2016Gohap831 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

Man-Post (prosecution) and He/she shall conduct public trial.

Law Firm I (Defendant A and D), Attorney J

Law Firm K (for Defendant A), Attorneys L

Law Firm M&A (Defendant B, Attorney N

Attorney O (Defendant E, F, and F)

Law Firm P (Defendant H) LLC, Attorney Qua-soo

January 11, 2017

Defendant A and B, each of the two years and six months of imprisonment, each of the two years and six months of imprisonment, Defendant C and D, Defendant E and F, each of the years of imprisonment, Defendant G with prison labor, and Defendant H in October, and Defendant H in KRW 30,000,000.

When Defendant H fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, with respect to Defendant A, B, C, and D, each three years, and with respect to Defendant E, F, and G, each two years, shall be suspended.

Application documents for loan requested (No. 1), each set (No. 2 through 5), each document file (No. 9 through 13), and the documents (No. 14) recorded by the client and the company shall be confiscated from Defendant A.

KRW 152,650,00 from Defendant A, KRW 101,70,00 from Defendant B, KRW 73,042,00 from Defendant D, KRW 6,159,00 from Defendant E, KRW 29,30,00 from Defendant F, KRW 17,000 from Defendant G, and KRW 31,00,000 from Defendant H shall be collected respectively.

Defendant H shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

No person shall receive, request, or promise money, valuables, or other benefits to arrange matters belonging to the duties of an executive or employee of a financial company, etc.

1. Defendant A

On June 2015, the Defendant accepted a proposal from S who is an advisor of (State) R to the effect that the Defendant would pay approximately 10% of the amount of the loan at the face of the State to obtain a miscarriage loan.

Accordingly, around August 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) required to approve the issuance of a letter of credit and the establishment of a letter of credit with F with respect to (b) 82 U.S. dollars 700,000; (b) obtained 27 million U.S. dollars from S in the Defendant’s vehicle parked behind the building behind the Korean Bank Yangpon branch; and (c) in collusion with D, F, etc. as described in the attached list of crimes (A), in collusion with D, F, etc., from February 13, 2015 to June 27, 2016, the Defendant arranged 17 loans in total by the above method and received 300 million won in total.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with D, F, etc., received money and valuables in order to arrange matters related to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

2. On September 2015, Defendant B, C Defendants, and D, etc. received a proposal from S, an adviser of (State) R, to the effect that “A about 10% of the face value of the loan would be paid as commission,” and accepted it.

Accordingly, around October 14, 2015, the Defendants borrowed KRW 200,000 from D, etc. to the account in the name of D as a fee for the above loan, and received KRW 6 million in the name of D on the same day.

On October 23, 2015, Defendants and D et al. continued to receive KRW 200,000,000 from the branch of the Suwon-si City Financial Center for the purpose of getting loans from (i) the (ii) the (iii) the (iv) the (iv) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) financial center for the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) financial center for the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) financial center for the (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) financial center for the said loan, and (v) the (v) the (v) the (v) the (em) the (v) the (v) the (v

Accordingly, the Defendants in collusion with D, etc. received money and valuables in order to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

3. Defendant D

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant accepted a proposal to the effect that the Defendant would pay approximately 10% of the amount of the loan as the fee when the Defendant would receive the loan from T.

Accordingly, around March 20, 2015, the Defendant and A et al. provided a loan of KRW 250 million to T at the Dong branch of KEB but at the new branch of the bank. On the same day, the Defendant and A et al. provided a loan of KRW 250 million from T as a brokerage fee for the above loan and provided a brokerage fee of KRW 25 million from March 20, 2015 to May 9, 2016 in collusion with the attached crime sight list (D) and this A et al. in collusion with the above method.

Accordingly, the defendant in collusion with A, etc. received money and valuables in order to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

4. Defendant E.

Around September 2015, the Defendant and D et al. accepted the proposal to the effect that the Defendant would pay approximately 10% of the amount of loans at the face of the State to obtain a loan for corporate purchase from S, an adviser of (State) R, as a fee.

