beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant misunderstanding the fact that Defendant B would provide political funds on several occasions.
The decision of the court below that the defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from B, because he refused to pay 30 million due to the problem of the son's director, and he received 30 million from B.
However, in the trial, the above argument was withdrawn;
It is true that the court below recognized that the defendant first demanded money to B.
2) misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether to recognize occupational relations or to cancel the designation of buffer green areas is a matter belonging to the duties of the head of a local government, and is not a matter belonging to the duties of the local council members. Thus, 30 million won that the defendant received from B is not related to the duties of the chairman of the Standing Committee of the
In addition, the local council may recommend the head of the local government to cancel the determination of urban planning facilities (buffer green areas).
Even if the head of the local government is not bound by the above recommendation, so the local council can make the above recommendation.
Therefore, it cannot be viewed that occupational relations are recognized.
B) The Defendant, including whether a single crime is a single crime, received money and valuables not to accept a bribe in connection with his duties, but to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of another public official (head of local government). Even if it is not recognized that the act of arranging the entire portion received KRW 30 million is not recognized.
Even if it is clear that the portion received at least 10 million won (the crime No. 1-B of the judgment of the court below) constitutes the act of this good offices, the above part and the part received at least 20 million won (the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the court below) are separate criminal facts and are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that judged the total sum of KRW 30 million as a single comprehensive crime.
(iii)..