Where an officer or employee of a mutual savings and finance company commits a breach of trust jointly with an officer or employee;

Where a person who is not an officer or employee of a mutual savings and finance company jointly commits a breach of trust with an officer or employee, the joint principal offender of the violation of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act shall be the principal offender of the mutual savings and finance company, but the principal offender shall be punished by minor criminal

Articles 30 and 33 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Do396 delivered on October 5, 1961, Supreme Court Decision 71Do795 delivered on June 8, 1971

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for ten years, by imprisonment for seven years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for Defendant 3, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by imprisonment for five years, respectively.

Of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment, 180 days shall be included in the above sentence; 170 days shall be included in the sentence; 25 days for the defendant 2; 125 days for the defendant 3; and 125 days for the defendant 5 shall be included in the sentence.

However, with respect to Defendant 3, the execution of a sentence of consolation shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1 was working as the representative director of the Credit Depository of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 1”) from October 12, 1978 to July 30, 1983, and Defendant 2 was a de facto one shareholder of the above Nonindicted Co. 1 and the Credit Depository of Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 2”) who used the above two safe’s name as a de facto one shareholder, not an executive officer of the above two safe, or the chairperson, and actually took charge of the whole business affairs of the above two safe; Defendant 3 was working as the representative director of the above Nonindicted Co. 1 from June 8, 1976 to October 12, 1978; Defendant 4 was working as the representative director of the above Nonindicted Co. 1; Defendant 1 was working as the chief director of the above Nonindicted Co. 1’s business and the representative director from May 9, 197 to May 7, 1982.

1. As of January 29, 1979, the defendant 1 issued the 742,181,157 won of the total face value per share as shown in the annexed Table 1-22, 742,181,157 of the total face value per share as shown in the annexed Table 1 among the issuance of the Seocho Bank's Seocho-dong Branch as of May 18, 1983, the Busan Northern Branch as of May 18, 1983, and the same defendant's name as the representative director of each non-indicted company 1, the defendant 1 issued the current account in the name of the defendant as of May 18, 1983, and traded the current account, but due to the shortage of the deposit, the holder did not pay the above check which was presented

2. Defendant 1 and 2: (a) borrowed money in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 with Nonindicted Company 3, the managing director of Nonindicted Company 1; (b) agreed to use the money without paying the said money to the above safe; (c) from April 1, 1980 to August 1, 1983, Defendant 1 and 2 received from Nonindicted Company 4 and 1,605 to KRW 10,919,486,000 from Nonindicted Company 1’s loans and installment name from Nonindicted Company 1’s business office to August 1, 1983; and (d) violated the duties of the president to pay the above money to the above safe without paying it to the above safe; and (c) entered the said money in the confidential account book without paying it to the above depository; (d) used the money as business funds of Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 6, and Nonindicted Company 7, etc.; and (d) used the real estate in the name of the Defendants; and (d) acquired the profits equivalent to the above amount of money amount

3. Defendant 3: (a) from July 1978 to September 2, 1978 at the time when the said Defendant was to serve as the representative of Nonindicted Company 1; (b) from July 1978 to September 1, 200,000 won borrowed from Nonindicted Company 8, etc. in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 to the ledger borrowed from Nonindicted Company 1 in the name of the trader Nonindicted Company 8, etc.; (c) did not pay the said money to the above safe; and (d) did not pay the said money to the above safe; and (d) used the said money to purchase real estate under the name of the said Defendant and relatives; and

4. Defendant 4, in collaboration with Nonindicted 9, pointed out the fact that at around 14:00 on August 31, 1982, Defendant 4, at the office representative director of Nonindicted 1 Company, Defendant 1, the representative director of the above safe, he uses the borrowed money from his customers outside his book, and at the same time, demanded KRW 100,000 in return for viewing a copy of the 1980s deed receipt and receipt book, which is a non-indicted book, and cash receipt book, which is a copy of the above fact, and impliedly viewing the above fact, Defendant 4, in collusion with Nonindicted 9, demanded KRW 100,000 in return for deceiving the above fact. If the refusal to comply with this, he intimidation from the investigative agency on the face of the above misconduct, he shall receive KRW 1,00,000 in the face value of the cashier’s checks issued at the Busan Bank of Korea, Busan, Busan, and shall collect it from it.

5. Defendant 2 and 5 conspired with each other to borrow money from the customers of other companies of the non-indicted 2 from June 29, 1981 to August 4, 1983 and receive money of KRW 2,786,563,00 from the non-indicted 10 and 1,023 for the purpose of borrowing money from the non-indicted 2's office from the non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 102,527,00,000 from the non-indicted 2's business funds, and the above money is in violation of the duty to enter the borrowed money of the non-indicted 2 in the ledger of the non-indicted 2's borrowing of money and the duty to pay the above money to the above bank, and then entered the above money in the confidential account book without paying the above money to the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 1's business funds, and acquired the above money as KRW 151,910,000,00 for the non-indicted 20,300.

