beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to KRW 3 million and the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.
It is improper to collect 10 million won even after the victim returned money to the victim.
2. The act of receiving money and valuables under the pretext of good offices by a financial company, etc. is against sound national economic ethics and there is a high need for punishment.
The fact that the defendant has returned the amount equivalent to the amount received under the pretext of loan brokerage after the fact, and that only the defendant has been sentenced to a fine that has not been sentenced once every 16 years prior to the fact is favorable.
In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence leading up to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
There is no reason to find out circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of the same amount as it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, in a case where a person who received a bribe returns the bribe to the offerer as it is, it shall not be collected from the consignee. However, in a case where the consignee consumes the bribe or deposits in a financial institution, it shall not be deemed that the act of consumption or deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe, and even if the consignee thereafter returned the same amount of money to the offerer, it shall not be deemed as the return of the bribe itself (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2022, Oct. 25, 196, etc.). Thus, the amount equivalent to the amount of the bribe must be collected from the consignee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2022, Oct. 25, 196).
Even if the court below ordered the collection from the defendant, it is justifiable.
Therefore, as the defendant asserts.