205Gohap312 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (received goods)

AA (-) - Co., Ltd.** Auditor

Residence 00 00 00 Dong 00

Permanent address 000 00 00 00 00

** *

Attorney**

November 16, 2005

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

30,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal History Office

On November 2004, the Defendant purchased 00 oly 00 ools from 000 to o 00 ools, and there is a lack of balance necessary for purchasing o 00 o o 00 o and trying to start a commercial building.

“A request to receive a loan from a bank note” upon request, “B bank agrees to obtain a loan from a State Bank that will aggressively grant a loan from a State Bank.” On December 16, 196 of the same year, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do, by receiving KRW 30 million in total from 00,000 won cashier’s checks of KRW 10,000,000 in the name of a loan brokerage fee, and receiving money and valuables in relation to the arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecution against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police on 000;

1. To describe a copy of the service contract; and

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 7 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations in favor of the Defendant among the reasons for sentencing to be shown below)

1. Ratification;

Although the defendant's assertion that collection of the above money should not be made since he returned 30 million won to the defendant from 00,000 won, the defendant's return of the above money to 200,000 won, the above argument is without merit since the defendant's return of money to 00,000 won cannot be viewed as a return of the money received, and in such a case, the value of the money should be collected from the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that 20,000,000 won of the money received from 00,000 won was the down payment to be paid at the time of entering into a financial consulting contract with 20,000 won, the above money should be excluded from the subject of additional collection. However, according to the above argument that the defendant's above 20,000 won was not the defendant's monetary advisory opinion and the above 300,000,000 won of the above money was not the defendant's money paid to 200,0,00,000 won of the above money.

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

Article 11-2 (2) of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and the Protection of Finance Users, where the defendant and his defense counsel prevent a credit service provider from receiving brokerage fees from the opposite contractual party to whom the brokerage fees are loaned, shall not be collected.

5. 31. 31. A newly established provision by the amendment of the above Act ( effective from September 1, 2005). The defendant, who was a credit service provider at the time of the instant case, did not have a provision punishing the defendant to receive brokerage commission from 000, the opposite contractual party to whom the loan was granted, and therefore, the defendant should be acquitted.

On May 31, 2005, Article 11-2 (2) of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users (Act No. 7523) as amended and Article 19 (2) 4 of the same Act, which is the penal provision for the violation, cannot be deemed as a special law in relation to Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, "to receive money and valuables in relation to mediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions" refers to cases where money and valuables or other benefits are received under the pretext of mediating between the person who requested the mediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions (a client) and the officer and employee of financial institutions (a broker) who may become the counterpart to the mediation. The defendant's crime of this case was ordered to receive a loan by request from B bank with a loan of 00 million won and then received a loan from the employees of the financial institution under the pretext of loan and acceptance.

Since it is apparent that the elements of a crime are satisfied, the argument of the defendant and his/her defense counsel cannot be accepted (Article 11-2 (2) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users). Since there is no provision regulating brokerage commission, which is the consideration that a credit service provider receives in the course of performing the brokerage business of lending money, unlike interest, through a legitimate credit service provider that performs the brokerage business, some registered and non-registered illegal credit service providers or the non-registered illegal credit service providers receive a high-rate brokerage commission, other than interest, from the credit service users, or the credit service providers perform the brokerage business of lending money, which is a high-rate rate.

There are many cases of receiving opening fees and allowing credit service users to bear interest in fact, so that there is no substantial additional interest burden on credit service users. The reason why Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides various penal regulations corresponding to the duties of public officials in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of financial institutions is that financial institutions are established by special Acts and subordinate statutes, and their businesses and duties have public nature, which seriously affect the national economic policy and the national economy, and it is a referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of financial institutions under the current law, i.e., mediation of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of financial institutions

The prohibition of receiving money, valuables and other benefits from the other party to the whole act of opening or promoting convenience is due to the public nature and the risk of fraudulent involvement in the affairs of financial institutions which have a significant impact on the national economic policy and the national economy. As such, Articles 11-2 (2) and 19 (2) 4 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users and Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes are the protection of credit service users, while the former is the protection of the principal legislative purpose or protected legal interest, the former is fair and unfair financial transaction, the former is being restricted to the registered credit service provider, while the former is restricted to the former in the object of intermediation or brokerage, while the latter is money lending and the latter is restricted to the business affairs of financial institutions, regardless of the fact that the former legal provision of the former is newly established and implemented, the act of lending and arranging the loan to employees of financial institutions and receiving the above fees from the other party to the loan from the above Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case is about the business of a financial institution that may have a significant impact on the national economy, it cannot be deemed that the crime of this case is a criminal, and that the money and valuables received by the defendant are not less than 30 million won, it is inevitable to punish the defendant for the crime of this case.

However, as a result, it does not interfere with the integrity of financial institutions due to loan execution; the defendant returned 28 million won, excluding some of the expenses that are late received by the defendant; there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; the defendant, who reflects the crime in this case and again makes the defendant not to commit the same crime in this case, shall be considered as favorable factors in determining the punishment against the defendant; and the punishment shall be determined as per the order, taking into account all the factors on the sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, and the execution of the punishment shall be suspended only once.

Judges of the presiding judge 000

Judges 000

Judges 000