beta
Text
Defendant
A The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one of the crimes described in A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ misunderstanding the facts of the prosecutor (1) did not receive money of KRW 3 million in return for solicitation or good offices from a third party in the middle on the pretext of delivering a bribe to the police officer who is the other party to the solicitation, but instead received money of KRW 3 million in return for solicitation or good offices. As such, the facts charged are guilty.
(2) The lower court omitted the necessary conviction against Defendant A. In light of the sentencing and light judgment.
(B) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unjustifiable.
Defendant
A: Imprisonment for 10 months: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 135 hours of community service
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
B. (1) The lower court rendered a judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, on or around June 2014, on the grounds that it is recognized that the referral client gave KRW 3 million to Defendant A around KRW 3 million, but such money cannot be deemed as a consideration for solicitation or mediation with respect to the affairs handled by the public official, and thus, acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged regarding the violation of the law by the attorney at bar.
(2) We do not agree with the judgment of the court below in light of the following reasons, such as (a) review of the above decision (a) and the following reasons.
In other words, according to the records, ① the Defendants mentioned first to the broker H that the Defendants would give money to the police officer, thereby making the opportunity for the occurrence of the instant case, and ② the amount and the counter-party to the solicitation are also known to the Defendants.
B. A. (1) In light of the fact that H made a statement at an investigative agency that “I would give money to the Defendants who are deemed to be a “public work” and received game control information, and that there was a quid pro quo. (2) In addition, H made a statement at an investigative agency and a court that “I would not see the “public work,” and that “I would not see it, and there was no police officer,” the use of the instant money of KRW 3 million was entirely carried on to the Defendants.