beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The primary charges of this case and ancillary charges.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was not an officer or employee of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the management entity specialized in improvement projects, and the amount received from M is either a loan or an investment, not a bribe.
B. Article 84 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is deemed an executive or employee of a rearrangement project management contractor as a public official in the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act. The term “executive or employee of a rearrangement project management contractor” as provided in the above Article 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act is sufficiently unconstitutional against the principle of clarity without the principle of no punishment without the law, and Article 2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Special Act”) is subject to aggravated punishment on the amount of a person who commits a crime under Article 129 of the Criminal Act. If the above provision applies to an executive or employee of a rearrangement project management contractor
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor maintains the facts of the violation of the previous Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with respect to the defendant, and subsequently, the prosecutor files an application for changes in the indictment with respect to adding each of the ancillary charges stated in the attached Form "Article 2 (1) 1 and Article 129 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 84 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 134 of the Criminal Act, and Article 334 (1)
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the above argument of the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court.