beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part of the conviction against Defendant B and D and the part of the acquittal against N is all related.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 4, 2007, Defendant B was the working-level person of the loan, and Defendant D intentionally calculated and processed the amount of the loan without deducting the small lease deposit under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act as a working person.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted the facts charged, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
(B) There are sufficient circumstances to recognize the intention of breach of trust, such as: (a) Defendant B, and D, a loan to K, L, and M, who did not normally use an existing appraisal corporation which had already been subject to a business agreement; and (b) performing loan business using an appraisal company below the standard.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted the facts charged, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
(C) AD, i.e., Defendant D’s friendship and N’s omission, purchased land of KRW 165 million in the name of N, using the name of N, prepared a false sales contract and applied for the loan accompanied by it, as if it purchased the land of KRW 418.25 million in the name of N.
However, the land was purchased by Defendant D and AD through joint investment, and Defendant D also knew of the real value of the land.
The loan to N was led by Defendant D, and Defendant B and D dealt with the loan business through their own appraisal in violation of the business regulations.
Therefore, even though Defendant B and D can be recognized as the intention of breach of trust, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant B and D on this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
(2) The lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for four months for each of Defendant B and D, and one year of suspended execution, too uneased and unfair.
B. Defendant A, Defendant A, and C have expertise in financial business.