All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) or the violation of occupational duty by the Defendants, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business commits an act in violation of one's duty, thereby acquiring property benefits or having a third party acquire them, and thereby causing damage to the principal, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established. Thus, in order to establish the crime of occupational breach of trust, the act of occupational breach of trust must cause property damage to the principal. Thus, in order to establish the crime of occupational breach of trust, the financial institution arranged a document as if it provided a new loan to the customer in order to appropriate the principal and interest of the existing loan of the customer, and it does not actually provide a new loan to the customer, but it does not cause any new damage to the financial institution. Thus, the crime of occupational breach of trust shall not be

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the loan is bound to be repaid with the principal and interest of the existing loan for any other reason, even if a new loan is agreed to repay with the principal and interest of the existing loan, it shall be deemed that the risk of damages has already occurred at the same time as the loan. Thus, the crime of occupational breach of trust

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2009Do10730, Jan. 28, 2010). In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the loans constitutes an insolvent loan that was made without securing the liability to recover claims, such as adequate collateral, and that the Defendant A, an executive or employee of the W Bank (hereinafter “W Bank”).