The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant E.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A (unlawful in sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (one month of imprisonment, a fine of five million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (1) Claim for exclusion of illegally collected evidence on the violation of the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”): A search and seizure warrant on November 13, 2017 only states the facts of suspicion regarding the acquisition of stolen property. The prosecutor seized the evidence irrelevant to the facts of suspicion stated in the above search and seizure warrant and started investigation into the violation of the law on loan business based on the above evidence.

Therefore, the evidence seized by the above search and seizure warrant constitutes illegally collected evidence, and the statements of the defendant B and the wife obtained based on this constitutes illegally collected evidence.

The possession of stolen goods: Defendant B received two vehicles from A as collateral with the introduction of A, and returned all vehicles immediately after the repayment of the loan was received to A., so it is difficult to regard the leased vehicle as “disposition” at will, and thus, Defendant B does not constitute the acquisition of stolen goods.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: Defendant C merely lent KRW 100 million to AA after receiving a request from AE to have it repaid because it was impossible for AE to do so, and there was no think that A would have lent gambling money. Therefore, there was no intention to assist in gambling.

The violation of the Loan Business Act against AO: Defendant C loaned KRW 61,510,000,000, including interest, and agreed that the principal was repaid in full, with a private-friendly relationship with AO; Defendant C was paid interest in excess of the limited interest rate prescribed in the Loan Business Act.

shall not be deemed to have been approved.