특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. Recognizing the fact that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from Co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the lower court (hereinafter “A”), it is merely borrowed for the preparation of election expenses on or around April 2010, and on August 6, 2009, it is not a bribe, nor a bribe to duties, since it is not a bribe, nor a bribe, since it is not a bribe for any solicitation related to various authorization and permission of the H Area Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant Partnership”).
A’s statement, the only evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, is not reliable, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant committed a crime with only the remaining evidence, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant committed a crime.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of six years, the fine of one hundred million won, and the additional collection of KRW 100 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant could accept KRW 100 million as a bribe in return for a solicitation related to the authorization and permission of the instant association from A around August 6, 2009, based on the following facts and circumstances, which were comprehensively admitted as a whole based on the adopted evidence:
1) The prosecutor’s office and the court below’s statements are consistent and specific, and their credibility may be recognized in light of the following circumstances. 2) J also stated in the prosecutor’s office that “A sent cash of KRW 100 million to A at the request of A on August 6, 2009, and, at the same time, I attempted to give money to the Defendant at the time.”
3. On October 22, 2008, the Defendant participated in the inaugural general meeting of the instant union, and through WW, the general secretary of the instant union.