beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and with respect to the first crime in the judgment of Defendant B, one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (De facto mistake) only introduced B to the victim, and did not have been involved in the issue of permission for the establishment of a kindergarten.
It was true that the defendant received KRW 48 million from the victim, but it was only the victim's request to deliver the above money to B and comply with it.
B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the court below's sentence (the defendant A: 3 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service work, 48 million won additional collection, 3 years of suspended execution in 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution in 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, and 3 years of suspended execution in 6 months of imprisonment, 120 hours of community service, and 8 million won of additional collection in 2 months of imprisonment) is too unafford.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. The victimJ stated in the court of original instance that “Defendant A well knows that it will assist the public officials of the high-sea viewing.” The victimJ stated in the court of original instance that Defendant A would have been in cash 48 million won since it told that it would obtain the authorization of a kindergarten in the same place as K. It would be said that Defendant A would obtain the authorization of a kindergarten on the land within Green belt, and that Defendant A would have said to have called “the value of rice liquor should have been given to public officials on the basis of the fact that Defendant A would have called “the high-class 107, 108 of the trial record” (see Articles 107, 108 of the trial record). The witness Q of the original court stated that “A would have been assisted by Defendant A,” and that “A would have received the authorization of a kindergarten by the victim on behalf of the victim,” and that the victim stated that “A was 200,”.