특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for a fine of KRW 150 million and Defendant B.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (hereinafter “I”) was provided with a cuber vehicle from Defendant B to assist Defendant A (hereinafter “G district development project”) to select approximately 198,830 square meters (hereinafter “G district development project”), which was operated by Defendant B at the time of the instant case, and Defendant A received a bribe equivalent to the cuber of the said vehicle from Defendant B to facilitate the progress of the G district development project and the completion inspection, etc. performed by the E military public officials by exercising influence on the part of the E-Gun, or to assist Defendant A to select I as an operator of the waste water treatment facilities to be promoted by the E-Gun. Thus, Defendant A received a bribe equivalent to the cuber of the said vehicle with respect to the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the E military public officials by taking advantage of his status.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 50 million) is too unreasonable.
B. In fact, Defendant B was not required to purchase a new vehicle at the time of the instant case and operate a scooke vehicle in the existing area. Defendant B was asked to request that Defendant A use of the said vehicle at the time of the instant case, and provided it to Defendant A with an opportunity for Defendant A to assist in obtaining orders for construction works of G district development projects and to inform the local construction information, and it was not provided to Defendant A with the purport that Defendant A would facilitate the progress and completion inspection of construction works of G district development projects performed by Defendant A to the public officials of the Gun, or that the operator of the waste water treatment facilities promoted by the Gun would be selected by Defendant B. Thus, Defendant B did not provide Defendant B with the intent to assist Defendant A to facilitate the progress and completion inspection of construction works of the G district development projects performed by the Gun, or that the operator of the waste water treatment