beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact misunderstanding: Criminal facts 1 was received as expenses in relation to appraisal, and Paragraph 2 of the same Article had the capacity and ability to obtain the hospital at the time, and thus, all of them were found guilty even if they did not intend to obtain the hospital, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Facts-misunderstanding part 1) Criminal facts 1) The defendant had already been granted a loan of KRW 510 million to the three parcels of land as collateral. However, the defendant demanded the victim C to get a loan of KRW 300 million after receiving a new appraisal and was paid KRW 9.5 billion at appraisal cost. The defendant delivered the victim's order that he/she would own L with a annual sales of KRW 10 billion. However, the defendant did not have any special relation with L, but used the above money for expenses, not for the appraisal cost per se, the defendant did not use the money as a cost, the degree of appraisal agreed by the defendant, additional loans, and the defendant did not provide a total of KRW 100 million. On July 18, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 2 years at the Seoul Northern District Court on August 18, 2014 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 10 of the same year. In full view of the above facts, the defendant had no intention to use the land as collateral.
Since it is recognized, the defendant's assertion against this is without merit.
2) The Defendant borrowed 70 million won from the H hospital acquisition cost to the victim and subsequently received the loan within 2 months.
The defendant's introduction, the victim borrowed 200 million won from the bond company as security and lent 65 million won among them to the defendant, and promoted the acquisition of the above hospital.