변호사법위반등
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.
[Defendant A] Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants 1) Defendant A: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment and additional collection 266,566,680 won) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2) The misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) from P, and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not receive from P a request related to the examination of disability rating of an industrial-related patient, or received from P a total of KRW 37.5 million in total, such as B/L, as in the case of B/L, a list of crimes.
Of Q’s statement (the part that Q Q’s statement was made from P (the part that the Defendant paid a Vietnam cruise payment to the Defendant) is admissible as evidence to be proved that the original statement was made in a particularly reliable state through a professional statement. However, the lower court acknowledged the unique condition solely with the probability.
The remaining statements of Q cannot be trusted, and the facts charged cannot be found solely with other evidence.
(2) There is no relationship between the receipt of gold and the performance of a duty.
(3) Even if the Defendant received KRW 37.5 million from P
The amount of KRW 10 million was borne by P against the defendant
It should be deemed that the payment was made under the pretext of performing the obligation of KRW 10 million on August 21, 2017.
Article 2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is less than KRW 30 million, is not only applicable to Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, but also Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act. Since a public prosecution was instituted for more than seven years, this part of the public prosecution was completed.
B) The lower court’s joint Defendant D’s misunderstanding of the fact regarding acceptance of bribe (1) the Defendant did not receive or accept a bribe from D in connection with the examination of the grade of disability of the industrial accident-related patient.
(2) There is no relationship between the receipt of gold and the performance of a duty.
(c).