뇌물공여등
The part against Defendant A, B, and C in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. fine of KRW 30,00,000 and Defendant B.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles and offering of bribery (hereinafter “the instant forest”) are divided into 1,322 square meters of P forest land, Q21 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and 1,322 square meters of L forest land and 492 square meters of R2 forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest land” in totaling P and Q2 forest”), and selling the instant forest land in KRW 42 million to Defendant B, with reasonable compensation, is a justifiable transaction accompanied by a reasonable price, and thus, it does not give or accept a bribe inasmuch as there is no compensation relationship between the relevant trade and Defendant B’s duty.
In addition, the "Z" group of X middle school graduates is the actual purchaser, and Defendant B merely is the title trustee, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B, who did not have the right to the transaction object, has acquired a bribe.
Article 25-2 subparag. 1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act permits the diversion of a mountainous district to be carried out after obtaining permission for the diversion of a mountainous district for the purpose of installing a cycle in fact on the forest 9,935 square meters and N Forest 25 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the site of this case”) in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act (Defendant A, D Co., Ltd.).
It is not a collection of soil and stones in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, since it is used in the course of construction works.
In cases of filing an application for extension of the period of permission for mountainous district conversion (Defendant C), permission was ordinarily conducted unless there is a special reason. In practice, in the application for restoration design, the first permission is not examined. Despite the business trip, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) did not recognize that it was abused the period of permission for mountainous district conversion for the main purpose of collecting earth and rocks, rather than the installation of a cycle. Thus, it is not easy for Defendant D Co., Ltd.