(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.20 2016노594 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.20 2016노594

상호저축은행법위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles are merely aware of the fact that the instant loan was related to Defendant A at around January 2015, and there was no participation in the instant loan implementation, and Defendant A was not aware of the fact that Defendant A used the instant loan.

The loan of this case was provided by Defendant A as the debtor with sufficient real estate security, and Defendant A borrowed KRW 500 million from Defendant A regardless of the loan of this case. Thus, Defendant A was granted credit from H by the Bank of Bankruptcy.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 15 million for Defendant A, and a fine of KRW 20 million for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine by comparing the circumstances stated by the lower court with the record and closely, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendants and the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the reasons revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unfilled, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s appeal are dismissed.

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도3260 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016노4603

-인천지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노3977

-창원지방법원 2018.04.11 2017노2817

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.06 2017노3180

-전주지방법원 2017.06.02 2016노1129