case was commenced for more than two months prior to the commencement of the AR project, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the AR project was not completed on July 2008.

(2) On December 28, 2006, 1.5 billion won loan business environment and business method of the mutual savings bank, 1.5 billion won loan financing type R&D, 2006, which is a specialized venture business company, and supplied to HA with the core algorithm of L CD manufacturing equipment, AB is a company with globally exclusive technology about automated control devices entering automated machines, i.e., a loan that increases the value of the AZ's stocks offered as security because the loan is paid for capital increase, and i.e., increase in the stock price of AZ until the global financial crisis has occurred, since the AZ's stock price has technological capacity and high growth has secured stock security and human guarantee corresponding to the amount of loan even if the stock has been secured, it cannot be held liable for the crime of breach of trust against the defendant.

(3) On January 18, 2008, Defendant C’s loans of KRW 11.3 billion to AF [the loans made under the direction of Defendant D with direct instructions from Defendant D, the director of the team, and Defendant A did not participate in the loan review at all, and Defendant A expressed objection to the loan, and Defendant C expressed his intention to object to the loan, and Defendant C directly brought the books of art and explained about BL to Defendant A. The amount of loans of KRW 10 billion should not be KRW 20 billion within six months, and Defendant D made and presented a report on the actual inspection. Defendant A, who did not have been engaged in art works, could not refuse to sign the loan documents, and thus, Defendant A did not have any intention to commit a breach of trust.

(4) On April 11, 2006, Defendant A’s loan of KRW 3.3 billion against A is a person who will engage in crowdfunding and it is difficult to withdraw the loan due to Defendant A’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of withdrawal stipulated in the loan agreement. However, Defendant A’s refusal to withdraw the loan because it is difficult to use Defendant A’s intent to withdraw the loan, and Defendant A’s refusal to withdraw the loan is not the same as Defendant A’s refusal to withdraw the loan because it is difficult to do so, prior to the completion of the contract.

(5) X㈜에 대한 2007. 3. 30.자 88억 원 대출 피고인 B이 직접 은행장실을 방문하여 'BB 부지에 건설예정인 퍼블릭 골프장 입찰 보증금으로 사용하고 바로 상환한다고 하니 대출해주라'고 하면서 피고인A와 BU 전무에게 지시하였고, 그에 따라 대출을 검토한 피고인 A가 담보가 부족해서 대출이 어렵다고 말하자 피고인 B이 담보부족분 30억 원에 대해 'HB에서 HC 주상복 합아파트 사업을 하고 있는 W를 보증인으로 세울테니 대출해주라'고 지시하여 단기간 입찰보증금으로 사용하고 바로 상환되는 자금이어서 사고가 날 염려는 없을 것으로 믿게 되었고 더구나 피고인 B이 담보부족분에 대해 확실한 대책까지 챙겨주어 더더욱 확실한 대출이라고 믿게 되어 대출기간을 6개월로 한 단기대출로 대출을 승인해준 것이므로 피고인 A에게는 배임의 고의가 없다.

(6) W, Nov. 30, 2005, L, a loan of KRW 3.5 billion on November 30, 2005, had been a major successful project for the sale of the building for the main complex of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul COCO, and was promoting an urban development project in the Kimhae-CN district, and the name was a major project in the CR, which operated HB business in the CR, and had several places of business in Daejeon, Incheon, etc., and collected a large amount of money from AO building 1 and the second implementation projects. Since AA was added to Defendant B as Defendant B’s endorser, Defendant A did not have any intent to commit a breach of trust.

(7) The Defendant A, a 5 billion won loan of T’s acquisition of the Savings Bank, was not considered to be insolvency, but did not think that it could not be insolvency, and the Defendant A did not have any intention in breach of trust, on the ground that there was no intention on the part of the Defendant A, on the ground that there was no difference in whether the loan was related to the acquisition of T’s AI savings bank.

(8) Defendant A’s 5 billion won loan to AE is the president of AE, a major shareholder of BD Savings Bank, and the actual borrower is the president of AE, a major shareholder of BD Savings Bank, and thus, Defendant A was given a guarantee at the end of AE and paid interest for about five years until December 30, 2010. Thus, Defendant A did not have the intention of breach of trust.

B. The guilty portion of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

(1) The lower court’s determination that the charge of breach of trust in relation to additional loans, which was conducted in relation to a place of business sold to Campco, should have denied additional loans in relation to the violation of the above law, and should have kept accounting by pretending that there was no loan.

(2) Even if such accounting should have been dealt with, the lower court’s determination that recognized Defendant A as an intentional crime is unreasonable on the ground that it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had dealt with such accounting intentionally.

(3) Furthermore, there was no provision stipulating "in the event an additional loan was made, the fact that the interest in arrears with the additional loan was repaid in accordance with any of the criteria and whether the overdue loan will continue to be a loan." As such, there was no provision explaining the fact that the additional loan should be settled and accounts should be kept in arrears, not only Defendant A but also the head of any savings bank, and no head of the savings bank were aware of the fact that the additional loan should have been settled in accordance with the number of months in arrears, and thus, it is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law. (4) The classification of asset soundness stated in the indictment of this case as an intentional crime is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law.

The employees of the department in charge of the relevant loan shall examine the loans that the full-time officer performed in the past only on the documents and submit them to the CL, and the CL shall collect and submit them to the prosecution. As such, the CL shall obtain the reclassification data, the instant facts charged should be determined not by the regulations of the Financial Supervisory Service, but by taking into account the fact that they have been reclassifiedd according to the prosecution policy according to the specific direction of the prosecutor.

(5) Since the time when the balance sheet is prepared by classifying the timing of additional loans and asset soundness, there is a considerable difference of time when the balance sheet is prepared, the additional loans should be found guilty, i.e., by intention, only in the case of allowing the additional loans to the workplace that should not be allowed to prepare false balance sheet. In addition, the preparation of the balance sheet is conducted by classifying the loan data in a strict amount, and it is impossible for the Defendant A, the president of the bank, to confirm that it is impossible to issue an order for correction of errors, so it should not be acknowledged.

(6) The decision on whether to grant a PF loan and any additional loan thereto is to be made with the exclusive right and recommend the feasibility of the BU.D. based on the judgment of the BU.D., Defendant A has respected and approved such recommendation, and there was no possibility for Defendant A to expect that this additional loan should be denied and kept in accounts.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. defendant B

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

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

(1) In the process of introducing AA to the extent that Defendant B was a person who would create a favorable public opinion in relation to AP takeover, and examining the loan, Defendant B did not know that the possibility of recovery was met, but did not know that it did not receive specific loan procedures, terms and conditions of loan or execution methods, and did not know whether A was secured or not. There was no fact that Defendant B did not know that the possibility of repayment was low or that Defendant B would withdraw the loan upon request of AA after the decision on the loan. In addition, there was no evidence suggesting that Defendant B had a low possibility of repayment, or that Defendant B was aware of it, and that it did not have a positive and substantial influence on the Defendant as a co-principal to seek cooperation in relation to AP takeover. The judgment of the court below was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements for the crime of breach of trust.

(2) From July 2008, Defendant B was unaware of the fact that it was difficult for Defendant B to obtain a loan from a commercial bank to the extent that it was impossible for AB to obtain a loan from the commercial bank. However, Defendant B’s contact with BU is limited to the fact that it was requested by BW, the representative director of the BB, and that it was transferred to the ordinary level. Defendant B’s loan was made in mind of the possibility of repayment, and Defendant B’s reference that the AB resolution was scheduled to participate in the AR project does not act as a result of the decision on the loan.

