(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.08 2016노2749 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.06.08 2016노2749

뇌물공여

Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B KRW 5,000,000, Defendant C.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles of Defendant B1) The Defendant asked the support of the Speaker at the election, and rejected the request. However, in returning the above three million won, the said money was delivered to S in a way desired by A, and only there was an intention to return a bribe, and there was no intention to deliver a bribe.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged based on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, i.e., the Defendant recognized all this part of the charges at the court below, and the Defendant recognized most of the facts charged at the court below, and the Defendant and A did not have a special relationship of relationship as alleged by the Defendant. If so, the Defendant and A did not have a special relationship of relationship.

Although it is easy to return 3 million won to A immediately is easy and simple, it is difficult to accept that the defendant returned the money by means of giving the defendant Eul who was in a pro rata relationship with the defendant. ③ Furthermore, the defendant paid to the defendant C at the time of the defendant's payment to the defendant's 1 million won or more as the acceptance fee, and the defendant's act as above is deemed contradictory to the defendant's assertion, and ④ Furthermore, considering the fact that the statement made by the joint defendants of the court below corresponds to the facts charged in this case, it is recognized that the defendant offered a bribe in collusion with Gap.

Therefore, this part.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.01.25 2017고합108

-서울고등법원 2014.01.10 2013노2375

-서울북부지방법원 2010.10.01 2009고합363

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.01.29 2015고합159

-서울고등법원 2018.05.17 2017노2992