'Loan Shark Who Drove a Single Mother in Her 30s to Her Death'... Why Appeal to the Supreme Court Despite Receiving a Reduced Sentence on Appeal?

[Financial News] An illegal loan shark who lent money to economically vulnerable people at exorbitant interest rates and threatened them while pressuring them to repay drove a single mother in her 30s, who was raising a kindergarten-aged daughter alone, to her death. The loan shark has appealed the appellate ruling. Interest is growing in the background to the appeal, which was filed immediately after sentencing despite the defendant receiving a partial reduction in sentence on appeal.
According to Financial News reporting on the 3rd, the 3rd Criminal Appeals Division of the Seoul Northern District Court (Presiding Judge Heo Myeong-san) sentenced Mr. Kim, 34, who was indicted on charges including violations of the Money Lending Business Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Telecommunications Business Act, and the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, to three years and six months in prison on the 14th of last month. Mr. Kim submitted a letter of remorse to the court one day before sentencing and, after receiving a copy of the judgment, personally filed a notice of appeal on the 20th of the same month. He was also found to have filed another notice of appeal through his attorney on the 21st.
The prosecution, however, did not appeal. Given that the grounds for appeal are limited under current law, it appears that the prosecution decided not to appeal after reviewing whether there were grounds to overturn the lower court's ruling. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, unless a case involves a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or confinement for 10 years or more, a mere claim that the sentence is inappropriate cannot constitute a valid ground for appeal. Accordingly, in this case, in which a sentence of three years and six months was imposed, the prosecution likewise cannot appeal solely on the grounds that the sentence is too light.
Moreover, the appellate court accepted the prosecution's amendment of the indictment and, unlike the first trial, found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. From the prosecution's perspective, this means it obtained the legal ruling it sought on the principal charge. Since the court adjusted the final sentence while taking factors such as a settlement with the victim into account, it appears that the prosecution had little practical benefit to gain from filing another appeal on grounds such as a misunderstanding of the law. Ultimately, because the prosecution did not appeal, the case will be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Korea solely on the defendant's appeal.
Mr. Kim was brought to trial on charges of engaging in illegal debt collection, including lending a total of 17.6 million won at high interest rates to six people between July and November 2024 without registering as a money-lending business and sending threatening messages to their families and acquaintances. Investigators found that the annual interest rates he demanded from the victims ranged from 1,233% to as high as 6,883%, more than 60 times the statutory interest rate of 20%.
The case records are expected to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Korea following the defendant's appeal. However, the possibility that the Supreme Court of Korea will dismiss the appeal has also been raised. Unlike the first- and second-instance courts of fact, which directly determine the substantive truth of a case and the appropriate sentence, the Supreme Court of Korea, as the court of third instance, reviews legal issues such as whether the lower court's ruling violated any statutes. Because the prosecution did not appeal and only the defendant filed an appeal, the principle prohibiting an unfavorable change applies. Accordingly, the defendant cannot receive a harsher sentence from the Supreme Court of Korea than the sentence imposed on appeal.
Some members of the legal community have analyzed that the appeal may reflect practical considerations beyond simply challenging the ruling. One legal professional explained, "Even when they anticipate that the Supreme Court of Korea may dismiss the appeal, some defendants file appeals to delay the finalization of the sentence and the start of their prison term."
[email protected] Seo Ji-yoon Reporter