AR 1 Project is an executor, which is the representative director of BW, and filed a report on the commencement of the project on May 9, 2008, and has been officially announced on May 29, 2008, and AR 2 is a representative corporation, and a consortium was formed on May 23, 2008, and the AR 2 project has been secured through a contract between shareholders that was concluded on July 16, 2008 and AJ share of construction. However, around October 208, AB was bound by Defendant B due to a large cause to NN group and caused interference with the progress of the project, and the AR 2 project has an opportunity to participate as a subcontractor in the AR project that was applied for legal management only one year.

B) Defendant B, due to cross-loan, borrowed KRW 2.9 billion from AJ K in charge of funds in charge of the AJ savings bank (hereinafter referred to as “AG savings bank”), and signed joint and several guarantee documents by the president of the NG Group as it is necessary to obtain a loan of KRW 2.9 billion from the AG savings bank (hereinafter referred to as “AG savings bank”), and did not receive a separate report on the details and process of the loan. Therefore, Defendant B did not recognize the cross-loan.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (three years of imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant C

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) regarding KRW 11.3 billion loan to AF

(1) Defendant C thought that the instant loan can be a new technique and assist in the business of the AI savings bank, and since executives and employees of the AI savings bank confirmed the objective status and transaction price of the BL works to the extent possible, and provided the loan on the condition of acquiring it as collateral, Defendant C did not confirm the seller as a high-priced art work, and did not specifically confirm the seller, and even if the appraisal was not made, Defendant C did not have the intent of breach of trust, and did not exercise the influence on Defendant A and D by actively avoiding the intent of the loan, with the knowledge that the instant loan was an act of breach of trust which causes damage to the AI savings bank.

(2) If a bank acquires a security while lending a breach of trust, it shall calculate the value of the security from the amount of the loan and calculate the amount of the profit or loss on property. If it is impossible to deduct the amount from the amount of the loan due to the failure to calculate the value of the security on the art works of BL, it is difficult to accurately calculate the value of the profit on property in the breach of trust. Thus, the Criminal Act, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

B) The part of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to the extension of credit to major shareholders, etc., Defendant C agreed to purchase BL’s work with B Q for the purpose of dividing the future profits into one half of each other, and as security, Defendant C purchased BL’s work after obtaining a loan of KRW 1.9 billion from the AI Savings Bank in the name of B Q, it should be recognized as the borrower only as to 1/2

C) The part of the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act due to cross-loan was understood to the effect that the person who requested or introduced the loan from CH to operate the AG Savings Bank after hearing the statement that the person who requested or introduced the loan from CH was operating the AG Savings Bank. It was not understood that the person was the one who operated the AG Savings Bank. It was possible to inquire CH of the business status of the AG Savings Bank and whether the AJ Savings Bank could receive a loan from CH. Since CH only reported that the AJ Savings Bank was receiving a loan from the AG Savings Bank, CH did not report the specific progress of the instant loan or any matters concerning the borrower, and therefore, CH did not know that the instant loan falls under the BG Savings Bank, and there was no reason to deem that the Defendant C did not have any criminal intent, and there was no reason to deem that the Defendant C was actively aware of the intent to grant the loan.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant D

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

(1) In classifying the asset soundness of new loans to pay interest on existing loans, it cannot be deemed that a uniform consideration should be given to the delayed payment of existing loans. Considering the nature of the second financial right that requires risk loans, given that the existing loans are overdue but, if the existing loans are repaid due to new loans, the business is normalization and the existing loans are repaid, so long as there is no other element of breach of trust, it shall be evaluated as reasonable business conduct.

(2) Even if the asset soundness should be classified as in the judgment of the court below, in the case of the 38th financial statements, Defendant D prepared the financial statements according to the classification of asset soundness in the credit department while working as the management support division. In the case of the 39th financial statements, it was classified into loans and comprehensive inspections, which were pointed out to be unfair to classify the asset soundness, but it was prepared by reflecting all the credits that were normalized, so there was no perception that the false financial statements should be prepared.

B) There was no awareness that the false financial statements were to be prepared in a false manner. From November 30, 2009 to February 15, 2009, the 38th financial statements were pointed out in the comprehensive inspection jointly conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation as of June 30, 2009 that the allowances for bad debts under the classification of asset soundness were KRW 8.997 billion, but the results of the comprehensive inspection did not have been officially notified and reflected in the 39th half-year financial statements, so there was no awareness that the false financial statements were to be published.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant D (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution in June) is too unreasonable.

F. Defendant E.

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) On December 20, 2010, the violation of trust in relation to the International Bank of Korea's loan of KRW 3 billion on December 20, 2010, and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act's restriction on the amount of individual borrowers' loan.

The request for the acquisition of the shares of the AJ in question and the review of the securitization plan and the alternative plan are all conducted before the appointment of Defendant E, and Defendant E takes office before the transfer of the loan of this case (the business day of this case). The process of the application for the loan of this case, which was previously taken office, is based on the comprehensive opinion of the person in charge stated in the credit approval and the credit review document, and the resolution passed by the credit review committee with the knowledge of the fact that the bill was issued to the AJ in advance as the subcontract price of the government-funded corporation, and the possibility of the collection of the loan of this case was determined to be sufficient, and even if the bill of this case was lent by discount with the knowledge of the fact that it was issued to the AB in advance at the time of approval, it was not known of the comprehensive collateral acquisition plan at the time of approval.

B) The portion of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act concerning the cross-loan of KRW 3 billion around December 29, 2010 with respect to the No. 200,000,000,000.

Defendant E did not know at the time of approval that the AJ savings bank received a loan from the AG Savings Bank and that it was a major shareholder of the AG Savings Bank.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant E (two years of imprisonment with prison labor and six months of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

G. Defendant F

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Part on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

(1) The facts charged in the instant case do not specify how the window dressing accounting of the AI Savings Bank was carried out by any method, how the Defendant F participated in the instant crime at any stage, and what the contents of the asset soundness classification are erroneous.

(2) Defendant F was unaware of the fact that the interest payment loan was made in order to distort the asset soundness in the AI Savings Bank or to perform window dressing accounting, and was unaware of whether the evaluation of the asset soundness of each loan was intentionally distorted at the time of preparing the financial statements, and was not involved in preparing the financial statements falsely. In determining Defendant F’s guilty, indirect facts found by the lower court are too insufficient to presume that Defendant F was aware of the fact that it was a window dressing accounting in consideration of the background and procedure of the interest payment loan in the AI Savings Bank and the scope of the auditor’s duties.

(3) Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the part that Defendant F violated the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies by conducting a window dressing accounting that the amount of the bad debt allowance on the financial statements of the AI Savings Bank is underestimated constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

B) Defendant F did not participate in the preparation and submission of a registration statement for the purchase and sale of subordinated bonds, and did not participate in the window dressing accounting that entered false matters in the financial statements. The time of the publication of the financial statements as of June 30, 2009, which was published as financial data at the time of the issuance of the once, was not anticipated to issue once, and the allowance for bad debts under the asset soundness classification in the financial statements was insufficient. The fact that this part of the facts charged also corresponds to a case where there was no proof of crime.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant F (three years of imprisonment for two years and six years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and occupational breach of trust

A. Criteria for determining occupational breach of trust in relation to loans by mutual savings banks

1) The intention of the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in combination with the perception that the person handling another's business affairs causes property damage to the principal and that the intention of the person himself/herself or a third party's pecuniary gain is in violation of his/her duty. The subjective element of the crime of occupational breach of trust is the crime of occupational breach of trust (such as intention, motive, etc.) where the defendant denies the criminal intent by asserting that he/she committed an act at issue for his/her own interest, it is inevitable to prove by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of the object. What constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation with the intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the sound observation or analysis power based on normal experience. If the employees of a financial institution continued to grant loans only without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as obtaining sufficient security to secure the recovery of loan claims, it cannot be deemed that there was no perception that the act of occupational breach of trust will gain property and cause property damage to the financial institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do489).

