beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on each fraud and in no accusation against the victim D shall be reversed.
In this case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles about the victim C) fraud. ① Since C expressed an intention of revocation of complaint to an investigation agency in the past, the instant indictment is unlawful.
② On February 2, 2007, the Defendant: (a) was the first police officer of the E President candidate, was a simple relative with the E President candidate; (b) was a general manager of the Gyeonggi-gu election campaign; (c) was friendly with the circumstances of the I political authority; and (d) was unaware of the intent to create a public corporation’s officer position; and (c) did not receive KRW 21.2 million as the expense.
B) On February 28, 2008, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not deceiving the N to the effect that he managed the funds of the former president of L, as his son’s friendship, and that part of the borrowed account in which the funds are deposited, would be paid as honorariums, and that the Defendant did not issue a cashier’s check of KRW 50 million in the name of the expenses for withdrawing the borrowed account from N (However, the Defendant received the above cashier’s check from S on the same day, and only took a natural liability against S.
(C) On February 1, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment due to a crime of fraud and a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 27, 2013. However, even though punishment was aggravated pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act at the time, punishment as a repeated offense is aggravated, it constitutes double punishment and thus, it is unlawful to punish the instant case as a repeated offense.
② From June 2009 to December 2009, the Defendant did not induce D to obtain the right to supply earth and sand in relation to the Saemangeum Reclaimed Land through the development of the forest and land in Western-gun, Chungcheongnam-do as stated in the lower judgment, and did not receive KRW 20 million in total from D to June 2009, in terms of the cost of project promotion from June 2009 to December 2009.
(3)