beta
Text
All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to Defendant A1’s offering of a bribe, even if Defendant A did not offer entertainment to Defendant C for solicitation, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the relevant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts charged.
2) The sentence (4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A on the charge of fraud is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C1) The lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged that Defendant C accepted a bribe, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant C (a punishment of four months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of one year, a fine of one million won, and an additional collection of KRW 477,500) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. (1) As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of bribery is a public official’s process in the performance of duties, social trust in the performance of duties, and the purchase of the act of official duty, and there is no need to make a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received, as it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act.
In addition, it is sufficient that one money and valuables have been received in relation to his duties, and there is no need for an individual act and a quid pro quo relationship, and when a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his duties, it cannot be deemed that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as the case where it is deemed that it is merely an equivalent price in light of social norms, or it is clearly recognized that it is due to the demand for the division of society, and if a public official received money and valuables in relation to his duties, he received money and valuables in relation to his duties.