뇌물수수
[Defendant A] All appeals against Defendant A and the Prosecutor A are dismissed.
[Defendant B] Of the judgment of the court below
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the prosecutor against Defendant A are as follows: (a) The money received from Defendant A from the above Defendant B does not have business relationship with the borrowed money.
B) The lower court’s sentence (2 years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, 15 million won of fine, community service, 120 hours of penalty, and additional collection) is too unreasonable. (2) The lower court determined that the amount the Defendant A received from the Defendant C does not have a duty relationship. However, according to the lawful evidence in the instant case, it is sufficient to recognize a duty relationship. (b) The lower court’s sentence is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s appeal ground 1) The above A.1(a)(2) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant C is with merit.
(ii)as referred to in (a).
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the duty relationship of the money delivered by Defendant B, the money delivered by Defendant B to Defendant A is deemed to have a duty relationship. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant A and B is without merit.
Defendant
A was first aware of Defendant B’s introduction from E-gu Q, a police officer, around early 2008. As such, Defendant A did not form a personal relationship and a trust relationship as much as Defendant A and Defendant B paid a certain amount of money without any consideration between Defendant A and Defendant B until March 23, 2009.
B. In relation to Defendant A’s KRW 2 million received around March 23, 2009, Defendant B requested an investigation with Defendant B to investigate that there was loan funds related to the Vriet projects promoted by Defendant A or the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office”) around October 2008 or around November 2008. Defendant A reported this to the public prosecutor of Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office.
(Evidence Records 1935 pages). (2) At the time of reporting.