Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence (2 years of suspended execution, 5 million won additional collection, 10 million won additional collection, 15 million won additional collection, 15 million won in the case of Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months), and on the other hand, Defendant A asserted that the sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable and unfair, while the prosecutor appealed each other by asserting that each sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A appears to have no criminal history, and actually made a request to a financial institution or made an illegal loan to the Defendant.

However, it seems that the defendant led the crime, and such crime by the defendant is likely to disrupt the transparency of the financial order and undermine the sound order in the financial market as well as the trust of the general public in the fairness of the duties of financial institutions.

In addition, considering the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence determined by the lower court against the Defendant is too heavy or unbrupted within the appropriate scope of sentencing.

Therefore, all of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments are rejected.

B. Defendant C received KRW 15 million under the pretext of a loan solicitation, and such amount is not certain.

However, the Defendant was the first offender with no record of crime, and actually made a solicitation to financial institutions or did not incur illegal loans. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Defendant participated in the crime and subsequently returned all the amount received by the Defendant’s participation in the crime compared to the Defendant A.

In addition, considering the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., the punishment determined by the lower court against the Defendant is within the appropriate scope of sentencing, and it is difficult to view that it is unfair because it is too low.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is accepted.