beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) did not receive money and valuables from K two times in cash around September 7, 2012 and April 2013, 2013, respectively, as stated in the lower judgment.
The O’s statement that he received a substitute bag containing money from K and delivered it to the Defendant two times at the Korea Railroad Construction Headquarters L office at the Korea Railroad Corporation L, is not reliable, and the prosecutor’s investigation of I (hereinafter “I”) of the corporation I (hereinafter “I”) conducted a bribe against the Defendant who was boomed.
The statement of K also stated is not reliable.
B) Although the Defendant related to the receipt of KRW 5 million in cash on November 2, 2012, 201, offered meals from Qu’s house only O and K, there was no fact that he received KRW 5 million from K.
First of all, when there is a difference between the defendant and the defendant, K's statement that he puts a bag containing money into the defendant's house when there is a difference between the defendant and the defendant, there is no credibility.
2) misunderstanding of the legal principles, even if the Defendant received money from K
However, M Corporation has already entered into a contract with the contractor and completed the design, and the construction method has also become final and conclusive, and Nridge Corporation also has completed the design after deliberation by the designer, so only F is not at a location that the defendant, who is only F, did not participate in the above two works and did not have convenience in I.
Therefore, since K has no reason or need to make a solicitation to the defendant through theO, there is a duty relation or a quid pro quo in receiving money and valuables.
subsection (b) of this section.
3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 15 million won of fine, 13 million won of penalty) 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 misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, cash is respectively made on September 7, 2012 and around April 2013.