beta
Text
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 7,00,000 won, and by imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that Defendant A (unfair sentencing) recognized Defendant A’s mistake and reflects it, the degree of participation in the crime is passive and insignificant due to Q’s solicitation, the amount paid to Q was known to Q as the premium for a single floor that obtains the right to operate an O apartment childcare center, the fact that Defendant A faithfully operated the childcare center and received the certification for an excellent childcare center, and that Defendant A was the first offender, the lower court’s punishment (amount to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B 1) As to the receipt of a breach of trust, Defendant B, the president of the occupants’ representative meeting, is not in the position of a person who administers another’s business, regardless of the occupants’ representative meeting, since the duties to select the operator of the O apartment childcare center are duties of the managing body.
In addition, the direct evidence that the defendant B received KRW 55 million is the only statement of the N, and N's statement is not inconsistent with the monetary content, and there is no credibility, such as there is a record of conversation contents inconsistent with the statement contents.
On the other hand, Defendant B did an act that cannot be seen as an act of a person in receipt of illegal solicitation, such as revising the public notice written by P and not adopting the marking slip.
In such a situation, without objective data, Defendant B was issued KRW 5 million upon receiving illegal solicitation from N in relation to his/her duties by reliance only on N’s statements that conflict with those of Defendant B’s interests.
The lower court, which determined the person, erred by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts.
B) As to the obstruction of tendering, Defendant B was unaware of the fact that T was a bidder, and the notice of bid bid from the management S was amended, and the marking slip was not adopted, and did not participate in the crime of interference with tendering.
Nevertheless, the defendant is in collusion with P, N, S, etc. to select the operator of the O apartment childcare center.