Attorney T, AU in charge

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

88 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

① The Defendant received KRW 838 million from K was actively involved in the loan process so that J Co., Ltd. actually operated by K may obtain a loan of KRW 50 billion from L and was granted the loan in return for the actual payment of the loan, and there is no relation with the loan of R Bank.

② Even if the amount received by the Defendant also has the nature of the consideration for a loan granted by the J bank, the Defendant visited the R bank in a simple subparagraph after the Defendant’s aid became final and conclusive, and only notified the person in charge of the loan actually became final and conclusive. As such, the Defendant’s above act merely provides convenience for matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution, and thus, cannot be deemed as an act of arranging under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. Even if the Defendant provided convenience as above and received money and valuables in consideration of the above provision, it cannot be deemed as having received money and valuables as consideration for the act of arranging under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of two-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to not only transferring the purpose of solicitation to the other party as well as acting as a broker or an employee on behalf of the other party, but also the act of arranging the other party on behalf of the other party on behalf of the other party on behalf of the other party on the ground that the business of the financial institution under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes has a public nature and has a significant impact on the national economic policy and the national economy. The above crime is established without relation to the actual arrangement of acts related to the duties of the executives and employees of the financial institution (Article 5) or any other acts other than supporting such acts (Article 6). In order to ensure the purchase of money and valuables by participating in such duties and prohibiting the receipt of such money and valuables, the "mediation" in this context refers to not only the act of arranging for certain matters but also the act of arranging for the other party on behalf of the other party on behalf of the former or on behalf of the latter.

○ In the meantime, Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") does not affect the establishment of a crime if a person receives, demands, or promises money, goods, or other benefits in relation to the act of arranging the future, even though it is about the act of mediating the future, and if a person actually receives, demands, or promises to do so, the crime of receiving the above good offices is established, and whether the person actually acts as a broker or intermediary, it does not affect the establishment of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do3899, May 14, 199; etc.). If a person receives money or goods under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of an executive or employee of a financial institution, it shall be deemed as falling under

(2) In light of the above legal principles as to the assertion of lack of relevance between money and RB loans, and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, K, a real operator of the instant business, required to receive project funds equivalent to KRW 80 billion including money to be urgently paid due to intermediate payments and remainder, etc. out of the purchase price of the instant project site, which is the operator of the instant business, together with H, agreed with the Defendant at the request of the Defendant to arrange for the loan without specifying the financial institution. If the loan occurred, he agreed to give the Defendant one billion won in return for the loan. Since L and R Bank loans were requested to pay the money promised by the Defendant on September 18, 2006, which was executed after L and R Bank loans were all executed, from that time to November 10, 2006, the Defendant received the money as a whole, as well as the Defendant’s payment relationship with LB bank as a whole, and therefore, there is no reasonable ground to deem the Defendant’s claim.

① At the time of August 2006, K received 80 billion won from HF loans from HF mutual savings banks, etc. on the premise that X’s construction participation and payment guarantee was concluded with the MU agreement, but K was planning to pay intermediate payments and remainder of the purchase price of the instant land for the instant project. However, as the said plan was inappropriate due to negotiations with X, K was placed in a multilateral situation where the down payment amount already paid could be confiscated. As such, K had been placed in place in an urgent situation where the said plan would be forfeited, and it has tried to raise funds to pay in advance and balance.

From that point of view, K was recommended from H to make a wide and large amount of assistance to the construction company regardless of the financial rights, as the defendant's development has occurred, and K was only the defendant with H on August 2006. At that time, K explained that it is difficult for the defendant to carry out the business, such as that it was unable to pay part payments and remainder payments during the purchase price of the land, and it was difficult for K to find out the loan of the financial institution to "a body that is not specified in the financial institution and the construction corporation)" and requested for the fact-finding of the construction project. The defendant received it, and if the loan was made, the defendant demanded to change the amount of one billion won in return, and K received the demand of the defendant.

③ The Defendant requested L Business Development Director 0 to grant a loan in relation to the instant project executed by J through N and Q. However, L appears to have actually been determined to grant a loan of KRW 50 billion in relation to the instant project around August 2006, prior to the completion of the loan process (the Committee for Review of Business Investment and the Committee for Decision on Business Investment).

④ At the end of August 2006, the Defendant revealed that L was actually determined to lend 50 billion won in connection with the instant business, and that L was called to the President of the R Bank S, who is unclear, but whose circumstances are unknown, to the effect that L was to lend 50 billion won in connection with the instant business, and that L was to request S to grant additional loans, and that L was to lend 50 billion won in connection with the instant business, T and U, an employee in charge of S, who was introduced by S, Ma to grant 50 billion won in addition, it was called to “a change in financing 50 billion won in accordance with L from 'L’. In addition, U, which had confirmed that L had already been positively assessed on the business feasibility of the instant business, but suspended the progress of the PF loan procedure due to the lack of the construction payment guarantee, and after confirming whether L was determined to grant 50 billion won in connection with the instant business from L to 200 billion won in 90 billion won in total, 500 billion won in total 9.4.6.

④ On September 18, 2006, after both L and R Bank loans were implemented, the Defendant demanded payment of KRW 1 billion which was first promised to K on September 18, 2006. On September 18, 2006, K paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant, and on November 10, 2006, K paid KRW 838 billion in total to the Defendant. (3) The Defendant’s act of taking part in R Bank loans does not constitute “reconciliation” under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, etc. of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes”), according to the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant was aware that L was actually decided to grant KRW 50 billion in relation to the instant business, and the Defendant did not actually visit the president of the R Bank by phone to obtain additional loans and did not actually request the Plaintiff to submit the loan to K Bank’s head office to participate in the instant business and to recognize the fact that L was actually conducted by requesting 500 billion in the instant loan business.

However, as seen earlier, the "mediation" under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to the act of mediating or promoting the convenience of a loan between a certain person and the other party with respect to a specific matter. If a person transfers the intent of solicitation to the other party as it is, not only constitutes the act of making solicitation on behalf of the other party, but also receives money or goods on behalf of the other party under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution, the above crime is not specified, or even if there is no actual act of arranging such matters, the above crime is established. In full view of the above legal principles, K asked that the defendant will be able to obtain loans from the financial institution in relation to the business of this case because there are many kinds of financial rights, etc., and the defendant requested that the defendant be able to obtain loans from the financial institution in relation to the business of this case, and the defendant is not able to obtain a loan from the financial institution in accordance with the purpose of such request, and if the defendant actually obtained loan or received the loan for the loan was decided to be 00 billion won.

In light of the fact that the Defendant arranged a loan to a financial institution and received a large amount of money exceeding KRW 800 million in return, the crime of this case is heavy in nature in view of not only the general trust in the fairness of the performance of duties by executive officers and employees of the financial institution, but also the sound trade order in the financial market. In addition, the Defendant requested K to pay KRW 1 billion in return for loan brokerage, and requested K to pay the amount of money in return for loan brokerage. After the loan was executed, the Defendant demanded K to pay the amount of money in return for loan brokerage.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have actively participated in L's loan which is not a financial institution under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, while it seems that the defendant was not a financial institution under the above Act and was not involved in L's loan which is subject to punishment, and it does not seem to have committed any particular illegal act in the process of buying each of the above loans. In addition, the defendant returned approximately KRW 460 million to K after the commencement of the investigation of this case, and has no record of being subject to criminal punishment until now.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, and all other sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years is deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal of this case is reasonable, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows after the pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court concerning the instant case is identical to the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 7 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) (generally, choice of imprisonment)

1. Additional collection:

It shall be decided as per Disposition for the reason of Article 10 (3) and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic

Judges, Appointment and Civility

Judges Shin Sung-sung

In addition, it was not known that the loan of money was made. The loan was made in the last place by L with the contact to explain the business. The loan must be made.

See consistent statement to the effect that there was an institution. (Evidence No. 336 pages, 424 pages, 429 pages, 14 pages of the trial records)