배임수재등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not make an illegal solicitation first against A, and only he requested A to use his superior status first and the Defendant responded to it.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case that the defendant made an illegal solicitation to A is erroneous and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of all circumstances, such as K and A’s statement in each investigation agency, the progress of the contract for the supply of the pre-life iron by the K and the defendant, it would be deemed that A first requested money in return for the supply to the defendant and the provision of contractual convenience.
However, the crime of taking property in breach of trust and taking property in breach of trust is established when money is received between the recipient and the recipient in return for the unlawful act that the recipient violates his/her duties. As seen above, if the defendant demanded money in return for the provision of delivery and contractual convenience to the defendant, and if the defendant paid money in return for the above convenience, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established. Of the recipient and the recipient of property, the first proposal is merely about the process of the crime.
Therefore, even if the facts charged are somewhat different from the facts, it does not interfere with the finding of guilt, so it cannot be viewed as a mistake affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the above argument by
B. Compared with the first instance judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.