logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.03.28 2017노3687
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (10 months of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. It is so unfair that the lower court’s punishment (amount to KRW 14 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The lower court’s sentence (defendant B: fine of KRW 18 million) against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s crime of receiving money under the pretext of arranging a bank loan to a business operator in need of funds, and such crime does not constitute an act that damages the social trust in the purchase of the fair performance of duties performed by the executives and employees of a financial institution and disturbs the financial order.

In light of the fact that the Defendant prepared a false contract in the course of receiving a loan and pretended to remit the down payment to a true contract, and that he consumed or delivered it to L, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime is light.

Now, the amount received can be seen as 20 million won.

The crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is a crime that interferes with the legitimate exercise of the State's right to collect taxes and damages the tax justice, and the issuance, receipt, and mediation of the defendant are not entered in total, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, unlike the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized all of the crimes and reflects them.

L had ordered the Defendant to prepare a false contract in favor of the loan, had been linked to the employees of financial institutions such as the head of the branch office of the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation P through the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation BV, etc., and L O, etc. after the loan was completed.

arrow