beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of additional collection against the defendant shall be reversed.
from the defendant 12,50,00 won and 30,700,000 won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant as a joint principal offender for each of the crimes of this case is erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts, since it was merely an aiding and abetting in light of the degree of participation in the crime, degree of contribution, and the status and role of the entire crime.
Although the Defendant paid the full fee received from C to E as an employee of the “F” lending brokerage company run by E, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s additional collection.
B. Sentencing
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, who is a joint principal offender, asserted the same purport in the lower court.
As to this, the court below held that even if the defendant was paid the introduction fee to E and received the salary from E.
Even if the Defendant introduced a person to be loaned to C and received money in the name of the introduction expense, in itself, can be recognized as a joint principal offender due to functional control and the division of conduct with C, and this is determined that the Defendant is a joint principal offender with C, on the ground that the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement, “the Defendant was aware that C was a non-registered credit service provider,” and “the common exchange is almost multi-registered” are sufficiently supported by the Defendant’s legal statement with C, C and the specific contents of the common exchange work with C and the Defendant.
The circumstances indicated by the lower court are different from the circumstances indicated by the lower court, that E is not the one directly known to and raised with C, that the Defendant directly received the fee from C, that is, it appears that C was unaware of how the Defendant used the fee thereafter, and even if the Defendant used a loan brokerage company to attract lending desired customers, the Defendant made telephone conversations with the victims, and if necessary, C.