특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.
2. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and Defendant B.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was deceiving
subsection (b) of this section.
Unless Defendant A’s fraud crime is acknowledged, which is the premise of this part of the facts charged that Defendant A conspired with Defendant A, this part of the facts charged cannot be recognized.
(2) The Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A.
① In other words, the Defendant was only invested in the business of acquiring G (hereinafter “G”) by establishing the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) upon the proposal of A, and did not operate G like A or intervene in its management.
② The Defendant invested KRW 500 million in capital used as a down payment to acquire shares, and additionally lent KRW 226.5 billion in capital, and the remaining KRW 1.5 billion in capital is invested or lent by AM, which is the main agent, and the Defendant did not input at least KRW 2 billion in G acquisition as stated in the lower judgment.
③ A led the process of loan from the beginning, and the Defendant was only aware of the general loan terms, namely, principal, interest rate, repayment method, etc., and was aware of the loan terms at issue in the instant case, namely, the use of F loan amounting to KRW 6 billion, i.e., prohibition of additional loan, trust of sales bonds, and establishment of a pledge right over stocks, etc. at the time of the instant loan.
A received the draft of a loan agreement by e-mail from A, but the content was complicated and not properly confirmed, and the explanation of the terms and conditions of the loan has not been sought at the law office M&D office on the date of the loan in this case.