특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. Each judgment against the Defendants.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant A’s investment in Defendant C is the same birth of Defendant A.
B) Money paid by Defendant C is profits from investment, and Defendant A does not provide convenience in relation to his duties upon request by Defendant C.
C) On December 19, 2009, at the main point of AB, 1 Byung-ju paid the price by Defendant A.
D) Even if it is recognized as brain water, the portion equivalent to the consideration for investment must be deducted from the amount of the bribe.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of 4 years of imprisonment, a fine of 120,000,000 won, additional collection of 95,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.
B. The amount that Defendant B received by Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) is a legitimate investment profit and does not constitute a bribe since there is no relevance to duties.
B) Even if the money received by Defendant B falls under a bribe, profits which would normally be obtained from investment must be excluded from the amount of bribe.
(c)
Defendant
C1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The facts charged in the instant case are comprehensively and abstractly recorded, and thus, it cannot be specified whether Defendant C offered a bribe for any duties of Defendant A and B, thereby seriously hindering Defendant C’s exercise of the right of defense. Thus, the facts charged were specified.
shall not be deemed to exist.
B) The amount of money paid by Defendant C is earnings under the genuine investment agreement.
C) The amount paid by Defendant C is irrelevant to the duties of Defendant A and B.
(d)the ordinary benefits derived from investment should be excluded from the amount of the bribe.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Summary of the facts charged
A. On July 1, 2005, the head of the M police station investigation division and the head of the 2007 investigation division after promotion as Defendant A and B’s status.