특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of two years and six months and fine of 60,000.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of the grounds for appeal is examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal, even after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal expires.
A. Defendant A: Compared to mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing, Defendant A expressed “O” on the grounds of appeal filed by himself as of September 17, 2014, but stated that the part of the grounds for appeal among the grounds for appeal was withdrawn on the date of the first trial of the trial.
1) In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the name of the defendant is not indicated in each of the pertinent items and the name is referred to as the "defendant", and the above defendant is referred only to the name. The above facts did not have been provided by C with money or entertainment as stated in the crime sight table in the judgment below under the pretext of control over the game room operated by B. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (A) With regard to the admissibility of the third protocol of examination of suspect interrogation by the prosecution, the defendant, in relation to the admissibility of the evidence of the protocol of examination of suspect interrogation by the prosecutor, who was under detention investigation, was
B) With respect to the credibility of C’s statement, C’s statement that offered a bribe to the Defendant as stated in the instant facts charged is without credibility, in full view of the following: (a) C has long been engaged in a violent crime for a long time; (b) there is a high possibility that C had arbitrarily used said money; and (c) C’s statement on the circumstances at the time of delivery of KRW 5 million was not reliable in light of the empirical rule; and (b) in relation to B’s statement, C’s statement that offered a bribe as stated in the instant facts charged is without credibility.