beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including consistent statements at F’s investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s trial, the lower court which acquitted the part of KRW 16 million among them as a loan brokerage fee, despite the fact that it can be recognized as a loan brokerage fee, has erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, community service, 120 hours additional collection, 31 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.
Judgment
A. On June 2, 2011, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged stated in the judgment of the court below: (a) at the office of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office operated by the Defendant in Gwangju Mine-gu” (hereinafter “E Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office”); (b) “F is well aware of the relationship between the head of the NAFF and the executives of the NAF, and is the major shareholder of the Solomon Savings Bank.” (c) upon request from the above persons, the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million or more as a loan commission for the good offices. After that, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from F on August 12, 201, under the pretext of the FF’s fee for good offices, in collusion with C. Accordingly, the Defendant received money and valuables regarding good offices belonging to the duties of executive officers and employees of the financial company.” (b) The Defendant asserts that both the Defendant and FF have received KRW 10 million from F, as in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant asserted that the FF was partially repaid.
However, there is a statement at F’s investigative agency and the court of original instance as evidence that correspond to the above facts charged. ① The fact that F borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant around June 17, 201 that the monthly interest was set at KRW 3 million is recognized by both the Defendant and F. ② The fact that F borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant.