beta
Text
The judgment below
The acquittal portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, around the end of 2009, around July 12, 2010, and around July 27, 2010.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Even before the enforcement of Article 8(1) of the Act, which is a penal provision on the act of receiving interest exceeding the interest rate that is a penal provision on the act of making a contract for borrowing and lending all gold (not guilty portion of the judgment below), if a person who received interest exceeding the interest rate accordingly exceeds the interest rate after the enforcement of the above provision, such part constitutes an element of crime under the above penal provision and is found guilty.
B. The lower court’s punishment (one million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes to the indictment in addition to the following parts: (a) 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 of the list of crimes in the part of innocence in the judgment of the court below; and (b) 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the judgment of the court below; and (c) 10 of the judgment of the court below, the portion of innocence in the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since the judgment of the court was changed by permitting it.
However, the court below's decision's rejection of the prosecutor's punishment on the guilty portion is still subject to this court's judgment despite the above reasons for reversal of authority among the judgment below.
B. It is reasonable to respect the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing in our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the determination of sentencing, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the purpose of the Act on the Restriction of Interest Concerning the Stabilization of National Economic Life and the Realization of Economic Definition, the Defendant’s criminal liability against the violation is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, under the Interest Limitation Act, the defendant against F.