2) In determining whether a manager had an intent to acquire intent to commit a breach of trust or an unlawful acquisition in connection with a business judgment, the strict interpretation criteria for recognizing the intent of a breach of trust shall be maintained only where it is recognized that the act is an intentional act under the awareness that the manager or a third party would obtain property gains and that it would inflict loss on the principal, taking into account various circumstances, such as the developments and motive leading up to the business judgment in question, the contents of the business subject to the determination, the economic situation of the company, and the probability of incurring loss and obtaining profits. In short, the mere fact that there was no such awareness, on the ground that the principal was negligent in taking responsibility or neglecting his/her duty of care (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4229, Jul. 22, 2004).

However, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business performed in the course of breach of trust, the act of breach of trust refers to any act that does not perform as a matter of course an act expected to be done, or is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course, under the provisions of the law, the content of the contract, or the principle of trust and good faith. Whether an act constitutes an act of breach of trust shall be determined depending on the nature of the business performed, the specific role and position of the person executing the business, and the specific circumstances at the time of the act, whether the act deviates from the ordinary scope of business in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, even if considering all the above circumstances as to the business judgment of the manager, it is necessary to determine whether the act of breach of trust has to go beyond the ordinary scope of business performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do464, Oct. 27, 201).

3) Meanwhile, the so-called mutual savings bank established under the Mutual Savings Banks Act is mainly using small and medium enterprises or ordinary people who are relatively difficult to obtain loans from the first financial right.

Therefore, only if a borrower who wants to obtain a loan fails to obtain a loan from the first financial right on the ground that the interest rate is lower than that of the first financial right, and that there is no, adequate and low credit rating, the second financial right interest rate is higher than that of the first financial right. Accordingly, the second financial right interest rate of the second financial right is higher than that of the first financial right. As such, since the assets and credit standing of the customers who receive a loan from the second financial right are relatively lower than that of the first financial right, it is considered that the second financial right is relatively higher than that of the first financial right.

Therefore, the above characteristics of the second financial right loan should be considered in order to make it possible for an executive officer or employee of a mutual savings bank to make a loan to a customer to constitute an occupational breach of trust.

In other words, it cannot be determined that an executive officer or employee of a mutual savings bank constitutes occupational breach of trust solely on the ground that he/she failed to secure credit or security at the time of lending to a customer or that he/she is a loan exceeding a secured amount. At least, it should be determined carefully in consideration of the characteristics of the second financial right loan, such as loan terms and conditions, contents, size, repayment plan, existence and content of security, debtor's property and financial status, growth potential, etc.

B. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below on April 11, 2006 (Defendant A and B) in light of the records, it is reasonable that the court below held that the instant loan constitutes a breach of trust loan and that Defendant B decided the instant loan in collusion with the Defendant A on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by Defendant A and B.

If an officer or employee of a mutual savings bank of Korea, at the time of the loan, has continuously expected the possibility of repayment without taking all measures such as investigating and evaluating the credit of the debtor, securing the security, and examining the feasibility of the loan from the PF loan, or has given the loan to the borrower in accordance with the major shareholder’s own evaluation or instructions, the intent of breach of trust shall be determined. The argument in this part of the grounds for appeal by the defendant A and B is without merit. AB loans of KRW 1.4 billion in total around July 2008 (Defendant A and B).

1) Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

In full view of the circumstances and the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant A.

① At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, Defendant A confirmed the credit rating prior to the loan, and it was difficult for Defendant A to use a bill discount loan on credit because it was a hostile company without any circumstances, but it was stated that, even though BUD reported this circumstance to Defendant B through BW, Defendant B would have been able to obtain a loan without any choice but did not have to obtain a loan if Defendant B did not follow the direction.

② At the court of the court below, the Corporation did not actually hold a construction commencement-type event around May 2008, but did not have been selected by the Corporation. On July 2008, there was no construction commencement plan. There was no other company registered as a subcontractor. It stated that the other company did not have any one.

③ On May 9, 2008, the AR Management Co., Ltd. reported the commencement of the construction to the Goyang-si Mayor on May 29, 2008, and officially announced on May 29, 2008. However, it concluded a contract from Gyeonggi-do to supply AR 1 business land in the amount of KRW 188 billion from Gyeonggi-do on May 5, 2006 and November 11, it seems that the ARR Co., Ltd. agreed to commence the AR 1 business site and the site for commercial facilities within 24 months after the conclusion of the contract, and therefore, the AR Co., Ltd reported the commencement of the construction and the BR 1 business site were

The defendant A's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

2) Determination on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the fact that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to grant KRW 500 million loans from July 2, 2008 and KRW 300 million loans from July 17, 2008 is recognized.

However, with respect to a loan of KRW 600 million on August 20, 2008, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B participated in the decision-making process by ordering the loan, etc., and Defendant A also stated that Defendant B was aware of the above loan's direction.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to make a decision on KRW 600 million loan on August 20, 2008. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B’s occupational breach of trust cannot be reversed. D. The loan of KRW 3.5 billion to W on November 30, 2005 (Defendant A and B) (Defendant A)

1) Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

Examining the circumstances and the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant A.

① The CP’s personal business chain’s financial status, which is the name of the instant loan and W, was very poor as follows: (a) assets amounting to 48.7 billion won in assets, liabilities amounting to 83.5 billion won in liabilities, equity capital -34.7 billion won in equity capital; (b) net loss amounting to 14.2 billion won in the current net loss; and (c) sales amount in 2004

② WT was unable to become the title holder of the instant loan due to the lack of business performance, and W did not meet the requirements for credit loans. However, Defendant A did not completely conduct an examination on the credit status of W and W.

③ The executive officers and employees in charge of the instant loan merely conducted a formal review and stated that the instant loan could not be conducted without Defendant A’s instructions.

④ Defendant A did not properly examine the loan at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, and according to the loan regulations, Defendant A stated that the loan was made without being offered any security as the borrower’s credit and property status are poor. However, Defendant B instructed Defendant B to provide the loan.

The defendant A's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

2) Determination on the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found it difficult to evaluate that Defendant B’s act of referring to the endorsement of AA is carried out without taking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover loan claims by actively expressing his opinion on the legitimacy of a specific loan or its recovery possibility after introducing W to Defendant A and receiving a report from Defendant A that it is difficult to grant a loan. For this reason, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is correct, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, so the prosecutor's allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit. (e) The loan of KRW 1.5 billion (Defendant A and B) on December 28, 2006 to the Bank of Bankruptcy V.

1) Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A) In the case of an insolvent loan, in light of the debtor’s financial status at the time of loan, overall financial transaction situation including loan from other financial institutions, business status, prospect and use of loan, required period, etc., if it is judged that there is a problem in the recovery of loan claims due to lack of ability to repay debts or lack of economic value of collateral provided, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established, deeming that property damage has occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4876, Jun. 19, 2008). In addition, the term “when property damage was inflicted” includes not only cases where a real loss was inflicted but also cases where the risk of actual damage has occurred, and as long as the damage was inflicted after the damage was recovered, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if it did not affect the execution of the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3716, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Examining the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower judgment and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there was no error as alleged by the Defendant A.

