beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
(b)that the representative who attends the meeting of the occupants has a duty of confidentiality to keep the statement that the defendant has special relations with the victim or was at the meeting of the occupants confidential to the extent that the defendant does not transmit the statement to any other person;
It is also difficult to see it.
(c)
The Defendant alleged to the effect that the message sent by him is in the form of “interpellation” and “* A” cannot be deemed as a statement of specific facts. However, as pointed out by the lower court, in view of the fact that the same representative among the recipients of the text message sent by him was the one who made a statement on September 24, 2013 as indicated in the Defendant’s facts charged, it can be recognized that the Defendant requested rebates to the effect that most of the recipients of the text message sent by him was “*” and that the Defendant required rebates to the business owner for the purpose of asking questions related to the victim’s corruption. In light of the context of the Defendant’s speech and text message on September 24, 2013, it appears that the phrase “the portion that the Director of the Crue D Management Office requested * some of the former and present representatives that the Defendant requested * was not a person who made a request for rebates to the business owner for the purpose of asking questions related to the victim’s corruption.”
(d)
Although the Defendant changed to the purport that there was no attachment of the documents written in the facts charged on the bulletin board of occupants in the elevator, the fact that he prepared the documents itself is recognized (the 89th page of the evidence record). According to the visual image of the Sindi ( CDA and evidence No. 44) containing the images taken inside the elevator at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s attachment of the documents on the bulletin board of occupants in the elevator is confirmed, and according to the I’s police statement, the Defendant appears to have prepared the documents on the bulletin board (Evidence No. 42 and I).