(Partially Accepted Bribery)

(b) Offering of bribe;

2.2.B

Attorney J J, BK

Attorney E (for the defendant A)

Law Firm BL (for Defendant A)

Attorney BM, BN

Law Firm F (Defendant B)

Attorney G

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant B is dismissed.

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant A merely borrowed KRW 250 million from J.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (limited to 8 years of imprisonment and 260 million won of fine, additional collection of 261,335,608 won) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (2016, 1053 case)

The Defendants continued the loan transaction and continued to extend the due date. There is no difference in that the legal evaluation of the profits acquired by Defendant A is an interest or a delay damages, regardless of whether it is a interest or a delay damages. The amount equivalent to the financial gains accrued until the date of the last due date, 2016, which is the date of due date, constitutes a bribe received by Defendant A.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment of 8 years and fine of 260 million won, additional collection of 261,335,608 won, Defendant B: fine of 5 million won) is too unfeasible.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) As to Defendant A’s assertion

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court recognized that Defendant A received KRW 250 million in total from J, not from the J, as a bribe. The specific reasons for its determination are as follows: ① Defendant A did not prepare a loan certificate from J but did not seem to have formed a private trust relationship with which Defendant A may borrow a large amount of KRW 2550 million in total with interest-free and non-security without payment due agreement; ② The J considers that the request to “a loan money” on the surface may be deemed to be a bribe in order to provide convenience in relation to L’s accusation case; on the premise that it would be sufficient to provide convenience in lending money, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had expressed a conclusive intent to lend money to Defendant A, or that Defendant A would have received subsequent repayment of money from Defendant A; ③ Defendant A did not return KRW 500,500,000 from the public official’s obligation at the time of reporting changes in property in February 2015, and Defendant J did not report only KRW 505,500,500,000 from the public official’s obligation.

B) Determination of this Court

The lower court rejected the same argument as in this part of the grounds for appeal. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant A received KRW 250,000 from J in connection with his/her duties, as stated in the lower judgment. ① Defendant A appeared at the former Public Prosecutor’s Office before the commencement of the investigation ( February 16, 2015), and provided the Defendant A with a prior explanation of the details of the complaint. Defendant A was aware that it was directly related to the implementation of the BO’s projects and the investigation of the instant case may have considerable influence on the implementation of the projects. In so doing, the lower court did not appear to have determined that “Defendant A was unable to receive money from the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office and investigator in charge of the instant case,” and that Defendant A did not appear to have received money from the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s office at the time of receiving the money from the Defendant at the time of the new establishment of an apartment plan, taking into account the economic situation of the Defendant.

2) As to the prosecutor’s assertion

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court acknowledged the fact that with respect to the money borrowed in 2014, the payment was made by the end of 2014, and with respect to the money borrowed in 2015, the payment was made by the end of 2015, and the payment was made by the end of 2015. The lower court determined that Defendant A’s payment period for the money borrowed in 2015 was determined by an agreement, and that there is no circumstance to deem that the agreement on the payment period is deemed invalid as the agreement on the payment period, and that there is no reason to deem it as invalid, the amount of bribe equivalent to the financial profit that Defendant A acquired by borrowing the money from Defendant B as interest free of interest shall be calculated as the legal interest under the Civil Act from the date of borrowing the money to the due date, and the financial profit after the due date shall not be deemed

B) Determination of this Court

In light of the record, the judgment of the court below which recognized that Defendant A had determined the due date as stated in the annexed Form No. 1 for calculating the amount of bribery when Defendant B borrowed money from Defendant B. In the event of borrowing interest-free money, the obligor would obtain the financial profit equivalent to the financial profit of the borrowed money before the due date for payment agreed, but the obligor would be obligated to return the borrowed money if the due date arrives, and the obligor will be obliged to pay damages for delay resulting from delay. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the interest equivalent to the financial profit of the borrowed money after the due date has been due. The damages for delay incurred after

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

1) The crime of Defendant A’s sentencing is likely to be criticized in that Defendant A, an prosecutory investigator, etc., received a large amount of bribe as a consideration for the provision of convenience in the course of investigation by the complainants of the case, etc., who are directly investigating the case, thereby impairing our society’s trust in the fairness and adequacy of the duties of judicial agencies related to criminal investigation. Such circumstances are unfavorable to Defendant A. There is no record of criminal punishment. Defendant A returned 20 million won out of the borrowed money to Defendant B. The court of this court decided to set up a pledge on the right to benefit held by Company B Q Q in the Korea Land Trust for the purpose of J. for the purpose of Defendant J. The J sawed Defendant A with the right to benefit held in the Korea Land Trust for the establishment of a pledge. This circumstance is favorable to Defendant A. In addition, considering all the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s age, character, environment, motive, motive, circumstance, means, and consequence of the crime; (b) Defendant A’s sentence is heavy.

Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

2) Defendant B’s sentencing acknowledged all of the crimes from the investigative agency. There is no history of punishment heavier than a fine. The amount loaned by Defendant B is reasonable, but the amount equivalent to the financial profit, which is the bribe value, is not much higher. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the pleadings, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence of the lower court against Defendant B is not somewhat weak.

This part of the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant A is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against the defendant A among the judgment below is reversed, and the appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant B is again decided as follows. Since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant B is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 3

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including the fact of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (1) at the time of sale, the selection of limited imprisonment and the concurrent imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (2) at the time of sale, including the fact of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (2), the selection of imprisonment and the concurrent imposition of fines

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes (only to the extent that the maximum term of the two crimes and the maximum amount thereof are aggregated) with the imprisonment and fine prescribed for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are heavier than the punishment of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the favorable circumstances in the preceding);

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that it constitutes Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by receiving a bribe equivalent to the financial gains of KRW 465 million from Defendant B, as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged by Defendant A.

2. Determination

As seen in the above 2. A. 2.B. as to this part, if there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict shall be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article, the judgment of

Judge Bargnmark

Judges Chang Sung