특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the argument in the grounds of appeal is that the defendant has instigated or has not participated in the act of occupational breach of trust of Q, and that although there was no conspiracy, the court below found the defendant guilty by making the remaining erroneous fact-finding which made the false statement of Q, and that it is unlawful.
However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that Q participated in the whole process of Q’s breach of trust by directly or indirectly participating in loan-related procedures, such as the determination of loan amount, the selection and evaluation of collateral, etc., and providing Q with economic benefits, in the process of enabling Q to implement each of the loans of this case by using the appraisal report of V appraised calculated excessively by the appraisal of each of the loans of this case, and avoiding the loan limit regulations of the same person.
The fact-finding by the court below is not recognized to have exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.
2. As to the fraud, the argument in the grounds of appeal is the purport that the court below found the defendant guilty, inasmuch as the defendant did not have any intent to deceiving the victimN or to take over the construction cost, and the victim cannot be acknowledged as the amount of damage without objective data.
However, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's adoption of the evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and the decision of conviction is also justified.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.