상호저축은행법위반등
The judgment below
The part of conviction against Defendant B and Defendant I shall be reversed.
Defendant
B is the judgment of the court below.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) other Defendants except Defendant K, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles; and (b) 3-1 of the judgment below
A. (4) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of navigation (the violation of the Mutual Savings Bank Act due to loans made in the name of the BA on January 20, 2015) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Defendant A, C, and D) (the Defendant did not instruct the Defendant C and D to lend a loan in the name of the BA.
The court below did not dispute the part of KRW 2.7 billion used for repayment of AW loan out of KRW 3.2 billion in the name of BA, and did not dispute the remaining part of KRW 500 million, but did not dispute the whole of KRW 3.2 billion in the appellate court.
2) No. 3 of the holding of the court below
A. (5) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of navigation (the violation of the Mutual Savings Bank Act due to loans made in the name of BB on May 4, 2012) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Defendant A, C, and D) (the Defendant A) ordered G to receive a loan of KRW 3 billion in the name of BB on May 4, 2015.
Defendant
A KRW 2.6 billion deposited in the account under the name of G was borrowed from the DP introduced by G, and the source of the above loan was not known as the loan under the name of BB.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above loan was made due to the necessity of G, and it cannot be deemed that it belongs to Defendant A, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a credit grant to major shareholders, etc.
3) No. 3 of the decision of the court below
A. (6) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the crime of aviation (the violation of each mutual savings bank law due to credit acceptance and acceptance in the name of each BG as of September 3, 2012 and October 26, 2012) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine (Defendant B), Defendant B, as stated in the lower judgment.
(a)(8) and (8);
B. (4) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine that the punishment for subsection (4) ought to be imposed separately, but withdrawn the above assertion in the summary of his oral argument on August 23, 2018.
Even if ex officio, Article 32 (6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies does not apply to concurrent crimes against the violation of the laws and regulations stipulated in paragraph (1) and other crimes, despite Article 38 of the Criminal Act.