beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant C is reversed.
Defendant
C Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
Reasons
1. Scope of judgment of party members;
A. 1) The court below acquitted Defendant B of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, offering of a bribe, and coercion, and acquitted Defendant C of the occupational breach of trust, and sentenced Defendant C of a fine of KRW 3 million as to the violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). The court acquitted Defendant A of the charge of bribery, abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights, and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The prosecutor acquitted Defendant A of all of the charges. 2) The prosecutor appealed Defendant C of the judgment of the court below on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and legal scenario as to each part of the acquittal of Defendants and Co-Defendant A of the judgment of the court below. Defendant C appealed appealed on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing as to the guilty part.
On February 2, 2012, the trial before remanded the part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of each Attorney-at-Law against Defendant B and Co-Defendant A, thereby destroying the violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant B and Co-Defendant A, and sentenced Co-Defendant A to a fine of KRW 3 million, and the remaining appeal by the prosecutor and the appeal by Defendant C, respectively.
3) In the judgment prior to the remanding of the case, the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles, etc. against the remainder of innocence (the offering of bribe, coercion, acceptance of bribe against Co-Defendant A, acceptance of bribe against Co-Defendant A, and obstruction of abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of right) except the part not guilty against Defendant C (the charge of Defendant B’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Defendant C’s violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and Defendant A’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act). The Defendant and Co-Defendant appealed on each guilty part (the charge of Co-Defendant A’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act). The Supreme Court of the judgment prior to the remand of the case,