beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. On the first instance judgment, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant paid the entire damages to the victims of the first instance judgment; (b) the Defendant agreed to the full payment of damages to the victims of the first instance judgment; (c) the support of the punishment and the number of disabled persons of the first instance judgment with dementia and intellectual disability 1; and (d) the 80,000,000 won received from the victim F on January 6, 2014; and (c) the said part of the facts charged is not money borrowed; and (d) the said part of the facts charged is not money related to loan brokerage, and thus, it is unreasonable that the punishment for
B. The punishment of KRW 5,00,00, which was sentenced by the second instance court, is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the damage was repaid to the second instance judgment and the fact that the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes.
2. Two judgment of the court of first instance was consolidated in the trial, but the above crimes were final and conclusive between the facts constituting the crime of the court of first instance and the facts constituting the crime of the court of second instance, and thus, are not punishable by a single sentence. The sentence of the court of first instance is imprisonment. The punishment of the court of first instance is a fine, which is different from that of the court of second instance, and the punishment of the court of second instance is different from that of the court of second instance. As examined later, it is not a case where the punishment of the court of second instance is maintained in the choice of punishment and is punished by a single sentence. Thus, it does not reverse ex
Therefore, the grounds for appeal against each judgment are divided.
A. On January 6, 2014, the first lower court alleged that the Defendant was a loan unrelated to loan brokerage, but the victim F made a statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged at the police and the prosecutor's office. In addition, even though the lower court stated somewhat ambiguously in its court, the Defendant made a statement that the purchase of the non-performing loan would be easy to obtain the loan in the future.