특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and a fine of 19,00,000 won.
The defendant above.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles were not received from K from K on September 12, 2013 (attached Table 3) and KRW 5 million (Attachment 500,000,000 for the first time in January 2014). Defendant received KRW 100,000 for the first time in September 2014, and did not receive KRW 3 million in cash (Attachment 8) for the first time in February 2015. Defendant did not receive KRW 50,000 for the first time in KRW 200,000 for the gift certificates (attached Table 9).
In addition, in May 2014, Police Officers KRW 1,00,00 (Attachment Nos. 7 of the same Act) received as supporting money for sports events, and in February 2015, gift vouchers 9 of the first half of 2015 (Attachment Nos. 9 of the same Act) received as a gift gift after changing the position to the F Management Minister, there is no relation to duties.
Nevertheless, the defendant received the above money or merchandise coupon in relation to F's duties.
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.
2) In light of the fact that the criminal defendant acquired more than 18 million won and delivered half of them to the M Team leader, the amount of personal gain is limited to KRW 9 million, and that there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, etc., the sentence of the court below (the amount of imprisonment of two years and fine of KRW 29 million, additional collection of KRW 29 million) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the consistent statement made by K as well as the details of transactions supporting the contents and support of the daily table, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from K on September 16, 2013.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to recognize this part of the fact.
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) In light of the fact that the criminal defendant, who was found to have received a bribe in a considerable amount for one year and six months, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts