beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, for seven months, and for five months, for Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act) that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from I, L, or K, but this is not delivered to the police officer under the pretext of solicitation or good offices, but it was delivered to the Defendant C to receive an investigation on behalf of the accused I who was accused of fraud, and only was delivered to the Defendant C. It was an act of harboring the offender. (b) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (one hundred months, additional collection of KRW 15 million) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The respective sentences of the court below (the defendant B and the defendant C: the imprisonment of 8 months and the imprisonment of 6 months) are too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles were duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) in the prosecution: (a) “A person who was prosecuted for this case was given money to him to him; (b) M was directed by N, a police officer in charge of the investigation of the I case, and was working for N, who was working for N, a police officer in charge of the investigation of the I case; and (c) I was forced to undergo an investigation only once; and (d) to undergo an investigation for up to six months; and (e) requested KRW 140 million to be detained by Defendant C. First, the amount of KRW 15 million should be calculated as KRW 20 million; and (e) the remainder amount of KRW 20 million should be calculated as KRW 20 million should be calculated as KRW 10 million; and (e) M&A’s statement was not related to the above case at the police station’s end; and (e) M&A’s statement No. 2615.
The above prosecutorial statement was transferred from K to Defendant A and K, according to the above purport, and it was transferred to police officers M& and NC at the time.