① The executive officers and employees in charge of the instant loan (CAA and BT) are unable to handle loans more than three times the borrower’s sales amount, and even if technical capabilities in AZ are excellent, it was difficult to provide loans of KRW 1.5 billion. However, it was stated that only the loan examination document was prepared and lent without detailed review as it was a loan ordered by Defendant A.

② During the prosecutorial investigation process, Defendant A was aware of the fact that the V’s financial status was insufficient at the time of loan. The borrower’s credit standing alone was not an enterprise to the extent that the loan of KRW 1.5 billion was made. The “Security Appraisal and Operational Guidelines for Loan Ratio, etc. by Goods” stipulated in Article 17 of the “Operational Guidelines for each Articles” means that the collateral value is limited to not more than 80% of the substitute price, and the substitute price is 70-80% of the ordinary market price, and even if the transaction agreement bank’s shares were not generated due to the deposit amount, the collateral value cannot be recognized more than KRW 90 million if the said guidelines are followed. It is a credit that would not be treated without the direction of the president.”

(3) Article 66(2) of the Loan Regulations of AI Savings Bank provides that “The stocks designated by the Korea Exchange as the subject-matter of management or the subject-matter of investment shall be prudent in acquiring collateral and may be acquired only if it is deemed that there is no difficulty in preserving the claim.”

④ As in the case of the Bank of Korea, a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, the embezzlement, etc. of the representative director of which has occurred, is generally unable to raise investment funds due to the external appearance of investors and customers, whose business activities have decreased considerably, and thus, the investment in this item is extremely limited. The Defendant A’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

2) Determination on the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal

Examining all the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the decision of the court below that there is no evidence to deem that Defendant B had exercised influence over the decision on the loan of this case is proper, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

F. X’s loan of KRW 8.8 billion on March 30, 2007 (Defendant A, B)

1) Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

In full view of the circumstances such as the reasoning of the lower judgment duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by Defendant A.

2) Determination on the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding, and found it difficult to evaluate the Defendant B’s act of referring to W’s additional guarantee as an act of having the loan executed without seeking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover the loan due to Defendant B’s active expression of opinion as to the propriety of a specific loan or its possibility to recover, etc., on the ground that Defendant B directly visited Defendant A and BU to examine the loan of this case and received a report that it is difficult to grant a loan due to lack of security from Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

In particular, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant A was unable to treat the loan of this case in the AI savings bank because it was not possible to recover the loan of this case from Defendant B in the process of receiving a report from Defendant B, and Defendant B presented the above fact that Defendant B “I would like to use W’s “I would be possible to use W’s guarantee if W would be possible to use W’s guarantee,” and it is difficult to conclude that the loan of this case was a loan of this case in the process of receiving a report from Defendant B, and that Defendant B would not be able to treat in the AI savings bank because of the low possibility of collecting the loan of this case.”

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

G. On May 25, 2007, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning in full view of the adopted evidence, and found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A took necessary measures for the collection of the loan, such as taking over a claim against the CY of the KY, a guarantor, and taking over a claim against the CY of the KY, and accordingly, Defendant A was not guilty.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

In addition, Article 92 of the Loan Regulations of the AI Savings Bank provides that "a claim that can be acquired as a security shall be a claim that can be realized in money, such as a claim for payment of goods, a construction contract bond, a claim for land compensation, and a claim for acquisition by transfer of claims under a contract for assignment of claims." Although the loan of this case does not provide as a security even in the case of an uncertain claim, such as SY's claim for earnings provided as a security for the loan of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the loan of this case violates the above loan regulations because it is difficult to view that the above provision

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

H. After compiling the evidence adopted, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found it not to constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust solely on the fact that the loan was in violation of the limitation provisions on the lending limit of individual borrowers under the Mutual Savings Banks Act. The loan of KRW 4.6 billion on December 28, 2007 to DB listed in the attached Table 1 (4) in the judgment of the court below, and No. 30 million on October 14, 2008 to the Dispute Settlement Bank DB listed in the attached Table 3, No. 11.1.1.00 billion won on January 29, 2009, the court below found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that it did not properly evaluate the feasibility of the business of KRW 1.4 billion on the loan of KRW 1.1 billion on the loan of KRW 1.0 billion and did not take necessary measures to manage and execute the loan of KRW 1.08 billion on the loan of KRW 200 billion on the above loan of KRW 3008.4 billion on the loan.

Examining the record and the above legal principles of breach of trust, the characteristics of the second financial right loan, and the characteristics of the PF loan, the court below’s above fact-finding and decision are justified, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

I. The decision of the court below is justified in light of the circumstances and the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (the defendant A) around May 2009 regarding the acceptance of T’s Savings Bank, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant A.

In other words, on April 20, 200, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. entered into a contract to acquire the AI savings bank in the amount of KRW 100 billion, and T borrowed and paid the down payment in the amount of KRW 5 billion from HD, which led to obtaining the instant loan from HD, and the intermediate payment paid on July 10, 2009 by HD was also appropriated by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd to sell the private house site of the AI savings bank in the position of a purchaser of the AI savings bank, and the interest interest of the instant loan was overdue, and the interest loan was increased in the amount of KRW 194 million on July 20, 2009. In light of this, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s ground for appeal in this part of the loan was without merit at the time of receiving the loan.

(j) Loans related to loans to be sold to camping coaches (Defendant A);

1) After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found that all of the instant loans were made by AI savings banks for the purpose of redemption of interest on the hub loan and partial additional financing for real estate development projects, and found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to support that it was within the scope of business judgment and that it was within the scope of business judgment to obtain the recovery of existing loans through the process of operating business by extending the deadline for existing loans and providing business funds in addition to business funds, on the ground that the instant loans were made by AI savings banks for the purpose of redemption of interest on the hub loan and partial additional financing for the purpose of using the existing funds for real estate development projects.

2) In light of the records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is justified, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

In particular, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the testimony of the witness HE, it was not revealed that there was no special problem in the business feasibility review or loan procedures at the time of the first loan related to the instant loan. It is not clear that there was a special problem in the officers and employees of the AI savings bank or large shareholders. Although the business was not run properly due to the long-term invasion of real estate economy, international financial crisis, extension of authorization and permission, etc., but the borrower continued to promote the business normalization. The loan staff who handled the instant loan stated that the loan was loaned for the business progress if it is judged that there is a possibility for rehabilitation after reviewing the business feasibility, and that there was no special

In addition, considering the above legal principles of breach of trust and the characteristics of the second financial right loan and the characteristics of the second financial right loan, it is difficult to conclude that the instant loan is a breach of trust or the Defendant A had an intention to commit a breach of trust even though Article 4 of the AI Savings Bank Loan Rules provides that "a loan to a person who has a deferred loan below the same amount is extended to collect or dispose of overdue loans, except where there is objective and reasonable grounds that inevitably deal with."

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

(k) On July 9, 2007, 1.5 billion won loan (Defendant A) to the U.S. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court found the facts as indicated in its reasoning and found it not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that U.S. (U.S.)’s decision to grant the loan of this case is within the scope of the business judgment, on the ground that U.S.’s decision to grant the loan of this case is within the scope of the business judgment in view of the size and growth rate of U’s sales, the actual repayment of loans to other financial institutions

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

(l) On October 1, 2008, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and found that Defendant A's decision to grant the instant loan not only the possibility of repayment of the instant loan but also the repayment of the existing loan to JejuV, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention of breach of trust. Accordingly, the court below acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

(m) The decision of the court below is proper in full view of the circumstances as shown in the court below's reasoning, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below for five billion won loan (Defendant A) in total as of January 19, 2006 related to AE, and there is no error as alleged by Defendant A.

