2013No458 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (water, etc.)

A

Defendant

Promotion for Family Head Service (Public Prosecution) and stuffed (Public trial)

Attorney B

Ulsan District Court Decision 2013Gohap87,126 (Consolidated), 131 decided August 23, 2013

2) Judgment

December 19, 2013

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to six years of imprisonment, fine of 250,000,000 won, penalty of 248,660,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant has led to the confession of all the facts constituting the instant crime and divided his mistake, that the Defendant does not seem to have taken the loan measures in violation of the loan business management guidelines, and that the Defendant is the primary offender and the social relationship is clear.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who is an executive or employee of a financial company, received money and valuables 16 times more than a year from C and D, and the total amount of money and valuables received was 248,660,000 won as well as 2000,000 won, and the defendant demanded money and valuables from D to pay the drinking value in lieu of it. As such, the crime period, frequency and method of the crime, the amount of money and valuables received, the nature of the crime, and the amount of money and valuables are significant. The defendant's act is detrimental to the public's trust in the fairness of the execution of duties by the executive or employee of a financial institution and detrimental to the sound order in the financial market, and it is not recognized that the defendant's punishment imposed by the court below is unreasonable considering various sentencing conditions that are different from the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Kim Jong-cheon (Presiding Judge)

Gangwon-domen' accommodation

Freeboard Kim