특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed by the defendant was based on the planned access of D, etc. to the defendant, that the fairness of business was not infringed due to acceptance of bribe, that part of the bribe received was returned, that was recognized as a whole, and that there was no previous conviction, etc., the detention period in the workhouse of the punishment of this case (the total amount of KRW 800,000,000,000,000 for KRW 260,000 was converted as one day) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
When considering the financial situation of the defendant, the amount of the fine sentenced to the defendant is likely to be detained in the workhouse during the period of the recovery.
However, on the basis of the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate range, taking into account the factors that are conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court.