(n) AF Loans of KRW 11.3 billion on January 18, 2008 (Defendant A and C);

1) If, with respect to a manager’s judgment on management, a person obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it, and thereby causes loss to himself/herself, the intention of breach of trust shall be determined, if the person did not perform any act that is naturally expected in the specific situation of the law, content of the contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, or does not perform any act that is expected to do so, in his/her role

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is proper to determine that Defendant A performed the instant loan without taking sufficient measures to review the possibility of collecting the instant loan and to recover the loan, and that Defendant C conspired with Defendant A to make a decision on the instant loan, and there is no error as alleged by Defendant A and C. The grounds for appeal on this part are without merit.

2) Where the crime of occupational breach of trust is established following an insolvent loan, the amount of the loan exceeding the value of the collateral or the amount of the loan actually impossible to be collected shall not be deemed as the amount of damage, and it shall be deemed that the total amount of the loan with the risk of causing damage is the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do28, Mar. 24, 2000). In the event the instant loan is an insolvent loan and the crime of occupational breach of trust is established, it is reasonable to view that the amount of the breach of trust is the total amount of the loan without deducting the amount of the collateral. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that made the conclusion is justifiable, and the Defendant C’

(o) A loan of KRW 3 billion on December 20, 2010 (Defendant B, C, and E);

1) Determination on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment, and found it difficult for Defendant B and C to borrow a loan to the KN, but it is difficult to view that the AI Savings Bank allowed the loan to be implemented with no possibility of repayment to the KN, and even if Defendant C received a report that the loan of this case was conducted thereafter, it cannot be said that it is difficult to handle the loan of this case in the AI low-scale bank due to lack of possibility of collection and it is difficult to conclude that Defendant B and C had the intention of breach of trust. Thus, Defendant B and C were acquitted of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that there was an intention of breach of trust.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

2) Determination on the grounds for appeal of E

In full view of the circumstances and the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below's decision that the defendant Eul decided the above loan on the ground that he was aware of the lack of possibility of recovery of the loan in this case, and therefore, it is justified to acknowledge the intention of breach of trust, and there was no error such as the defendant Eul's assertion.

① At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the CD made the following statements.

i) The AJ dispute resolution shares owned by the ZJ resolution company were set up as a collateral but a side security was not set up without a normal security, and the borrower is not set as the ZH, which is set up as the ZA, and the loan in the BO had already been 6.3 billion won, so it may be doubtful that the loan in excess of the limit of individual loan (8 billion won) has already been extended to 3 billion won, and the loan in excess of the limit of individual loan (8 billion won) has also been replaced by a side document.

ii) The actual borrower in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. was the Z in the name of the related company, such as the ZAH. However, the KAH was the president of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and the KAH became the borrower in the name of the KAH in the name of the KAH in the KAH. iii) The KF director, in dealing with this loan, said that there may arise any problem in excess of the limit of individual borrower. The CF director was also aware that the CF director reported to the EA head and requested the change of the handling department.

The CD, at the court of the court below, stated that "the CF chief reported to E-I.m. The process was discussed with CF chief until the first and the application for approval of the loan was filed, and that the CF chief reported the content to E-I.m. as a matter of course."

③ At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, CF stated that “The CD team leader may be suspected of the violation of the individual borrower at the time. According to the CD team leader’s memory, the CD team leader’s memory, the CD team leader reported to E head and gave instructions to the CD team leader. However, although it is not clear at present as to his memory, it could have been sufficiently reported to her head on the day of business set forth in ordinary jurisdiction.” This court stated that “The truth of the loan was unaware and reported to Defendant E at all times, so it is not a memory that reported on the loan of this case.”

④ At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, CG stated that “In the following day after notifying the CF chief of the CF office of the handling price by telephone, the E Doctrine requested KRW 3 billion for the E Doctrine discount bill, but the E Doctrine was aware that it would not be treated with weak claims,” and that the court below stated that it was not clear that the reported memory was made in the court below.

(p) 3.5 billion won in breach of trust in relation to a victim YYA (Defendant B);

1) If a director, etc. of a company has leased its funds to another person due to the loss of financial capacity of the other person in lending its funds or guarantee of the payment, and the company has extended its loans without reasonable recovery measures such as adequate collateral, such lending or guarantee of payment is an act of causing damages to the company, and the company has not been exempted from liability for breach of trust merely because it is an administrative decision. Such an act of lending funds or guarantee of payment is an act of causing damages to the company, and the director of the company is not an affiliated company of the company, and the intention of breach of trust can be acknowledged on the ground that it is not different from that of the company's financial assistance. On the other hand, it is possible to determine whether it can be recognized as a breach of trust on the ground of managerial decision by the company's own or third party's new financing financing plan, in light of all the circumstances such as the circumstance and motive leading up to the above management decision, the company's economic situation at issue, probability of loss and possibility of profit-making by the company, and it should be determined individually by the old land construction project execution plan (see, 2000 billion.).

3) Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, Defendant B decided to grant the instant loan in accordance with the determination that even if the FB-affiliated Bank did not provide financial support to the FB-affiliated Bank to a certain extent, it is in accord with the interest of the FB-affiliated Bank, and it is within the scope of management judgment, and it is difficult to view Defendant B as an intentional breach of trust, and the decision of the original decision that acquitted Defendant B is justifiable, and there is no error as claimed by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

3. Determination on the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

A. Violation of the limitation on loans to individual borrowers

1) Defendant A and D parts

A) Even if 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 loan limit for an individual borrower, as long as the loan limit exceeds the loan limit for an individual borrower based on a person to whom the loan actually belongs, such loan is in violation of the provisions on the restriction on the loan limit for an individual borrower under Article 12 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7018, Oct. 15, 2004).

In addition, as decided by the court below, in our legal system distinguishing a legal personality of a juristic person from a juristic person and an individual, barring such circumstances as the case where a company can be deemed to have used only the company's name because it was de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto damaged, or a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto control and operation of the company's name is not immediately understood as a loan to a person who actually controls and operates the company. In the process of the prosecutor's investigation, Defendant A recognized that, in the process of the prosecutor's investigation and the court below's examination, Defendant D was aware that the loan of this case was in excess of the limit on individual borrowers related to T, AC, and AD in the process of the prosecutor's investigation and the court below's decision, respectively, stated that

However, the purport of the above statements is that loans have been made by the request of T, AC, and AD only to related corporations or individuals, and therefore, this alone does not necessarily mean a loan in violation of the restriction on the lending limit of an individual borrower, but it should be viewed as a person to whom the loan actually belongs, i.e., the person to whom the loan actually belongs, and who is liable to use the loan and to repay the loan.

B) T-related loans

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the "AY", "AB", "AB", "AB", and "AB" among each borrower in attached Form No. 6 as stated in the judgment of the court below are all companies substantially controlled and operated by T. In particular, the "AY" and "AB" are the same as the address on the registry and the "FS" are the FR" and the "FS" are the relative or branch of T. It is confirmed that some of the loans have been reverted to the private account of T.S. as a result of the bank's account trend, and that the loans to "AU", "FT", and "GD" have been decided as collateral for T's credit.

