beta
Text
The judgment below
The parts against Defendant A, B, and C and the guilty part against Defendant D shall be reversed respectively.
Defendant .
Reasons
I. Determination as to Defendant A
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A);
A. It is true that Defendant A received a total of KRW 100 million ( KRW 30 million KRW 30 million) from Defendant C, on three occasions, in which the assertion of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and omission of judgment was made.
However, Defendant A’s second received KRW 30 million for delivery to Defendant B upon Defendant C’s request. In fact, Defendant A delivered KRW 24 million on the day of receipt of KRW 30 million to Defendant B as it is.
Ultimately, Defendant A did not have the intent to obtain the above KRW 30 million, and thus, the crime of acquiring third-party Bribe can only be established, and the crime of acceptance of bribe cannot be established.
Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that Defendant A received a total of KRW 100 million bribe from Defendant C three times, including this part of the facts charged, and applied Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements of the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of acquisition of third-party brain, thereby omitting judgment as to the establishment of the crime of acquisition of third-party brain, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (five years of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 100 million, additional collection of KRW 80 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and omission of judgment, Defendant A’s 30 million won received by Defendant C second from Defendant C on February 2010 (in the case of a corporation for convenience, the part of “stock company” among its corporate name is not stated separately) and its affiliate company (hereinafter “BN”).