beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and C Each fine of 1,500,000 won, Defendant B shall be punished by fine of 3,000.
Reasons
The lower court sentenced Defendant A and B to be acquitted and convicted of the remainder of the facts charged in the instant case.
Since only the Defendants appealed against the conviction portion, the acquittal portion that the Defendants and the Prosecutor did not appeal was separated and determined as it is.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.
Defendant A and Defendant C merely offered entertainment or money and valuables to Defendant B under the pretext of ordinary contact, and there was no illegal solicitation among the Defendants.
The sentence of the court below on the argument of unfair sentencing (Defendant A, C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, 2 years of suspended execution, 2,975,00 won in the imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The Defendants asserted that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical in the original judgment to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected all of the above arguments by providing a detailed statement on the allegations and judgments of the Defendants in the written judgment.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning closely compared with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is reasonable and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.
The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.
Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not against the nature of the crime by providing B with an unjust solicitation and entertainment in order to accept the re-contract with G.
These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, it seems that the defendant was performing the contract with G without interruption and requested USF to prevent the supply difference due to the change of the subcontractor in USF, so it is highly likely that the re-contract with F and G was concluded on July 2014 even without the defendant's request.
The defendant's entertainment offered is not the amount.