beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 8 months, Defendant C’s imprisonment of 2 years and 50,000,00 won, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The main evidence of the charge of mistake of facts (Defendant C) (1) is that the defendant requested the payment of KRW 15 million, the remainder of the construction cost, from the U.S. U.S. store located in Ulsan-gu T around June 2010. A's statement is not consistent, as well as A's statement is not consistent, but A's statement is not reliable in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the construction cost was not 15 million won, but it appears that A made a statement on June 2010, and even though there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, the court below found A guilty of this part of the charge. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The main evidence of this part of the facts charged against A is the statement of A and P, and the statement of A and P is not consistent with the background leading up to the payment of KRW 7 million, and the statement of A and P on the timing and method of payment of KRW 7 million are not consistent, and it is difficult to credibility the statement of A and P, and the court below found guilty of this part of the facts charged without any other evidence to acknowledge it. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(3) In full view of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 25 million from D, but the Defendant gave D advice on the public law deemed to be the most superior among the waterworks improvement construction methods, and that there was no promise to receive construction orders, and that the Defendant’s successor, in relation to the “AB construction” of this case, the Defendant’s bid announcement under the premise of ERS construction methods, and participated in D’s acceptance orders, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges, even though there was no relation between the receipt of the above amount from D and the Defendant’s duties. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.