logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.10.24 2018노214
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The organization of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) was divided into the planning and management headquarters and the technical headquarters at the time of committing the instant crime, but the new renewable energy supply certificate (hereinafter “REC”), which is the weak in English, takes charge of the new renewable energy team belonging to the new growth business entity under the planning and management headquarters, and is irrelevant to the Defendant’s business, the head of the technology headquarters, and thus, the Defendant received money and valuables in relation to the instant purchase.

Even if there is a duty relationship

The acceptance of bribe does not constitute the acceptance of bribe.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of three years and the fine of 50 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the duties in bribery include not only the duties under the law, but also the duties closely related to the duties, customs or actual duties under the jurisdiction of the public official, and the duties to assist or influence the decision-making authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13584, Dec. 23, 2010, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the organization B was divided into the planning and management headquarters and the technical headquarters at the time of the crime in this case was recognized, and that the new renewable energy team belonging to the planning and management headquarters was in charge of the purchase of REC at the new growth project headquarters. However, in full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances revealed by the duly adopted evidence by the court below and the trial court, the purchase of B in this case is closely related to the duties of the defendant, who is the technology head of the above company, or is closely related to the duties of the defendant.

arrow