Accordingly, around October 14, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 200,000 from D, etc. to the account in the name of D as a fee for the above loan, and received KRW 6 million in the name of D on the same day.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant and D et al. continued to receive KRW 200,000,000 from the main office of the Suwon-si Bank's Financial Center for the purpose of corporate operation funds, and on the same day, in collusion with D et al., such as transfer of KRW 16,00,000 to the accounts in the name of D under the name of D in terms of fees for the above loan, and in collusion with D et al. from March 20, 2015 to October 23, 2015, arrange four loans in the above manner as above, and receive commission fees of KRW 81,00,000,000.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with D, received money and valuables in order to arrange matters belonging to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

5. Defendant F

A accepted a proposal on June 2015 that "A would pay approximately 10% of the amount of loan at the face of the State in order to get a miscarriage loan from S, an adviser of (State)R, as a fee."

Accordingly, around August 17, 2015, the Defendant and A conspired with A, etc. to arrange the total of seven loans from June 23, 2015 to June 24, 2016, and to receive the commission for arranging the total of KRW 114 million from June 23, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant in collusion with A, etc. received money and valuables in order to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

6. Defendant G

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant accepted a proposal to the effect that the Defendant would pay approximately 10% of the loan amount as fee on the face of a loan from V through U.S.

Accordingly, around February 4, 2016, the Defendant and A et al. provided loans of KRW 500 million to V at the National Active Financial Center of the New Bank. On the same day, the Defendant and A et al. received KRW 40 million from V in terms of brokerage fees for the above loans.

Accordingly, the defendant in collusion with A, etc. received money and valuables in order to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

7. Defendant H

On April 2016, the Defendant accepted a proposal to the effect that the Defendant would pay a certain percentage of the amount of the loan as the fee, on the face of the State that would receive the loan from the W representative X.

Accordingly, around April 27, 2016, the Defendant, A, etc. arranged five loans in the above way from February 26, 2016 to June 24, 2016 in collusion with A, etc., including receiving KRW 28 million as a fee for the above loan, and received a total of KRW 82 million from February 26, 2016 to June 24, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant in collusion with A, etc. received money and valuables in order to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of executive officers and employees of financial companies.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of Defendant A, D, E, F, G and H, and part of Defendant B’s legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness Y and S;

1. The statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A, D, and E in each prosecutor's office; the second prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the defendant B in each prosecutor's office; and the second prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the defendant C in each prosecutor's office, Z, and A in each prosecutor's office's interrogation protocol of the defendant C;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution against S, AA, and AB;

1. Descriptions of each statement prepared by AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, X, X, AM, AO, AP, and Q;

1. Each investigation report and accompanying documents (the evidence list Nos. 1 through 9, 11, 12, 25, 26, 39, 45, 48 through 52, 54 through 58, 64, 65, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76 through 81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 94, 95, 132, 143) and each account transaction (the evidence list No. 97, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 120, 124, 124, 126) and each statement or image;

1. Each description of the application documents for loan requested (Evidence 1), each set of documents (Evidence 2 through 5), each set of documents and files (Evidence 9 through 13), the client for loan and the mers indicating the company;

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. Defendant A

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant's act is not an arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act"), because the defendant provided consulting to the borrower or similar services.

B. Determination

1) "Good offices" under Article 7 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act means "an act of mediating or assisting a certain matter between a certain person and the other party for a certain matter" and "an act of arranging or promoting convenience" includes cases where the act of arranging is subject to legitimate act of duty. If a certain act of arranging or receiving money or goods, etc. was actually conducted under the pretext of arranging, the above crime is established regardless of which act of arranging or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6490, Sept. 30, 201).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant is acknowledged to have received money as stated in the facts charged in order to promote good offices or loan convenience between the lending client and the third party (e.g., the defendant stated that D had made a request for a loan to the defendant because there are many persons who wish to obtain a loan from the bank, and D had made a statement that he/she made a request for a loan to the defendant because there are no separate persons who want to obtain a loan from the bank, and that he/she received money in return for the provision of good offices or loan convenience between the lending client and the lending client or the lending client.

