beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed.
2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of acceptance of bribe.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant, as a local agricultural assistant working in the G-Gun Forest Culture and Tourism Department, was a local agricultural assistant working in the G-Gun Forest Culture and Tourism Department, and ordered theO, who is an employee of the F-Union (hereinafter “the instant association”), to supply old tree trees owned by AG in relation to the “R cycle Road Afforestation project” and to perform an act for which he was not obligated, the lower court acquitted him of the part concerning abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In so doing, the
B. Defendant 1) In the absence of a fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant received various conveniences in relation to the selection and management of forest project operators ordered by GGun Office from the head of the instant association, the lower court accepted the bribery part among the charges of this case as it is, and convicted the Defendant. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion
A. On November 1, 2007, the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, instructed the NA to deliver old trees owned by the GG former Gun in relation to the “R cycle road afforestation project” by phone call to the O, who is an employee of the instant association, and ordered the saidO to enter into a supply contract with AE for old trees of the said AG and receive 28 old trees supplied.
Accordingly, the defendant abuse his official authority.