beta
Text
All the decisions of the first instance court are reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) In the case of each of the remaining loans except No. 10, No. 10, 18, and 20 with regard to the guilty portion (other than No. 10, No. 10, a year other than the attached Table No. 10) of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), Defendant (1) of the first instance court (the defendant was guilty) of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
1) In the case of each loan listed in the annexed Table Nos. 2 through 9, 11, and 12, the Defendant is the S Credit Union (hereinafter “the instant Credit Union”).
) In the process of performing a loan as a person in charge of loan, there is no need to request X to prepare the appraised value on the consignment container document by unfolding the appraised value on the consignment container document, and there was only the lawful execution of the loan based on the appraised value of the consignment container document, etc. submitted by the appraisal corporation. As such, each of these loans in this part was excluded from the loan business since October 201, the Defendant was excluded from the loan business after the date of the annexed crime list No. 18 through 20.
① However, in the case of loans listed in the separate sheet Nos. 18 and 20 each year, the Defendant was responsible for lending part of the loans from the applicant for the loan, and this part of the facts charged at the first instance court. However, in the course of performing the loan, the Defendant did not request X to prepare the appraised value on the consignment slip in writing, and the above two lending parties are not the Defendant but the director of the New Consultation AE, and thus, the Defendant was not the Defendant.