특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) According to the misunderstanding of facts (the fact of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) D’s reliable statements, the Defendant is E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).
(2) While recognizing that a bribe of KRW 45,817,00 has been accepted from the Defendant, the lower court rejected D’s statement without any reasonable reason and rendered a not guilty verdict on the part of the facts charged, which was brought in by the Defendant’s statement without credibility, of KRW 20,000,000, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years, a fine of KRW 52,00,000) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court of unfair sentencing (
B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the acceptance of bribe) Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) through D.
() From September 12, 2016, KRW 17,00,000, and KRW 9,050,000 were received from each other on or around December 15, 2016. However, the duty to conclude supply contracts with G was not a duty in charge of the Defendant, and was not a duty to be in charge in the future, and the Defendant was not a position that could affect V, and the Defendant’s statement made to the investigation agency that there was an enemy who delivered G-related carbs toV was not a false statement. Thus, this part of the money and valuables was not a duty relationship or a quid pro quo. 2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts reveals that the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 25,817,00 from E, but it is difficult to believe the part of D’s statement that “the Defendant provided money exceeding the amount of withdrawal on the port” as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant received the bribe of KRW 45,817,000 from E, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant received the bribe of KRW 25,817,00 from E.