beta
Text
Defendant
Appeal of A, B, E, and F and Prosecutor’s Defendant A, B, C, D, and E are dismissed, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery), the Defendant did not receive the money set forth in Nos. 1, 13, 15, and 16 of the attached Table 1 list of crimes from B.
The remaining money received by the defendant from B (the statement 1, 13, 15, and 16 excluding the sequence 1, 13, 15, and 16 of the crime sight table) is not a bribe but a profit distributed by the defendant while engaging in the business with B.
B) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, the Defendant’s money received from B is not a bribe, and thus does not constitute criminal proceeds.
Even if it falls under criminal proceeds, the above money was deposited into the borrowed account and concealed criminal proceeds.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (limited to 8 years of imprisonment and fine of 380,000,000) is too unreasonable.
B. Each sentence of Defendant B, Defendant E, and Defendant F Co., Ltd. (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (each of Defendant B’s imprisonment with labor for three years, Defendant E and Defendant F’s respective fines of KRW 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1), Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust, and Defendant C’s occupational breach of trust against Defendant C’s victim OO project team (hereinafter “EM”), 2, park landscaping work in collusion between Defendant A and Defendant C, and her contract for construction by lending the name of BB. In fact, Defendant A employed Defendant A and carried out construction work. In fact, Defendant A had EM pay the construction cost directly to BD through X by issuing false tax statements. EM paid the construction cost or the amount of money that is not paid due to Defendant A’s occupational breach of duties.