부정청탁및금품등수수의금지에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months, one year of suspended execution, and additional collection) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant has no criminal history; (b) the Defendant did not appear to have directly demanded money and valuables; and (c) the specific form of the crime was in favor of the Defendant that Co-Defendant B would be able to bring in money on the Defendant’s bank; (d) the instant crime was committed in violation of the legislative intent of the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Graft, etc., and thus, requires to prevent similar crimes; (b) the Defendant’s liability is sufficiently recognized by the evidence; and (c) the Defendant’s receipt of money and valuables is consistent with the doctrine that it is difficult to understand even if it is sufficiently recognized by the evidence; and (d) the amount of money and valuables is not
As seen above, the circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the defendant and his defense counsel in the trial seems to have been fully considered while the court below has determined the punishment.
No new circumstance can also be found to change the sentence of the court below in the trial.
In relation to this, although the defendant led to a crime in the court of first instance, it is doubtful whether the defendant is against the truth of the crime in light of the fact that the defendant has consistently been unable to obtain and return at an investigation agency despite the evident evidence, such as the judgment of the court below, and that the defendant has denied the crime, and therefore, it cannot be said that it constitutes a significant change in circumstances to inventory the punishment of the court below.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.