특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below on April 25, 2016, No. 8, 9 attached to the crime sight table 8, 9
4. 27. 27. 2,000,000 Won and 47,000,000 won are borrowed from I and not accepted as a bribe by the defendant.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that this part was also accepted as
(A) The defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the divulgence of official secrets, but this part of his claim was withdrawn on the first trial date).
Imprisonment with labor and fine of 80,00,000 won, additional collection of 77,750,000 won, etc.) imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of facts, the issue of whether or not the consignee actually borrows the money when the consignee accepts the money from the accepter but instead borrows the money from the accepter shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, circumstance of delivery, and method of receiving the money from the accepter, the relationship between the accepter and the accepter, his position and occupation, and career, the necessity of the borrower and the possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter, the amount of borrowing and the amount of borrowing, the economic situation of the accepter and the amount of borrowing, the amount of financing, the amount of financing, the existence of security, the payment period and interest agreement related to the accepter, the possibility of compulsory execution, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4386, Sept. 30, 2010; 2012Do6280, Aug. 30, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant, a police officer, are equal to each month when it is difficult from the I operating the sexual traffic arrangement site.