특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(수재등)등
1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.
2. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for nine years and fine for 240,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A was not aware that the instant loan constitutes one and the same person’s loan, and there was no fact that Defendant A knew of the method of title trust or land subdivision to J, P andW, who is a real borrower, and that there was no fact that Defendant A knew of the method of loan through land subdivision.
In a case where farmland in a residential area is loaned as a collateral, it is possible to evaluate a collateral by transaction comparison method, so even if Defendant A made a loan by evaluating a collateral in accordance with transaction comparison method, it cannot be deemed as an act of breach of trust.
B) Defendant A’s franchise vehicle that Defendant A received from J unilaterally sent out against Defendant A’s will, and Defendant A promptly paid the vehicle price to the J, and thus, the above vehicle cannot be deemed to have been given or received in connection with the above duties. The Seoul Guro-gu Seoul and F Land are merely nominal trust with Defendant A’s wife upon the request of the J, and not to be given or accepted by Defendant A in relation to his duties. Defendant A was not involved in the agreement to pay KRW 300 million upon borrowing KRW 200 million from Defendant B, and there is no responsibility for such agreement, nor is there any fact that the J received money from J or W. C) Nevertheless, the lower court reversed the previous statement, thereby finding Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged against Defendant A on the grounds of the testimony of the J without credibility. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) As to the receipt of KRW 20 million around January 28, 2016, the prosecutor initially brought a public prosecution against Defendant A, who received KRW 20 million in cash, and received it. The lower court determined that Defendant A received KRW 20 million in total, and received it without any amendment process, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on changes in indictment.
Defendant
A’s defense counsel shall be a defendant through the Supplementary Statement of Grounds for Appeal dated April 12, 2019.