(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.22 2014노3753 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.22 2014노3753

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)

Text

Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal of this case

A. Prosecutor: In light of the circumstances under the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, etc., Defendant A offered a bribe of KRW 100 million in total to Defendant B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) through F, and even if the fact that Defendant B, etc. received it is recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) As stated in the indictment as the date and time of the commission of the crime “as of July 2006,” the phrase “as of June 2006,” includes “as of July 7, 2006,” and recognizes the existence of KRW 100 million in all G, F, and Defendant A involved in the grant of the bribe. It may be the source of the instant bribe even if G withdrawn on June 29, 2006, and KRW 20 million, which was withdrawn on June 29, 2006. As such, it is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged is against objective facts or there is no proof solely on such facts.

2) From the time of the first investigation by the prosecution, F led to the confession of the fact of giving KRW 100 million, and on June 30, 2006, the facts of Defendant B, etc. are specific and clearly memoryed in Daejeon, and the F did not have any reason to dismiss Defendant B, etc., the F’s statement of offering of a bribe is highly reliable.

3) On the other hand, Defendant B reversed his statement over several occasions, and Defendant B’s assertion is difficult to believe that it was not intended to clarify the truth even if the contents and circumstances of the return were to be true, but it was intended not to punish subordinate employees, who are accomplices, or to conceal his criminal act.

4) G demanded that Defendant A be a case to the executive officer of the Daejeon District National Tax Service and set up cash KRW 100 million.

Defendant A stated as “,” and also Defendant B. through F, the amount of KRW 100 million received from G.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노3189

-대법원 2016.06.23 2016도3753

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2015.10.07 2015노226

-광주지방법원 2017.05.02 2016노2715

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2015.05.08 2014노208