beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor and fines of KRW 260,000,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, Defendant A merely borrowed KRW 2550 million from J.
2) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (an imprisonment of eight years and a fine of KRW 260 million, additional collection of KRW 261,335,608) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (2016 high 1053 case) Defendants continued to engage in loan transactions and continued to extend the repayment period.
Defendant
There is no difference in that A acquired the amount equivalent to financial gains regardless of whether the legal evaluation of the profits acquired is interest or delayed damage.
The amount equivalent to financial gains accrued until December 30, 2016, which is the last due date, falls under a bribe received by a defendant A.
2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment of 8 years and fine of 260 million won, additional collection of 261,335,608 won, Defendant B: fine of 5 million won) against the illegal Defendants is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The lower court determined that Defendant A received a total of KRW 250 million, which Defendant A received from J, rather than borrowing KRW 255 million, as a bribe.
The detailed reasons for the determination are as follows.
① Defendant A had formed a private trust relationship with which Defendant A was able to borrow a large amount of KRW 255 million in total as a non-interest-free and non-interest-free loan without preparing a loan certificate from J.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
② The J may give the money itself as a bribe to a request for a “loan of money” on the surface in order to obtain assistance, such as providing convenience in relation to L’s accusation cases.
I think and offer money.
In the view that it is sufficient for J to provide convenience to lend money to Defendant A, there was an intention to lend money to Defendant A or to have Defendant A repay money subsequently provided.
shall not be deemed to exist.
(3) Defendant.