(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.15 2015노1539 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.15 2015노1539

일반교통방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding the facts is merely a receipt of KRW 5 million from Defendant B under the pretext of brokerage commission, not a receipt of a request from a public official in charge.

In addition, the defendants damaged the road portion of this case for the purpose of drainage and did not damage it for the purpose of obstructing the passage of the general public, so there is no intention to commit a general traffic obstruction against the defendants.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million; Defendant B: a prison term of KRW 4 million; a suspended sentence of KRW 1 year; and an additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by providing a detailed statement in the column of “determination on issues”. In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. There is no past record of criminal punishment or criminal punishment heavier than fine before the Defendants to determine the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, etc., which are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was received KRW 5 million under the pretext of solicitation and good offices with respect to the building permit case handled by the public officials by Defendant B, and the defendants conspired in collusion with the defendants to obstruct the traffic of the general public in a way that is equivalent to 70 cm in width and 1m in depth, and the crime of violation of the Act by attorney at bar is a serious crime that impairs the public trust in the affairs handled by the public officials.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노1004

-광주지방법원 2018.11.28 2018노2456

-대법원 1997. 12. 23. 선고 97도547 판결

-전주지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노1783

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.21 2017노409