beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant B is reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant
A. A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant A did not receive KRW 50 million from Defendant A, and Defendant A received KRW 40 million from D and delivered it to Defendant B’s mother-child A on behalf of Party B.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of receiving money from B and D is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
B) Defendant B did not provide KRW 50 million to Defendant A, and did not make an illegal solicitation to C.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged that the defendant provided money and valuables to A in relation to his duties and provided money and valuables to C, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
C) Although Defendant C received KRW 15 million from Defendant C, the Defendant did not receive an illegal solicitation.
2) On March 10, 2014, the Defendants’ E and F underground construction cost of KRW 990,000,000, N reply was sent to the Defendant’s Defendant, “Although K demanded an amount of 5,500,000 won other than that of KRW 5,500,000, K demanded upon consultation by the lender, the lender, etc., made a final agreement with KRW 1,90,000,000 and KRW 2,60,000,000,000,000.”
Thus, since the N’s “business and loan agreement,” which was formulated by the N around June 2012, and the “M” company (hereinafter “M”) concluded on September 18, 2012, was deemed to have been made at the stage of consultation with the Defendant B, the final agreed cost would be less than 4.8 billion won. Thus, even if the facts charged are sufficiently acceptable, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B) In full view of the Defendants’ statements, etc. in the name of N, AD, and AA and AC of non-title embezzlement in the draft written consent for the change of the design, Defendant B provided particular services to collect the written consent for the change of design.