beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant B is reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentencing of Defendant B (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. As to the crime of accepting bribe on December 24, 2014 of the decision of the court below, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the above facts charged on the ground that the Defendant B’s statement on this part cannot be trusted in light of the overall circumstances.
In addition, the sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, two million won of fine, and 850,000 won of penalty) is too unreasonable.
(c)
1) In full view of the facts charged with Defendant B’s offering of a bribe on or around January 2014, the facts charged with Defendant C regarding acceptance of bribe on or around January 2014, and the facts charged with the remaining Defendants, the lower court rejected the credibility of Defendant B’s relevant statement and acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
① As to the time of offering a bribe, Defendant B made a statement concerning the contents difficult to speak without any relatively consistent experience, and the statement that is unclear in the original court is only the fact that it is so serious that Defendant B made a confusion as to the point of time when it was fluent and difficult to speak.
Considering that it is difficult to say that the statements of BA are also contradictory, and that Defendant B did not have any call from Defendant E more than twice at the above time, there is no reason to reject Defendant B’s statement, considering that E could contact with an office, not a mobile phone.
Defendant
D. The statements of BC, consistent with the allegations of D and E, are not ambiguous and supporting materials, and are old and old and old.
Rather, after January 2014, A’s statement on the time of bribe delivery, and after January 2014, Defendant E used a concentrated call to Defendant B and B, and Defendant C also used Defendant B and D for the first time, from January 2014 to February.