특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the statements of K and H are not somewhat consistent in detail in detail, the core part of the appeal that “the Defendant provided money and valuables to the Defendant to arrange for the business of book disinfection equipment” is consistent and reliable.
In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, such as the statement of K and H, and the remittance of KRW 20 million to the account under the name of M Co., Ltd. in which the Defendant was operating the name of the Defendant, and the issuance of electronic tax invoices under the name of business agency fees, etc., the Defendant may be recognized as having received money and valuables equivalent to KRW 20 million in return for the good faith of the Defendant, in return for soliciting H to supply books disinfection equipment to the government offices as stated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of K's statement and accepted the defendant's assertion and rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was a member of the National Assembly assistant from around 200 to around 2008; (b) from around May 201 to May 201, the Defendant was a person who was working for the head of a political party D D secretary; (c) from around 2004 to around 2005, there was a wide exchange between the education community figures and the education community figures; and (d) around August 201, the Defendant was urged to introduce the K to “from around 2001 to make it possible for the library disinfection business to be well available in the public book,” and the Defendant introduced to H through K several public institutions to supply the library disinfection equipment.
Before doing so, the Defendant requested that the business expense group be KRW 20 million and received KRW 20 million from the actual account in the name of M Co., Ltd. on August 24, 201, and received remittance of KRW 20 million to the account in the name of M Co., Ltd., the Defendant received remittance of KRW 20 million on the intermediation of matters belonging to the public official’s duties.
B. The lower court’s summary is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.