(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.31 2018노3106 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.31 2018노3106

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. H’s prosecutorial statement that offered a bribe to the defendant (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles) can be believed.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant received a total of KRW 36 million in cash from H 12 times in total under the pretext of preventing the control of illegal business establishments within the B police station’s office located in B police station from around August 2007 to July 2008 and taking measures such as reducing the case in the relevant investigation.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that H’s prosecutor’s statement that offered a bribe to the Defendant was not reliable, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① At the court of the court below, H made a statement to the effect that “no bribe was given to the defendant. The statement at the court of the court below was a false statement to the effect that the statement at the court of the court below was omitted,” and reversed the entire prosecutor’s statement.

② H appears to have been in an unstable position that can be investigated according to the content of G’s statement, and G seems to have considerably lost the Defendant.

Therefore, the possibility that G would induce the Defendant to make a statement of the fact of offering of a bribe against the Defendant in order to go back to the Defendant, by taking back He, who was in an unstable position where disciplinary action or criminal punishment may be at issue, depending on how the statement was made.

(3) The possibility that H actively made a false statement to the defendant to avoid any disadvantage in criminal and social status may not be ruled out.

(4) There is doubt that the defendant is not receiving money or goods from operators of entertainment establishments, but such doubt shall be made.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.1. 선고 2018고합558 판결

-서울고등법원 2019.12.05 2019노1579

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2015.10.30 2015고단35

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노340

-수원지방법원 2015.10.07 2015노1435