beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the defendant (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), 1) mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the amount that the defendant was returned from H, I, and water musicians, etc. is voluntary and justifiable donations, the E Association's application for government subsidies, etc. was lawfully processed in accordance with the relevant regulations and procedures, and the defendant did not have intention to embezzlement, the court below convicted him of the violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of the Budget and Subsidies for Occupational Embezzlement and Subsidy. 2) In light of the fact that the defendant was returned from unfair sentencing, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, or misunderstanding of the legal principles, and used the money as the operating expenses of the Association, etc., it is unfair that the
B. It is recognized that the defendant, who has a de facto right to recommend Mag, a government reward (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below) received the money as stated in the facts charged from W and AB in relation to the recommendation. This shall be deemed as the money received under the pretext of mediating the public official in charge of cases and
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.
2. Determination
A. Before the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio decision on the guilty part of the judgment of the court below due to the changes in the indictment 1, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to 1-A or D, and the following criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below. This court permitted this, thereby changing the subject of the judgment on occupational embezzlement against the defendant. In addition, this part of the facts charged and the remainder of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.