특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fines of 25,00,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts, ① Defendant D merely received money from A while introducing or recommending A to a trial with the authority to select a removal company in relation to the removal of X-type reconstruction project, and did not have any influence or pressure on the selection of the removal company.
Therefore, Defendant D’s receipt of money from Defendant D does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) since it cannot be deemed that a person who administers another’s business acquires property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties or who is deemed a public official receives bribe in connection with his/her duties
② In relation to the selection of a designer of an AI reconstruction project, Defendant D only introduced Defendant E to participate in a competitive bidding and received money at the expense of obtaining information, and Defendant D’s business scope is entirely related to the selection of a designer of a reconstruction project.
Therefore, Defendant D’s receipt of money from Defendant E by the representative director of AR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AR”) who is a building design company cannot be deemed as acquiring property in exchange for an illegal solicitation regarding his/her duties, and thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant D (a punishment of 4 years of imprisonment, fine of 60 million won, additional collection of 245 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, ① Defendant E does not provide money or goods to Defendant D under the pretext of an illegal solicitation regarding design acceptance, but rather does not leave the relationship with Defendant D with Defendant D in a state of continuous unfair interference and verbal abuse, etc.