[1] The meaning of "mediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions" under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[2] A company’s loan-related business cannot be deemed as Defendant’s own business on the ground of the employment contract between Defendant and Company A, the employment period of which is less than three months, and the Defendant, for the purpose of obtaining a loan, provided good offices for matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions for A, and received the payment

[1] Article 7 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act / [2] Article 7 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do940 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3467) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do357 Delivered on June 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1717) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 Delivered on January 31, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 342)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No2816 decided February 5, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides that "mediation of matters belonging to the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution" shall be for another person's business, not for himself/herself. Thus, if an employee of the company solicits as a representative of the company the contents requested by the representative director of the company, he/she shall not be deemed as mediation for another person's business. However, if the defendant formally solicits a company to obtain a loan by using an adviser's office without involvement in the ordinary business affairs of the company after concluding an employment contract with the company, and after making a formal solicitation, he/she has used the office of adviser, etc., it shall be deemed as mediation for another person's business (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do940, Sep. 15, 1995; 200Do357, Jun. 11, 2002

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the employment contract of this case between the defendant and ○ Tobacco is extremely short-term for three months based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, and that there was no person to receive separate money whenever the project, such as loan, among the officers and employees of ○ Tobacco, such as the defendant, was successful, and that the defendant entered into several employment contracts and advisory services contracts overlapping with the employment contract of this case. The term of the employment contract of this case was somewhat modified, and its contents and system are almost the same as those of the defendant entered into an employment contract of this case, and the defendant did not join an employment insurance or health insurance for the defendant, and the defendant did not receive ○○ Tobacco after the expiration of the employment period of three months, but did not receive wages from other employees. In light of the above facts alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above employment contract of this case.

Meanwhile, among the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the part of the lower court’s finding of facts or on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the lower court is nothing more than criticism on the selection of evidence and fact-finding belonging to the exclusive authority of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and thus cannot

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)