beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the guilty part and the not guilty part, the part of attached Tables 4 and 5 shall be reversed.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: 1 of the misunderstanding of facts) Attached Table 2(B) of the List of Offenses E does not have received KRW 1 million in relation to F’s employment from E in early September 2008. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of E’s testimony without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The Defendant of Attached Table 7(7)(B) of the List of Offenses A, but returned a gift certificate from X, immediately after receiving KRW 500,00 from X, the Defendant returned it to X through theO.
Nevertheless, the court below found this portion guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
3) It was true that the Defendant received gift certificates from K upon S’s employment request. However, the amount was not KRW 2 million, but KRW 1 million. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the lower judgment. 4) The Defendant was not in receipt of KRW 3 million in cash from Q in relation to Q Q’s employment.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts.
5) The Defendant did not receive KRW 2 million in relation to H’s employment from P. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. (6) The gift certificates that the Defendant received from K in relation to Y employment are KRW 1 million in the gift certificates that the Defendant received from K in relation to Y employment, and the place in which the Defendant received was within the vehicle of K that returned to the Defendant under the medical treatment of the Seoul AM hospital, instead of the “cafeteria-type restaurant parking lot located in Songdo” as indicated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged.