beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. On March 2015, the Defendant did not talk with H or F regarding the payment of the development fund.
The hub that the defendant received is not equivalent to 300,000 won in the market price, and even if so, there was no perception of the defendant about the value.
It is not recognized that the duty relations are not relevant to the transfer and receipt of Brazil.
B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant was aware of a mere drinking water, and received a domination of a plant, thereby having no relevance to duties.
(c)
The defendant's speech in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Education Crimes (Punishment among the child education compensation for persons engaged in child welfare facilities, etc.) is not an act of child abuse because there is no awareness or intention about child abuse, and it does not violate social rules.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court and the first instance court on March 2015, 2015, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant received a hub equivalent to KRW 300,000 of the market price in relation to his/her duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
1) On August 25, 2010, the lower court recognized the fact that P, a landmark of H based on the statements of P, H, and G, (i) donated to H around January 2015, 2015, and (ii) sold 285 U.S. 285 U.S. (Korean Won KRW 300,00) from the water control point located in Austria during the business trip of Europe to H, and (iii) sold to H around January 2015, and (iv) gave to the Defendant the above sobro that H was attached to his own bank, and (iv) there is a clear difference between the level of self-denunciation in the shape of the above Broro, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s receipt and delivery of this is a mere gift, and that a bribe is given and received in connection with his/her duties.
The Court ruled.
However, P. P.