특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has not received 30 million won as stated in the facts charged by the J.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for determining the credibility of statements in the crime of mistake and bribery acceptance.
In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from J on August 17, 201 with respect to the duties of the president of an association.
1) The J has a motive to give a bribe to the Defendant to conclude a contract for removal works.
2) There is credibility in the J’s statement.
A) There is credibility in the J’s statement on the circumstance of giving money to the Defendant.
(1) The Defendant’s statements are consistent with the J as to major parts, such as the time, place and method of the Defendant’s demand to the J for money, the time and method of the J to pay money to the Defendant; and the reason why the J only KRW 30 million was given to the Defendant.
(2) Unless the J does specifically specify the location of the place where the money was paid, and at the time of the receipt of money by the Defendant, at the time of the receipt of money.
on the basis of the empirical rule, the statement was made in an exceptional manner, and was demanded to pay money “after concluding a removal contract.”
Although the statement was made in contradiction with objective facts, such circumstance alone does not lead to the lack of credibility in the payment of money and the principal statement of the J on the time of the statement.
(3) The J provided money to the Defendant at the risk of adding the criminal facts of the crime for which bribe was given.
There is no reason to make a false statement.
B) The J’s statement on the content and the process of setting up the work log is reliable.
(1) Since the year 2008 in which the J had been in charge of H’s operations, it prepared a work log stating the main contents of the H’s operations. On August 17, 2011, the J stated that “3. F. F. F. F. F. F. L. director hostings: (a) delivery to the president of the Association ( 50,000,000)”.
(2) J is only 50 million won from the Defendant.