As a result of the prosecutor’s questioning about the facts charged that Defendant A and several persons jointly commit a crime, the judgment on Defendant C who did not have the effect of prosecution is erroneous.

As to the facts charged, “Defendant 7 and Defendant 9 delivered a bribe in collaboration with Defendant 4 and four other,” the lower court, which rendered a verdict of innocence on the ground that the prosecutor attempted to have the prosecutor’s seat on who is not designated as the Defendant, and misleads Defendant 2, who is not the person designated as the Defendant, to have the effect of giving a bribe, and that there is no evidence to prove that the part of the judgment was effective, shall not be exempted from reversal.

Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and eight others

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (18 High Court Decision 24588, 24589)

Of the judgment of the court below, only the part of innocence against Defendant 2 shall be reversed.

The prosecutor's appeal (excluding the defendant 2) and the defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Prosecutor’s Appeal

(1) The court below sentenced the remaining defendants, other than the defendants 2, to a stay of the execution of the punishment for 10 months to 1 year, respectively. This is unfair because the amount of the punishment is too unscheduled.

(2) Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the lower court rendered a judgment that found Defendant 2 not guilty of the charge of trusting Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 7, but did not indicate the same facts as the time of the original trial in the facts charged against the said Defendant. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the judgment on the facts for which the trial was not requested.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, 4, and 5 shall be as follows:

(1) The defendant et al. purchased housing sites, etc. at a low price as much as possible for the interest of the 600 generation residents of the 600 generation generation and building a healthy house as members of the committee for promotion of building sites and building a house in Seo-dong and Seo-dong. The defendant et al. provided money to Dong-in et al. as a honorarium for the interest of the 600 generation generation residents of the 600 generation generation and building a housing site in the Dong-dong Office. There was no fact that an individual embezzled, and even if there was no illegality from the appraisal of the price of the above housing site, the court below erred such fact and affected the judgment.

(2) Furthermore, the judgment of the court below on the defendant et al. is too unreasonable; and

3. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 3 and 7

The defendant et al. prepared the contract form for the non-land of this case formally in the Seoul City office housing and the housing of Yongsan-gu and it was conducted by the head of Yongsan-gu and the employees of the government and the employees of the government and the employees of the government and the employees of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which are superior officers of the defendant et al., so even if the defendant et al. received a certain amount of money, it is not related to his duties. The defendant et al. received a certain amount of money from his own will, and it is difficult for the defendant et al. to obtain the opportunity to return the money by the defendant et al., and the defendant et al. received a little assistance regardless of his duties. The defendant 7 was merely a friendly trend with the above defendant et al., which was returned after that fact, which affected the judgment by misunderstanding the above facts.

4. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 6

The Defendant, in cooperation with Defendant 4, 5, 1, etc., removed an unauthorized building as a member of the Yongsan-gu Committee for the Establishment of Housing Site and Construction of Housing, and served as a common interest of 600 households for the common interest of 600 households in accordance with the policy of the Si that the housing site is constructed in the Dong branch, and build a healthy housing site. At the time of the original adjudication, the Defendant offered a bribe to the relevant public officials in order to deny the appraisal of the site price of 2nd fact, but the Defendant was not aware of the fact at all, and the Defendant was merely a person who introduced the middle, but was merely a person who introduced the middle at the middle, the lower court affected the judgment by misunderstanding such fact, and further, the judgment of the lower court against

Therefore, according to the prosecutor's summary indictment as to the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the defendant 7 and the defendant 9 in the first instance court's summary indictment as to the non-guilty portion of the defendant 2 and the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below stated that the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below was given a bribe as stated in the facts in Articles 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, and 1. In the first instance court's judgment, the prosecutor designated only the defendant 7 and 9, and the defendant 2 was not designated as the defendant. However, although the court below's judgment was not designated as the defendant as to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the first day, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the prosecutor ordered the non-guilty part of the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the grounds that there was no proof as to this part of the indictment and the reasoning of the judgment below, and thus, it cannot be affirmed as to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court's judgment.

Next, in light of the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge facts at the time of the original trial, and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below in light of the records, and there is no way to find any error as if the arguments were pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and there is no reason to discuss this issue. Finally, as to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the defendant 1, 4, 5, 6 and the prosecutor's defendant et al. (except the defendant 2), it is sufficient to recognize that the court below's determination of the punishment against the defendant et al. is appropriate based on the records, and it is sufficient to find that the court below's determination of the punishment against the defendant et al. is appropriate, and there is no other material to treat the defendant et al. more favorably or al.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is just, and each appeal against the other defendant except for the appeal against the defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 is groundless. Thus, each appeal against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)