beta
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2015.04.07 2014노276

자동차관리법위반등

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by B, C, D and Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s ground of appeal 1) In the absence of any false chassis number or false vehicle number registration, and there is no relevance to duties or quid pro quo in light of the circumstances leading up to the Philippines, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of writing, events, and acceptance of bribe on the grounds of the above facts, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C and D’s grounds for appeal are 1) a model that permits a premium increase regardless of supply standards, regardless of the sequence 3 of the annexed crime sight list 55 No. 3, which is irrelevant to the instant crime. Although Defendant C had not used unlawful methods in the process of raising a premium, the lower court rendered a conviction against the Defendant, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant C: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 year of suspended sentence, and 8 million won of fine) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant A’s appeal ground of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) 348,071,20 won, which Defendant A provided to Defendant B, is not a bribe related to his duties, but an internal distribution of the profits gained from the crime, and thus, Defendant A’s offering of a bribe and Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the brain water and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds Concealment), although the lower court acquitted each of the Defendants as to the charge of violating the Trucking Transport Business Act or the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants distributed the profits gained from the crime internally, and thus, the above