(2) However, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, namely, the Bank of Korea, DB, the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Korea, and the Bank of Korea, had been actually operating the company's main apartment project, DB, the Bank of Korea, DB, and the Bank of Korea, and all of the loans to the above companies were conducted for the purpose of promoting the company's business conducted by the above companies, and there is no evidence to prove that the loans to each company were not used for the company's business operations. Such hub loan is made as security for the future cash flow of the business, and the future cash flow of the business (the execution of this PF loan) is not the company's credit, but is not the company's credit, and actually considered the contents, progress, and prospects of the business at the time of the above loan, and it is difficult for the Bank to conclude that the FF loan was actually conducted for the purpose of the company's own loan of 190 million won to the company's own loan of TR 1,000,000 won.

(3) Therefore, the loan of this case which can be viewed as a loan of this case is reasonable and the court below found Defendant A and D not guilty on this part on the ground that it did not reach the limit on loans to individual borrowers of the AI Savings Bank as of April 11, 2007, KRW 5.6 billion loan of this case, KRW 300 million loan of FT, KRW 5.1 billion loan of the sum of KRW 5.1 billion loan to the AU Savings Bank (the part related to Defendant A), and KRW 15 billion loan of each of the above loans and JejuGD as of April 19, 2010 (the part related to Defendant D), and the prosecutor's allegation in this part of the appeal is without merit.

B) AC-related loans;

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the FN, the FO, the FO, the FU, the Dispute Resolution, the FV, the FV, the FW, and the FX's actual control and operation are AC, and the monetary transaction has frequently occurred between the above companies, and the FN, the FU, and the FX's real estate as security at the time of the loan to the FO, the FU, and the FX as stated in the judgment below.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, the FFN is established in 196, the KFO, the KFO, the KFU, the LFV, the FFV, the FFW, the FFW, and the FX was actually operating in different business places, and all of the above companies were operating in different business places, and there is no evidence to prove that all of the loans to each company were used for the implementation fund of the above business, and all of the above companies were used for the implementation fund of the above company, and there is no evidence to prove that the loans to each company were not used for the business of the company. As seen above, the BF loan type is used as a security for the future cash flow of the business, and the future cash flow (the implementation of this PF loan) of the business is not the credit of the controlling and operating company, and in fact, it is not the credit of the above company, but the contents and prospects of the business are considered to have been considered to have been focused on at the time of the above loan.

(3) Therefore, the decision of the court below that acquitted Defendant A and D of this part on the ground that the loans of this case can be seen as loans to AC are equivalent to KRW 8 billion loans to AC on August 16, 2006, and KRW 10.2 billion loans to KRW 2.2 billion on February 25, 2008, as presented by the prosecutor, since they did not reach the limit of loans to individual borrowers of AI savings banks, is justifiable, and the prosecutor’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

C) AD-related loans

(1) 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(8)의 차주인 ㈜FP의 대표이사 겸 차주인 FY이 AD의 처이고 FP 명의의 대출에 대하여 AD이 보증한 사실, FQ㈜는 1995년에 설립된 햄 가공공장을 운영하는 회사로 AD의 아들인 GA이 주주 겸 대표이사를 맡고 있으나 실제로는 영업활동을 하고 있지 않았는데, ADO AI저축은행으로부터 은행 소유의 비업무용부동산인 서울 중구 FZ 상가 2층을 매수하면서 그 매수자금을 FQ의 명의를 빌려 대출받았고 AI저축은행측도 이러한 사정을 알고 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(2) However, based on the above evidence, AFP was established in 196 and actually engaged in business activities, such as a prior-use development project, factory site development project, etc. AFP was not established, and it is difficult to view that there was no evidence that the AFP-type loan was used by the person to whom the AFP-owned real estate was offered as security; the AFP-owned loan was KRW 1.7 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 1.7 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 9 billion on May 8, 2008; the KF-type loan of KRW 1.3 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 1.1 billion on January 5, 2010; the KF-type loan of KRW 1.7 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 1.05 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 9.1 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 200 billion to the KF-type loan of KRW 1.3 billion.5 billion.

(3) Therefore, the lower court’s decision that acquitted Defendant A of this portion on the ground that the instant loan can be seen as a loan to AD is a loan to F Q as of October 28, 2009, since it did not reach the limit on loans to individual borrowers of AI Savings Bank as presented by the prosecutor is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

2) Defendant E

In full view of the circumstances described in the reasoning of the court below, which are duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is proper to determine the original decision that the defendant Eul implemented the loan in excess of the loan limit amount to the KUH, while knowing that the KUH applied for the loan in the name of the KUH, in excess of the loan limit amount, and there is no error as argued by the defendant E. The grounds for appeal in this part are without merit.

(b) Violation of the prohibition on extension of credit by large shareholders, etc. (Defendant C);

In full view of the circumstances as shown in the reasoning of the lower judgment duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant C borrowed KRW 1.9 billion from the name of B Q to purchase the work of BL is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged by Defendant C.

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that Defendant C proposed to divide the future profits at the time when Defendant C requested the name lending to B Q through FK, but it appears to have expressed its intent to pay for the name lending. Since B Q did not appear to have shared the loan obligation of this case with Defendant C, Defendant C is recognized as the borrower for the entire loan of this case.

The argument in this part of the appeal by Defendant C is without merit. The violation of the prohibition of cross-loan (Defendant B, C, and E) is without merit.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to determine that Defendant B and C knew that the instant loan was subject to the execution of a loan to AG Savings Bank AG Savings Bank, and Defendant E was also aware of the above facts, and the decision of the court below that the instant loan was decided. Each of the items of evidence Nos. 41-1 through 18 submitted at the trial and no other evidence was submitted, and there was no error as otherwise alleged by Defendant B, C, and E. The grounds for appeal on this part are without merit.

4. Judgment on the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

When Defendant A, D, and F prepares and publicly announces financial statements for regular audit reports of the AI Savings Bank, the large amount of loans are overdue, and the net losses are increased during each fiscal period, and thus, the soundness of assets will deteriorate. In order to indicate the financial status of the AI Savings Bank outside, Defendant A, D, and F were willing to prepare, publicly announce, and disclose false financial statements by appropriating the bad debt allowances in a way that the allowances for bad debts are under-

Defendant A, around July 2008, classified the asset soundness of the 37th period at the headquarters of the AI Savings Bank in Gangnam-gu, Seoul for the preparation of financial statements (from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008), according to the classification of the credit balance to be classified as fixed, recovered, estimated losses, etc. into normal conditions, due diligence, etc., or classify the PF loans with high bad debt appropriation ratio into general loans with low bad debt appropriation ratio, as stated in the [Attachment] Financial Supervisory Service’s statement on June 30, 2008, as stated in the “unfair asset quality classification classification as of June 30, 2008”, as stated in the Financial Supervisory Service’s provision, the amount to be accumulated as bad debt allowances as of June 30, 2008, the amount to be accumulated as the bad debt allowances as of June 30, 2005, the amount to be accumulated as the bad debt allowances to be KRW 33.65 billion,000,0000.5 billion.

Defendant A, D, and F conspired on July 2009 to classify the asset soundness for the preparation of the financial statements at the head office of the AI Savings Bank at the 38th period (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) in collusion, Defendant A, D, and F did not accumulate the allowances for bad debts in the above-mentioned manner, as stated in [Attachment]’s “the details of the asset soundness classification as of June 30, 2009” as stated in the Financial Supervisory Service’s regulations, such as “the details of the asset soundness classification as of June 30, 2009, the allowances for bad debts in the amount to be accumulated as of June 30, 2009, the allowances for bad debts in the amount to be KRW 113.68 billion and the additional allowances for bad debts in the amount to be KRW 3.3 billion, and in fact, the allowances for bad debts in the amount to be accumulated as the additional allowances for bad debts.”

