The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely a fact that the Defendant received benefits, etc. from F is conducted according to private decentralization. Since the person in charge of loan examination, etc. was P, there is no duty relationship between the Defendant’s business and the receipt of benefits, etc.). 2) The Defendant did not receive illegal requests from F or conduct unfair business handling.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Whether an executive officer or employee of a financial institution is related to his/her duties under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes referring to all the duties that the executive or employee of the financial institution handles while carrying out his/her duties. It includes not only the duties belonging to his/her authority but also the duties closely related thereto, and affairs that are actually handled in relation thereto. However, it cannot be said that the duties handled by the executive

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do15896 Decided March 27, 2014; 99Do4942 Decided February 22, 2000, etc.). Where an employee or employee of a financial institution received money, valuables, or other benefits from his/her customers, he/she shall not be deemed to have no relation with his/her duties, barring any special circumstances, such as where he/she is deemed to have been paid to the customer who received money, valuables, or other benefits from his/her customers from his/her former financial institution, and it is merely an exceptional payment in light of the social norms, or where it is obviously deemed that the customer was in contact with or received from his/her former financial institution’

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do15896, Mar. 27, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 97Do2386, Feb. 10, 1998). Moreover, an employee or employee of a financial institution under Article 5 of the aforementioned Act is given or received.