logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.06.29 2014도1132
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A and B among the judgments of the court below and the crime list 1-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the part on the property in breach of trust

A. The lower court, on the grounds the grounds indicated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed as related to the illegal solicitation, such as where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that the Defendant A and B submitted to allow the Plaintiff to continue to assign tugboatss or port services or to allow to assign more tugboatss or port services.

The judgment of the first instance court which acquitted this part of the facts charged was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. In the crime of re-violation of trust acceptance of additional rebates listed in attached Table 1-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B as indicated in the judgment of the court below, illegal solicitation refers to solicitation against social norms and the principle of good faith. In determining the solicitation, comprehensive consideration of the contents of the solicitation and the amount of property delivered or offered in relation thereto, form, and integrity of a person handling affairs, which are legal interests, should be given, and such solicitation should not be explicitly stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2165, Apr. 9, 202; 2009Do8670, Nov. 26, 2009). The court below held that the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor submitted by the defendant A and B alone alone does not change the allocation of any additional or any other service related to the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering.

arrow