beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment on Defendant B’s financial transaction part under the name of another person from November 6, 2014 to November 17, 2014 among the facts charged regarding Defendant B’s violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy with respect to the Defendant, and acquitted Defendant B on the grounds of the judgment, and found Defendant B guilty on the remaining period of the comprehensive crime. The prosecutor appealed on the aforementioned conviction portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and did not appeal on the acquittal portion of the aforementioned grounds.
Therefore, although the above acquittal portion of the reasoning was transferred to this court in accordance with the principle of no appeal, it shall be deemed that it was out of the object of public defense between the parties. Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed and it shall not be judged again.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The performance agreement stating that H shall pay 2,000 square meters of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to B as to the promise of bribe does not have been made in return for entering into an entrustment contract related to the execution of the D Project (hereinafter “instant project”).
In addition, since the above performance agreement is retroactively null and void because it did not go through a resolution of the board of directors or the general meeting of the E Union (hereinafter “instant association”), it cannot be deemed that the defendant has promised to accept a bribe finally.
B) As to the occupational breach of trust in relation to the payment of benefits, B did not intend to continue to work as remuneration without compensation, but only decided to work as remuneration without compensation until the executor enters into the executor, it does not constitute occupational breach of trust. (C) As to the occupational breach of trust in relation to the repayment of debts and the lending of money, the Defendant paid the penalty amount to B, while allowing the Defendant to transfer KRW 25 million from the partnership account.