특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Defendant (1) was based on a mistake of facts, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.
The Defendant received a estimate that the design cost of the remodeling construction work for the “EMoel” from the “K Building Office” is anticipated to be KRW 6 million, and the Defendant received KRW 6 million from the victim according to the above estimate before concluding the design contract for the alteration of use with H of the office H of the “G” and KRW 3 million, and the Defendant did not fraudulently conclude the said design contract and concluded the said design service cost with which the victim agreed to set the design service cost at KRW 3 million, and did not receive the said KRW 6 million from the victim.
(b) Subsponsive water: (a) the Defendant received KRW 22,50,00 from the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged; (b) the said money was paid again by the Defendant on behalf of the victim, whether the Defendant received the funds from the victim, such as the Eelur fire insurance premium, claims provisional seizure deposit and fees, attorney’s fees, and other charges; and (c) it was not received as a broker
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and additional collection of twenty thousand won) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court included a detailed statement on this part of the allegation, and (1) the Defendant, upon receiving an estimate from the K Architectural Office that the cost of design service for remodeling construction works for the “EM” would be required, concluded a design contract with H by setting the design service cost of KRW 3 million between H, but even in the said design contract, by deceiving the victim as if the said design service cost was set at KRW 6 million as stated in the above estimate, and (2) the Defendant prosecuted the victim as if the said design service cost was set at KRW 6 million.