beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged E served as the 16th National Assembly member from May 30, 200 to May 29, 2004, and 18th National Assembly members from May 30, 2008 to May 29, 2012, and as the chairman of the local constituency of the F Party (former H Party) from May 22, 2012 to May 22, 2012, respectively, and was working as a standing member of the G Party in 2007, and the Defendant served as an assistant member of E.
E around July 2007, he has received a request from L to the L to the L to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to be implemented in I (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) by the request from the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the purchase approval at the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the purchase approval at the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K to the K
As a result, in collusion with E, the Defendant received money and valuables in order to arrange matters belonging to the duties of public officials, and received political funds in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.
2. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant gives or receives 100 million won from L as stated in the facts charged.
3. Determination
A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, and even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.
In particular, the defendant, who was identified as the recipient of money and valuables as the case, denies the fact of receipt.