beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for five years and by a fine of 65 million won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) , as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, there is no fact that Defendant
Defendant
A received KRW 50 million from D according to the direction of Defendant B, and all of them were delivered to Defendant B.
(B) Defendant A did not demand a bribe to U or accept a bribe with respect to the acceptance of bribe as stated in the judgment of the court below.
A person who received KRW 15 million from U is a subordinate public official.
(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 65 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentencing of Defendant C (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. (1) As to the preparation for murder in the judgment of the court below against the prosecutor (1) as to the defendant A, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant A committed an external act that could substantially contribute to the realization of the crime of murder with the intention of the preliminary homicide.
(B) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A on the grounds that it is too unjustifiable.
(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to Defendant B, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B instructed Defendant A to conclude a free contract for the construction work of P, and Defendant A received a bribe in collusion with Defendant A by delivery of KRW 50 million from D through Defendant A.
2. Determination on the appeal by Defendant A and the appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant A
A. (1) As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of the judgment of the court below, but the court below held that Defendant A solely 50 million won based on evidence duly adopted and investigated.