beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
C Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months and fine of 60 million won, Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C (2016 Gohap 430, 430, misunderstanding of the facts) 1) did not arrange for K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) to be selected as a contractor for the housing redevelopment project implemented by the association of this case (hereinafter “instant association”) between Defendant A and B, and there was no conspiracy to receive money from K in return.
The substantial subject of the service related to the above redevelopment project is A and B, not the defendant, and the service related to the above redevelopment project is not included in the scope of the service related to the above redevelopment project.
In addition, K selected as a contractor of the above redevelopment project was made by efforts between A and B, and the defendant did not make any contribution to this, therefore, K has no reason to pay the defendant the price for the selection of the contractor.
2) As to the receipt of KRW 60 million for a check at the end of July 2009, the Defendant received KRW 60 million from A around the end of July 2009 as part of the Defendant’s payment for the amount that the Defendant lent KRW 50 million from January 1, 2008 to April 1, 2008, respectively, to A and B from January 1, 2008, and is not received as the consideration for the selection of the contractor.
The A’s statement on this part of the facts charged is not reliable.
3) With respect to the receipt of KRW 150 million in cash at the end of August 2009, the Defendant: (a) sought a loan that K would not pay to the instant association as soon as possible; (b) but (c) there is a little possibility to find it in K to urge K to pay it as soon as possible; (d) however, there is no need to find it in K to require K to arrange for the selection of a contractor and to raise the text of the loan.
The O's statements that correspond to this part of the facts charged are false, and are contrary to A and B's statements in important parts as well as credibility, and are contrary to the rule of experience.
In addition, among the statements of one N, the defendant's statement is introduced by the N.