logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.08 2016노774
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

1. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the violation of the Political Fund Act.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As seen below, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) Although it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 500 million from the networkF (hereinafter “the Deceased”), the Defendant received money from the Deceased on March 2013, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from the Deceased regardless of the Defendant’s request for change of use of the E building.

2) The Defendant violated the Political Fund Act was actually working in K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) operated by M from May 2008, and the Defendant received 30 million won from M as payment or salary.

Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from M and was exempted, the Defendant had been exempted from the obligation of M.

A person who wishes to become a candidate to run in an election for public office as of January 2010, 2010, is not subject to the application of the Political Funds Act because he/she does not fall under the category of a candidate for an election for public office.

In addition, since one M unilaterally exempted 30 million won from political funds, the defendant did not have any intention to receive political funds in violation of the political fund law.

3) The first violation of the law by K, which was in violation of the K law, ordered K to receive design services for the apartment-proof stack construction only 7 NN district of this case and reflected its products in its design, and therefore, K was planned to enter into a contract with the O, a contractor, but since the O was still in legal management, the selection of the contractor was made by means of a bid at the minimum. However, M's request by the Defendant does not proceed in the way of such competitive bidding.

arrow