Of the convictions of the lower judgment, the part against Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of five years, Defendant D.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

(Mediation Fee) The Defendant, in order to prevent the suspension of business of the R and the Defendant and AF of the R and the AF, decided to jointly pay to the persons related to the audience, etc. in order to prevent the suspension of business of the R and the Defendant. This part of the cash and the AF was received and temporarily kept in custody in the process of forming the said L and the AG’s funds, and it did not acquire cash and the BG from the AG in return for the arrangement to the

The defendant only received two points from AG by his request for employment and by his indication of learning about handling press problems.

Even if AG, while delivering two points to the defendant, is expected to help the defendant in depth, this is merely merely a remote expectation, and there is no specific help or specific request, so the crime of receiving good offices is not established.

A Co., Ltd. shall be called “BH” in BH et al., and only in the case of a stock company, “BH” shall be marked as “the first time”, and a stock company shall be omitted.

The violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act is not a borrowed loan but a normal loan to which the actual BH is the borrower.

However, as the implementation plan authorization of BH has been delayed than the originally expected, the loan has been extended again to the defendant due to a temporary financial situation of BH, making it difficult for BH to finance.

In accordance with loan transaction procedures, the current status of the borrower, the appraisal of collateral, and the possibility of repayment of loan has been examined, and the credit deliberation committee has implemented substantial credit deliberation.

The Defendant merely instructed the “examination as to whether a loan is possible” and neglected the Dissenting Opinion of the employees in charge of the loan.