특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing)’s occupational breach of trust due to the reduction of interest, Defendant A was unable to properly know the provision regarding the reduction of interest on overdue interest by M (hereinafter “victims Association”) and could prevent insolvency of loans by inducing repayment of principal and interest by reducing interest on overdue interest.
I think that interest reduction has been carried out, and there has been no intention of breach of trust.
In addition, No. 14 was corrected by correcting that the fluctuation rate rate was erroneously applied, and the No. 53 through 63 was merely approved by the person in charge of the crime (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles). 2) As to the crime of occupational breach of trust due to loans to BB, Defendant A opposed to the loan, but did not necessarily approve at the request of Defendant C, and the appraisal that was finally made is appropriate.
Since a loan was executed with trust and there was no intention in breach of trust (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles).3) Even if Defendant A's act was found guilty, the sentencing of the lower court (three years of suspended execution in two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. As to Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing 1), with respect to occupational breach of trust due to the reduction of interest, Defendant B was not well aware of the credit provision that was made to obtain prior resolution of the board of directors regarding the reduction of interest in arrears, and was an act according to the business judgment that would be able to substantially resolve the loan with the reduction of interest in arrears. As to Defendant B’s occupational breach of trust due to loans to K (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) without the intention of breach of trust (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), Defendant B determined that the preservation measure of claims is possible due to the sufficient value of collateral, and the number of actual copies of BG, who is the person in charge, was not found in the process of obtaining approval, and there was no intention of breach of trust (misunderstanding and mistake).