6. As stated in the above paragraph (2) above, Defendant 1: (a) the said money that the Defendant and Defendant 2 were to enter the cancellation application for the non-indicted loan and useful money was originally useful personally used; (b) thus, the said money or the said money, which the Defendant is obligated to compensate individually, was already consumed, making it impossible to make the principal and interest payment thereof; (c) in collusion with Non-indicted 3 to deduct the internal fund of the above non-indicted 1 from the above non-indicted 1’s office from February 6, 1982 to August 1, 1983, in collusion with the above non-indicted 1’s office to pay the non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 11 and the non-indicted 81 as stated in the attached Table 2, and then, (d) the money or the above money, which the Defendant had to pay for the principal and interest payment, had already been made by means of a disguised loan, a comprehensive loan loan, and was made up for damages at will before and after the above 1060.

Facts No. 1 in the Judgment

1. Statements consistent with Defendant 1 in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statement corresponding to the protocol of examination of suspect against the defendant 1 of the public prosecutor and the statement of the best Article;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment in the statement of Nonindicted 12, 13, and 14 prepared by the judicial police assistant;

1. Each description corresponding thereto from among a written accusation in preparation of the head of the Seocho-dong branch of the Busan Bank and the head of the Busan Northern branch of the Korea-Japan Bank;

1. One copy of the number of units per Busan District Prosecutors' Office (No. 3021, No. 40, the evidence of No. 3021, 83) that has been seized in the Republic of Korea-Japan Bank, Busan District Prosecutors' Office, may be admitted;

The facts of the judgment Nos. 2 and 6 shall:

1. Statements consistent with Defendant 1 in the second and fourth protocol of trial and statements consistent with them and statements consistent with them by Defendant 2 in the second protocol of trial;

1. Among the fourth trial records, the statement corresponding to Nonindicted 15’s witness’s statement and statement corresponding to Nonindicted 13, 16, and 17’s statement corresponding thereto are written.

1. Among the fifth trial records, the statement corresponding to the non-indicted 18's witness's statements

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the court room for Nonindicted 13 and 19 of the witness

1. Each protocol of examination of the prosecutor's suspect against the defendant 1, 2, and 4 and each protocol of statement against the defendant 1, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 correspond thereto;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 13, 16, and 25 in preparation of a judicial police assistant, which corresponds to this;

1. Each description corresponding thereto in the respective copies of the credit receipt date table and the credit report receipt book of Nonindicted Company 1’s credit safe;

1. Part of the copy of the special inspection report of Nonindicted Company 1’s Credit Depository’s Special Prosecutor

1. Each of the entries of Non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 15’s non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 1’s confirmation

1. Each description corresponding thereto among copies of the president of a disguised loan;

1. Recognizing that 30 copies of the receipt and receipt ledger of the deed of 1980, each of the 1980s, as well as 33 categories (Articles 21, 24 through 26, 41, 42, 44 through 69 of the evidence of 3021 of the pressure of the District Prosecutors' Office of Busan District Prosecutors' Office of 83 years, and the evidence of 4249 of the pressure of 83 years and 4249 of the same Prosecutors' Office, are existing;

The facts of the judgment No. 3:

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by Defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of the prosecutor's suspect against the defendant 1 and 3 and each protocol of statement against the non-indicted 26 and 27 correspond to this.

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant 1 and the statement statement of the non-indicted 28 in the preparation of the judicial police assistant, each corresponding statement to this;

1. The descriptions of Non-Indicted 29’s written statement are corresponding thereto.

1. Two copies of each confiscated letter (No. 22 of the evidence 3021 of the pressure of 83 years by the District Prosecutors' Office) may be admitted, and

Facts No. 4

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by Defendants 1 and 4 in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1 and 4 of the prosecutor can be admitted by each corresponding statement; and

Facts No. 5 in the Judgment

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by Defendants 2 and 5 in the third protocol of trial;

1. In accordance with the part of the witness Nonindicted 30 and 31 in the fourth protocol of the trial, the corresponding part of the defendant 1 in the fifth protocol of the trial, and the corresponding statement of Nonindicted 32 in each corresponding statement

1. Each protocol of examination of the prosecutor's suspect against the defendant 2 and 5 and each statement of the non-indicted 31 correspond to this.

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 31, 32, and 33 in preparation of a judicial police assistant, which corresponds to this;

1. A copy of the special inspection report of Nonindicted Company 2’s Credit Depository and its corresponding contents

1. The facts of the judgment are sufficient to prove all of the above facts, since it can be recognized by each existing 13 category 13 of the seized Vice-Speakers 18, 13 (No. 27, 3021, 83, 3021, 27, 3021, and 83, 3647, No. 1, 3647 of the same prosecutor's office).

Since the so-called defendant 1's holding that the above punishment shall be divided into imprisonment with prison labor under Articles 3 (1) and 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act; the so-called defendant 5's holding that the above punishment shall be held, Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 39 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act; Article 33 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years; Article 39 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years; Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years; Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years; and Article 350 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Shin Nung-su (Presiding Judge) Man-su