Defendant D and F conspired, around July 2010, in classifying the asset soundness for the preparation of the financial statements at the head office of the AI Savings Bank (from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010), Defendant D and F did not accumulate the bad debt allowances in the above-mentioned manner, as stated in the [Attachment 2010.6 and 30.30.00 billion won as of June 30, 2010 under the Financial Supervisory Service Regulations, even though the amount to be accumulated as the bad debt allowances as of June 30, 2010 is KRW 72.632 billion and the bad debt allowances should be accumulated as the bad debt allowances and did not accumulate KRW 32.534 billion as additional bad debt allowances, and in fact, an accounting corporation prepared an electronic financial statements system with the equity capital of KRW 24.93 billion, but as of June 30, 2019, and prepared a false financial statements system with the electronic financial statements system.

B. Details of regulations related to asset soundness classification for loan claims;

1) A mutual savings bank shall periodically classify the asset soundness of loan claims to accumulate and maintain an appropriate level of bad debts allowances. [Article 22-2(1)2 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010); Article 11-3(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22401, Sep. 20, 2010); Article 36(1)1 of the former Regulations on Supervision of Business of the Mutual Savings Banks (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010-36, Sept. 24, 2010); the classification of asset soundness is classified into five stages of "normal", "by the borrower's total amount of claims," "by the word," "by the word," "by the word," "resumed", "resumed loss" (Article 36(2) and (4) of the former Regulations on Supervision).

2) Of the asset soundness classification of loan claims, ① “normal” has a good financial transaction content, credit status, and management content, but ② a credit for a customer with a sufficient ability to repay debts for less than three months; ② a credit for a customer with a view to financial transaction content or credit condition; ③ a credit for a customer with a need to take measures to recover or manage debts due to poor management conditions; ③ a credit for a customer with a need to take measures to recover or manage debts; and (4) a credit for a customer with a need to take measures to recover debts due to bad management conditions; and (5) a credit for a customer with a view to a fixed transaction, which is expected to have a loss among the total amount of credit for a customer with a view to a certain transaction; and (5) a credit for a customer with which it is impossible to determine the amount of losses; and (3) a credit for a mutual savings bank’s assets soundness classification in accordance with attached Table 20(2) of the former Business Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23820, Dec. 22, 2012).

3) The allowance for bad debts according to the above asset soundness classification as above for bad debts is the amount equivalent to at least 0.5/100 of the loan claims: (i) the allowance for bad debts according to the asset soundness classification as above for bad debts; (ii) the allowance for bad debts is at least 2/100 of the loan claims; (iii) the allowance for bad debts is at least 20/100 of the loan claims; (iv) the allowance for bad debts is at least 75/100 of the loan claims; and (vi) the amount equivalent to at least 100 of the loan claims (Article 38(1)1 of the above Regulation on Supervision)

C. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

The prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit, since T, AC, and AD-related loans, which are stated as excess loans for individual borrowers, do not violate the limitation on the amount of loans to individual borrowers.

D. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

1) In light of the purport of the relevant provisions, such as promoting the sound management of mutual savings banks and preventing financial accidents, and the purport of the relevant provisions that regard the possibility of recovering loans as the criteria for asset soundness classification, in cases where additional loans are arranged to be implemented to repay interest on existing loans by performing additional loans for the payment of interest on loans, even if additional loans have been made with positive consideration of the prospect of the business performed by an implementing company, it does not change that the borrower is not able to pay interest on existing loans, nor does it affect the possibility of collecting the existing loans, and thus, it shall be deemed that the arrears of existing loans continue to exist and the asset soundness classification is consistent with the accounting standards.

2) This legal principle is logical derived from the interpretation of the relevant provisions, so it cannot be deemed that there is no provision for accounting management in the case where the additional loan for the payment of interest on the existing loan was made, and in such a case, there is no separate provision for punishing such a case. Therefore, the punishment for the act of accounting management as the dismissal of arrears cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of no punishment without the law. In addition, even in the case where the interest in arrears was repaid with the additional loan due to the management judgment, it cannot be deemed that the failure to pay the existing loan continues, and the act of accounts is a case where there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

3) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, each of the "unfair classification of asset soundness" attached to the facts charged in this case can be acknowledged that the CL management planning team head, who is a person in charge of asset soundness classification of the AI Savings Bank in the instant investigation process, obtained data by ascertaining the number of overdue days and the number of overdue days and the evaluation of collateral during the investigation process of the instant investigation process from the relevant credit department, and prepared and adjusted the asset soundness according to the regulations for supervision of the regulations for business supervision of mutual savings bank business, and that Defendant A, D, and F made a statement to the effect that the above "unfair classification of asset soundness" was approved during the investigation process.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the unfair classification of asset soundness was made unfairly according to the prosecutor's order.

4) In order to intentionally prepare a balance sheet in a false manner, as well as to allow additional loans at a workplace where it is not possible to prevent additional loans from being extended in accordance with a reasonable feasibility review, it shall be deemed that the overdue loan continues to exist and shall be kept in accounts. As seen earlier, the Defendant A cannot be punished if it accounts otherwise. 5) As such, Defendant A is responsible for preparing financial statements as a bank president, and Defendant A is in charge of paying interest on existing loans and accounts as a result of the settlement of overdue loan, and even if it fails to clearly understand the contents and details of each loan and balance sheet, it can be said that there was a comprehensive perception on the preparation of false financial statements.

6) Defendant A cannot be exempted from liability even if he/she accepted and processed the opinion of the relevant officer and staff as a person with the final approval authority for the decision on additional loans and the preparation of financial statements.

7) Therefore, Defendant A’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

E. Determination on the grounds for appeal by Defendant D

1) The argument that in the event that the interest of the existing loan was overdue but the interest of the existing loan was adjusted as repayment of the interest of the loan with an additional loan in consideration of the possibility of business normalization is not acceptable for the reasons as seen earlier in the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant D served as the management support director at the AI Savings Bank at the time of preparing the 38th financial statements. The management support division takes charge of settlement of accounts, preparation and publication of financial statements, accounting corporation's external audit-related affairs, etc., Defendant D prepared the 38th financial statements by reviewing and integrating the data prepared and posted by the credit-related department as the management support division as the management support division. Defendant D knew of the circumstances where additional loans for interest payment for the short term loans ("interest increase loans") were being made by improving profits and losses in order to maintain the BS equity ratio in the AI Savings Bank, as the management support division, and reported the monthly settlement of accounts to the executives at the management support council, and reported the financial statements to the management support division so that it could be discussed about the specific amount of interest increase loans at the management support council, and Defendant D did not have sufficiently known, or could not have sufficiently known, that it was unfair to eliminate the asset soundness ratio other than the above interests increase loan due to the improper asset soundness increase.

3) Therefore, Defendant D’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

F. Determination on Defendant F’s grounds of appeal

1) Judgment on specific issues of the facts charged

A) Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts constituting the crime charged shall be stated to specify the facts by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial and, at the same time, to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. Thus, even if an overall indication on the date, time, place, etc. of a crime is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, a prosecutor should specify the facts as far as possible, by evidence at the time of prosecution or amendment of indictment, and where it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, it cannot be said that there is an indictment stating specific facts under Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do418, Mar. 14, 2008). Meanwhile, in light of the following, it does not affect the specific purport of the aforementioned indictment to the extent that does not affect the specific elements of prosecution.

