Defendant

A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Articles 1, 3, and 4 from among the seized articles on which the court below sentenced confiscation as to the forfeited part A1, Defendant A1 is owned by D. Therefore, the court below which sentenced confiscation of the above article is unlawful. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion regarding the confiscation of Defendant A, “a criminal” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act includes an accomplice, not only the property owned by the Defendant but also the property owned by the accomplice may be confiscated regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted or not.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2680 delivered on May 29, 1984, and 200Do745 delivered on May 12, 2000, etc.). Seized evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 constitute “those owned by a person other than the criminal person” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and constitutes “those owned by a person other than the criminal person,” and thus, can be forfeited from the criminal defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586, Nov. 23, 2006). Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A, the fact that Defendant A and the prosecutor participated in the Defendant A and B’s act of taking the lead in the act of loan brokerage commission fraud, and that the police conducted an investigation on November 28, 2018 with respect to the act of loan brokerage commission fraud, and that Defendant A and the prosecutor committed the act of loan brokerage, which has not been much passed since they were investigated by the police, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing was committed in attempted crimes, and the amount of fraud of loan brokerage commission is not less than 2,90,000 won in total, and D voluntarily attended the police with the knowledge of the fact that D was arrested by the police, and agreed with Qua of the victims of loan brokerage commission fraud in the court below, and 30,000 won and 90,000 won for the rest of victims.