beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015노1008

신용협동조합법위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In relation to paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, Defendant B did not recognize that the instant primary loan was a loan to the same person under Article 42 of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 12382, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same), since L and M’s loan (hereinafter “the instant primary loan”) was conducted by Defendant B.

B) With respect to Article 2-A(a) of the judgment of the court below, R, T, and N (hereinafter “N”)

2) A loan to the instant second loan (hereinafter “instant second loan”).

(C) No. 2-B of the decision of the court below cannot be viewed as a loan to the same person as provided in this Act, and even if it constitutes a loan to the same person on domestic affairs, there was no awareness of it.

In relation to the paragraph, U and W loans (hereinafter “third loans”) cannot be deemed loans to the same person as provided in the above Act, and even if they constitute loans to the same person for domestic affairs, there was no awareness of such loans.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order 240 hours) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. Defendant B (1) of this case’s primary loan of this case cannot be deemed as a loan to the same person as provided in the above Act, and even if the instant primary loan of this case constitutes a loan to the same person for domestic affairs, there was no awareness thereof.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 6 million won) is too unreasonable and unfair. (c) The prosecutor (each of the lower court’s sentences against the Defendants in Yang Undue Practices) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as above, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation in detail on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, following the summary of evidence.

The court below stated.