2012No766 Receipt of Misappropriation

A person shall be appointed.

Both parties

Fili Kim-seop (Lawsuits) and J. J. (Court Decision)

Law Firm Accompanying, Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Ma2857 Decided November 1, 2012

March 22, 2013

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of delay of execution in August) is too unreasonable.

(b) A prosecutor;

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

The defendant, as the representative director of the supplier company B (hereinafter referred to as "B") of the supplier company B (hereinafter referred to as "B"), has enjoyed benefits such as entering into a supply contract with the employees by increasing the amount of money and receiving conveniences for their business. The crime is not limited to infringing upon the non-purchase and fairness of the business affairs of the public corporation B, and the crime is likely to cause serious danger to the safety of a nuclear power plant by starting the defective product or undermining the desire for the development of the product through competition of the public corporation in the course of supplying more than the amount of money provided, and thereby, undermining the desire for the development of the product through competition of the public corporation.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not go against the customs duty of receiving money or goods. Therefore, there is no other punishment force than the punishment force of the Defendant, including the above punishment force of the Defendant, other than the punishment force of the three times, and there is no other punishment force except for the punishment force of the Defendant. In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, who is an employee B, was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million due to the Defendant’s increased criminal facts of KRW 29,250,000,00, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 200,000,00 to the B employee on March 2, 2012, it appears that the Defendant, who is in a position of transaction heat, would not have been easy for the Defendant to comply with the flexible order of receiving money or goods by the employees. Considering that the Defendant’s aforementioned punishment force including the Defendant’s above, there is no other punishment force of the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s total confession, depth and nature of the Defendant’s environment, etc., the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable or unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Dong-young

Judges Kim Jong-jin

Judges Sung-man