특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months and by a fine not exceeding 77 million won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Progress of the instant lawsuit
A. The lower court found guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced 3 years and 6 months and 77 million won to L, on the following grounds: “The Defendant sent 50,000 won to the 50-years (500-years) as a result of the examination of design parts of the H Corporation’s construction structure and submitted it to the investigation agency to obtain a favorable evaluation from L on January 28, 201, and received 50,000 U.S. (50-years).” However, the lower court determined as follows: “As the Defendant returned 500-years (500) to L, and submitted it to the investigation agency for seizure, it cannot confiscate 500-years (500-years) seized by the Defendant or additionally collect 100-years (100) as above.”
B. The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against each judgment of the court below before remanding the case. The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against each judgment of the court below, and the Defendant did not understand the facts as the grounds for appeal. ① Since the Defendant did not recognize that only the above 50,000 U.S. had been delivered with respect to his duties, there was no intention to accept the bribe, and there was only no intention to obtain the said money as to the said money, since there was only
(2) Inasmuch as the Defendant was unaware of the fact that 50,000 percentage oil exists in the envelope received from L, the Criminal Act, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, should be applied to the Defendant.
(3) The Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of receipt of the above money.
(4) The Prosecutor alleged unfair sentencing, and argued that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for confiscation, which did not confiscate 50,000 articles seized by submitting L, which is a requisite accomplice, as the grounds for appeal. 2) The lower court prior to the remand of the case, alleged that the Defendant erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for confiscation, and 3. The lower court’s judgment