B) In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the specific progress in which the preparation of false financial statements was made, and Defendant F did not enter the date and method of Defendant F’s commission of criminal acts in the facts charged, the facts charged may be specified according to other matters stated in the facts charged. “The details of an unfair classification of asset soundness” attached to the facts charged include customer name, effective collateral price, loan balance, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case seriously interfere with the Defendant’s rational exercise of the right of defense for the asset soundness of individual claims. Therefore, the indictment cannot be deemed as unlawful because the facts charged in

2) Determination on whether to participate in preparation of false financial statements

In full view of the circumstances and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although Defendant F was not accurately aware of the specific amount of interest increase loans, there was at least a substitute perception of interest increase loans, and in such a situation, there was an intention to attract and publicly announce false financial statements by making up and understating the bad debts allowance in a false manner by falsely classifying the asset soundness. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that Defendant F constitutes a joint principal offender in preparing false financial statements is correct, and there was no error as alleged by Defendant F.

① At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, Defendant F was aware of the fact that he would improve the management through the increase of interest because he participated in the management meeting for the improvement of profit and loss. However, even though he did not know about the detailed contents, he was aware that he used the method of increasing interest in order to make the financial structure more and less than the allowances for bad debts as sound. There was a fact that he had attended the management improvement meeting to the team leader, and there was a discussion about how each team leader would have a certain credit processed with respect to the poor credit. At the above meeting, he stated that the above meeting was mainly discussed about the poor credit due to overdue interest, etc.

② Defendant D was aware of the fact that “Defendant F, who is a standing auditor, has participated in the meeting of management for the purpose of improving profit and loss” in the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s court, stated to the effect that “Defendant F, who is a standing auditor, has participated in the meeting of management for the purpose of improving profit and loss, has made improvement of management through the increase of interest. It is not a separate meeting name, but a meeting is held by management every day, and how to prepare for the settlement of accounts with the result of the settlement of accounts at that time is being discussed on a large scale, and the specific amount of interest increase, etc. is discussed at the

3) Therefore, Defendant F’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

5. Judgment on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

A. Defendant D

The court below's determination that Defendant D did not have any awareness that Defendant D had prepared the false financial statements of the 38th and 39th financial statements was proper, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant D did not have revised and publicly announced the 38th financial statements and did not have revised the financial statements attached to the registration statement, and that there was no indication from the Financial Supervisory Service in relation to the allowance for bad debts in preparing the registration statement. Thus, the court below's determination that Defendant D made a false statement as to material facts by publicly announcing the registration statement attached to the false financial statements at the time of issuance of subordinated bonds, and there was no error as otherwise alleged by Defendant D.

Defendant D’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. Defendant F

As seen earlier, Defendant F was aware of the fact that an additional loan was made in the AI Savings Bank for interest payments and that it was unfairly assessed against the asset soundness of existing loans by implementing such a loan, but the director attended and resolved on May 27, 2010 at the AI Savings Bank’s meeting on the issuance of subordinated bonds, which constitutes a co-processing fact that is recognized as a functional control in co-principal. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error as alleged by Defendant F. The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal by Defendant F is without merit.

6. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A, C, D, E, and F

The Defendants’ status and tenure of office, the unfair loans executed during the Defendant A’s tenure of office are deemed to have an important cause for the insolvency of the AI Savings Bank. However, it is difficult to see that Defendant A and E participated in the loan in order to gain personal benefits; Defendant C is not involved in the loan of KRW 11.3 billion to AF in order to obtain personal benefits; it is difficult to see that Defendant C participated in the loan of KRW 11.3 billion to AG Savings Bank; and the above KRW 1.3 billion loan of KRW 11.3 billion is offered as security; Defendant D and F’s false financial statements by making and publicly announcing and using such false financial statements to ordinary investors, but it does not seem that there was a conclusive intention for the classification of the illegality; Defendant D and F’s issuing subordinated bonds; Defendant C’s participation in the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and method of the crime, damage amount before and after the crime; and the circumstances of personality and conduct before and after the crime; and Defendant C’s allegation that the punishment of the Defendants is unreasonable or unreasonable.

7. Conclusion

A. The appeal filed by the prosecutor against Defendants A, C, D, E, and F, as well as the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal portion of Defendant B, is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, “8.8 billion won” of the 13th sentence of the lower judgment is a clerical error of “5 billion won” and “Article 20(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies” of the 16th sentence is a clerical error of “Article 20(2)8 of the former Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (amended by Act No. 9408 of Feb. 3, 2009)” and the judgment of the lower court is corrected to correct that it is a clerical error of Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The remaining parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B except for the aforementioned reversed parts among the guilty parts of the judgment below against Defendant B should be sentenced to a single sentence on the grounds of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below on the conviction part of the court below under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Criminal facts

The facts of the crime acknowledged by this court against Defendant B are as follows: (a) around July 2008, the sum of KRW 1.4 billion loans of KRW 1.4 billion to AB from July 2, 2008 of the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment below; (b) around July 2, 2008, the aggregate loans of KRW 80 million to the AB Bank; (c) around July 2, 2008, the eight side loans of KRW 500 million from July 17, 2008, KRW 300 million from August 20, 2008, and KRW 60 billion from August 20, 208, and thereby, (d) KRW 1.40 billion from the victim’s property interest to the AB Bank from around July 28, 2008, and (e) the Defendants conspired to obtain property interest of KRW 1.8 billion from the victim’s bank from around 300,000,78.7 billion.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A total amount of KRW 800 million loan to ○ A on April 1, 2006, KRW 3.3 billion loan to 3.3 billion, and KRW 800 million loan to AB on July 2008: Each of 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))

○ Articles 39(2)3 and 37(2) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and 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 (Embezzlements)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent criminal offenders with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) due to loans of 3.3 billion won from April 11, 2006 to AA with the largest penalty and penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Article 53 and subparagraph 3 of Article 55 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

Defendant B, as a major shareholder of the AI savings bank, has exercised influence over the loan handling of the AI savings bank, and the amount of damage incurred therefrom is considerably high, but it cannot be deemed that Defendant B participated in the loan in order to gain direct profits; Defendant B was fully repaid the loan to A; Defendant B repaid money borrowed from the AI savings bank out of the cross-loan amounting to KRW 3 billion; Defendant B is currently repaid; Defendant B’s character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, degree of crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc.; and Defendant B’s punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions.

1. Summary of the charge of the violation of the Act on the AB AB-related Act (Misappropriation of trust) in relation to the loan to Defendant B

AB) Since the extreme aggravation of the financial status of AB around July 2008, the loan was impossible even if it was given at a discount of the bill issued by AB. Nevertheless, on July 2008, Defendant B instructed Defendant B to “AB” (hereinafter “AB”) the partner company for the business promoted by the NN group, and Defendant A, according to Defendant B’s instructions, did not entirely review the financial status and loan possibility of the AB-issuance, and did not receive any security, and gave a discount of the bill issued by AB-issuance without being offered any security. Accordingly, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A, obtained 60 million won property benefits in violation of his/her business duties, thereby incurring property damage equivalent to the amount of the victim bank savings.

2. As seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B instructed Defendant A to lend a loan of KRW 80 million to Defendant A on August 2008. Thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as Defendant B is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the AB ABA’s Act related to the loan of KRW 800 million around July 2008, which is a single comprehensive crime, this part of the facts charged shall not be acquitted separately from this part.

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Woo-ok

Judge Lee Jae-soo