beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant delivered 29,300,000 won to E, this is merely a loan to E by the defendant, there was no fact that the defendant made an illegal solicitation to E at the time of giving or receiving the above money.
B. The sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. In the case of a misunderstanding of facts in the crime of accepting and receiving money from a person who has received money from a person who has received money from a person who has received money in return for an unlawful solicitation, the question of whether a person who has received money actually borrowed money should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, method of delivery, relationship between a person who has received money and a person who has received money, the position, occupation and career of the person who has received money, the necessity of borrowing money, the possibility of borrowing money from a person other than the person who has received money, the amount and address of the money received, the economic situation of the person who has received money, the amount and address of the money, the amount of the money expected to have been provided, whether the money has been provided, whether the interest has been agreed on, whether the person has repaid the principal and interest, the demand of the person who has received money in the event of default, and the possibility of compulsory execution
In addition, illegal solicitation in the crime of giving evidence in breach of trust under Article 357 (2) of the Criminal Code means that solicitation goes against social norms and the principle of good faith, and in determining this, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the contents and form of solicitation and the amount and form of the property or property benefits given in relation thereto, and integrity of the business administrator, which is the legal interest protected
The solicitation is not necessarily required to be made explicitly, but it is not always to be made implicitly, and it is not necessary to conduct certain acts in accordance with the solicitation in reality.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4145 delivered on September 8, 2000).