The defendant's act can be seen as falling under "mediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions" under Article 7 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, so the above argument is not accepted.

2. Defendant B, C

A. Summary of the argument

1) The facts charged against Defendant C are not stated in the public offering date, place, and details with other accomplices, and the amount received by Defendant C, and thus, the public prosecution should be dismissed. Even if the public prosecution is not dismissed, Defendant C is not guilty on the grounds that there was no public offering for, or receipt of, the same crime as the facts charged. Therefore, Defendant C should be acquitted.

2) Defendant B did not have any money received in connection with loans from the No. 6 No. 1460, Oct. 14, 2015 from the No. 11334, Oct. 14, 2015, and there is no fact that Defendant B conspired to commit this part with No. 4, and thus, Defendant B should be acquitted of the facts charged.

B. Determination

1) As to whether the facts charged against Defendant C were not specified

A) The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, considering the nature of the crime prosecuted, it is sufficient to specify the time, place, method, and purpose of the public prosecution to the extent that the facts constituting the cause of the public prosecution can be distinguished from other facts, and even if the time, place, contents, etc. of the public prosecution are not specified in detail or some of them are unclear, the facts charged may be specified by other matters indicated together, and therefore, if the exercise of the defense right of the defendant is not impeded, it cannot be said that the facts charged was not specified solely on such ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5561, Jun. 14, 207).

B) In the facts charged against Defendant C, it is true that the date and place of the above Defendant conspireds with the accomplices and the crime are not specified. However, ① The clients, lending banks, lending dates, lending amount, ② the total amount of fees received by Defendant C and the accomplices, remitters, addressees, receipt date, distribution details, ③ the allocation of the act between Defendant C and the accomplices is specified.

Thus, the defendant C and the defense counsel did not have any particular obstacle to exercising their rights of defense by asserting that the contents of the written indictment are different from the facts concerning the mediation of loans to be prosecuted, whether to receive fees, whether to share the burden of act, etc., and by impeachment of evidence submitted in compliance with the facts charged.

C) Accordingly, Defendant C and the defense counsel do not accept this part of the assertion.

2) As to whether Defendant C did not have conspiredd to commit a crime

A) At the prosecutor’s office around May 2015, D introduced Defendant B and C from “AR” to “a person making a corporate loan by connecting a bank. If the request for a loan was made, it would be called “the person making a business loan by linking the bank.” The above Defendants stated that the type of the loan that the said Defendants wanted to arrange to D, for example, the description of the loan that they want to arrange to arrange to D.

E In addition, the prosecution decided to divide the fee according to the loan case in consultation with D, Defendant B, and C, and stated that the fee problem was led because Defendant B and C performed the business related to the bank.

D and E’s above statements are not only consistently maintained in the process of several prosecutorial investigations, but also consistent with each other, and it does not confirm the facts already known to the prosecutor D and E, but also it cannot be deemed that D and E voluntarily stated the above facts to the prosecutor, and their credibility cannot be lowered.

B) Furthermore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant C was found to have served as a bank officer and staff, such as Y, who actually contacted with the officer and staff of the bank, played a role of requesting the loan, carried out the loan at the actual site of the loan, and carried out the loan at the actual site. The Defendant C and the defense counsel’s assertion that the above role was performed without knowing the fact that the loan was to be paid is difficult to accept.

C) As such, Defendant C and the defense counsel do not accept this part of the allegation, since it can be acknowledged that Defendant C conspired with D and E in order as indicated in the facts charged.

