logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2013.04.17 2012노203
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months and by a fine of thirty million won.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 2006, in relation to the acceptance of a prior bribery amounting to KRW 50 million, Defendant A (the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) around May 2006, Defendant A (the 50 million won) stated that S would be granted political funds, and the payment date of subsidies was not recognized as the object of solicitation. The prompt payment of subsidies is not subject to solicitation. ② The request for administrative and financial convenience in the process of the completion and transfer of the company is not clearly specified, and ② the request for the provision of administrative and financial convenience in the process of the company transfer is not clearly specified. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty, even though it cannot be a specific solicitation for the crime of prior acceptance of bribery. 2) In relation to the receipt of a prior bribery amounting to KRW 10 million,000,0000,000,0000,000 won, the Defendant did not receive the above money in return for the sale of the site and the redemption of subsidies.

3) With respect to the acceptance of a bribe of KRW 30 million on October 15, 2007, the court below found the defendant guilty even though he was found guilty of the fact that he borrowed KRW 2.5 million from C, and the defendant did not receive KRW 30 million from C as a bribe but borrowed KRW 30 million from C, the court below found the credibility of C's statement in relation to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. Regarding the acceptance of a bribe of KRW 30 million on October 15, 2007, the Defendant merely borrowed KRW 30 million from C, and the Defendant did not deliver money to Defendant A upon the request of Defendant A upon receiving a successful bid at the final sewage treatment plant tender.

arrow