beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the non-guilty part in relation to the acceptance of bribe from F, shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Of the money listed in the annexed Table 1, 2, 4, and 7, Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the money listed in the annexed Table 1, 2, 4, and 7 (hereinafter “instant money”).
(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant was merely a money actually borrowed from O and there was no relevance to duties. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acceptance of bribe, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 50 million, and a surcharge of KRW 54 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the business relationship on the ground that it is difficult for theO to recognize the business relationship, since the Defendant introduced the Ndong to the O on October 20, 2010 by mistake of facts (not guilty part) by O on the part of 1,000 won, on the grounds that it is closely connected with the Defendant’s duties beyond personal friendship, and that it is difficult for the O to recognize the business relationship. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B) As to KRW 300,00 and KRW 450,00 received from O on August 29, 2011, and KRW 450,00 from May 27, 2012, the Defendant’s meeting expenses of KRW 898,00 in total, and KRW 915,00 in total, KRW 9,00 in expenses for the group expenses of KRW 915,00 in total, and KRW 2.50,00 in each person, if four persons are shared, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of all this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that all of the meeting expenses received fromO on August 29, 201 and KRW 450,000 in total, which were paid on May 27, 2012, on the ground that it was affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.