3) As to whether Defendant B did not conspired to commit the crime of arranging the loan of the No. 2015, 14 October 14, 2014

A) The facts and circumstances as seen in the above 2 and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① Defendant B requested loan brokerage through D and received money in addition to this part of the facts charged as indicated in the judgment, and ② even if Defendant B and C told that they would not receive the loan at the time of the loan brokerage as of October 14, 2015, it is difficult to deem that the accomplices, such as D, would not be paid any other charges. Rather, even if they knew that they would receive the loan brokerage, they may be deemed to have expressed their intent not to receive the loan brokerage, and ③ even if there was actual existence of the above loan brokerage, it does not interfere with recognizing the fact that Defendant B, etc. received the loan in return for the loan brokerage. In full view of the above facts, Defendant B, etc., as well as the fact that Defendant B, etc. offered the loan and offered the loan, and Defendant C, etc., offered the loan for the loan as of October 14, 2015.

B) Accordingly, Defendant B and the defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G: Each Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

Defendant H: Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (the largest penalty) of the Criminal Act; Article 50 (The V (AS) 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) and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant B, C, and D: the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code [Article 50 [Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (AU) of the Republic of Korea and Article 37 of the Act on the AT (AU) of the Republic of Korea and Article 38(1)2]

Defendant E: Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Article 50 (Article 50) of the Criminal Act (Article 37 of the Act on the AV (AW) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act)

Defendant F: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (as a result of arranging loans between R (Z) on August 17, 2015 with the largest penalty and the horizontal point of the National Bank of Korea, the amount of concurrent crimes resulting from a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Reconciliation) shall be limited to concurrent crimes resulting from a violation of the aforesaid Act

Defendant H: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50 [Article 37(1)2 of the Criminal Act [Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 38(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant H: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A: Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendants: Article 10(3) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant H: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G: Imprisonment for one month to seven years;

Defendant H: Fines of KRW 50,000 to KRW 75 million

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Defendant A, B, C, D, F

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (at least KRW 100,00) of Securities and Financial Crime Group, and Mediation and Acceptance of Securities and Financial Institutions' Duties as Officers and Employees

【Special Convicted Person】

[General Natives] Reductions: Serious reflectives (Defendant A, D, F)

Aggravations: In case of good offices

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for two years and six months to three years and six months;

B. Defendant E

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least 50 million won, less than 100 million won) of the referral and acceptance of the duties of executive officers and employees of securities finance group and financial institutions

[Special Convicts]

[General Sentencing] Reduction element: In case of good offices, good offices shall be performed.

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for a year and six months to two years and six months

C. Defendant G

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than 30 million won, less than 50 million won) of the good offices and acceptance of good offices for the duties of executive officers and employees of securities finance group and financial institutions

【Special Convicted Person】

[Generally Natives] Reduction element: A serious reflective factor: A previous conviction that does not constitute a repeated offense in the event of good offices;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment of 10 months to 1 year and 6 months;

D. Defendant H

The sentencing criteria are not set.

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is that the Defendants received money and valuables in return for arranging bank loans to business operators in need of funds. Such crime is a violation of the fairness of the loan business of financial institutions, the social trust thereof, and the sound order in the financial market is prejudicial to the sound order in the financial market. In addition, the amount received by the Defendants in collusion is not much much.

However, the Defendants merely introduced a bank operator who wants to borrow a bank loan to an officer or employee, or made an intermediate convenience, and the Defendants do not seem to have caused an intentional fraudulent loan by forging or altering documents necessary for the loan. The amount determined by the Defendants is considerably less than the amount of criminal facts in the judgment, as the Defendants are divided into one another or a third party. Moreover, the amount actually acquired by the Defendants is considerably less than the amount of criminal facts in the judgment. In addition, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime except Defendant G, and the investigative agency, except Defendant B and C, seriously contradicts their own misconduct from the investigation agency to this court.

The sentencing guidelines established on the basis of the amount of criminal facts as stated in the judgment are somewhat heavy in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, and considering all other conditions of sentencing. Accordingly, the sentencing guidelines established on the basis of the amount of criminal facts are determined to be somewhat heavy. Accordingly, the sentencing guidelines shall be sentenced to a minor imprisonment than that set forth in the sentencing guidelines, but the execution thereof shall be suspended

The presiding judge charter

Judges Yang Yang-soo

Judges Jeon Jae-chul

1) The Defendant and accomplices determined the amount of money received in return for loan intermediation. The same is also applicable to the other Defendants.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.