logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.09.10 2020노672
보험업법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The provision of special benefits prohibited under Article 98 of the Insurance Business Act should be “related to the conclusion and solicitation of insurance contracts” and the Defendant merely pays insurance premiums in lieu of insurance premiums in order to prevent the effect of already concluded or solicited insurance contracts.

(2) The payment of premiums by proxy under subparagraph 4 of Article 98 of the Insurance Business Act must have the benefit accrued therefrom which ultimately vests in the policyholders. It is only that the Defendant requested C to lend money to be paid as premiums and lent it.

The court below which found a guilty of the facts charged has erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment on mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is working as an insurance solicitor from around 1999 to B.

No person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts shall provide any policy holder or the insured with any special benefits by paying premiums on account of the policy holder or the insured in connection with the conclusion or solicitation thereof.

Nevertheless, from December 26, 200 to December 26, 200, the Defendant purchased 11 insurance policies, including C, D, E, and F, who are their children, and paid 42,336,247 won in total, over 87 times, on October 1, 2014, the Defendant paid 6,850 won of G (securities number H; hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

Accordingly, the defendant provided special benefits by harming the payment of premiums on behalf of the policyholder or the insured.

B. Although the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court rejected all of the above arguments and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the following grounds.

arrow