beta
Text
All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged although the Defendants received money from M in the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below, or there was no solicitation as stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to facts 1, the court below acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendants conspired to commit the crime No. 1, 2,000 won at the time and place indicated in the decision of the court below, and found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which were duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., M, under the same name as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the lower judgment, consistently at the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, provided each of the Defendants with KRW 10 million in cash.
(2) The Defendants alleged that they received money for the purpose of providing investigation information and preparing data, but for that reason, it is difficult to easily understand that M would pay an amount equivalent to the same amount as that stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the judgment below; and 3 M delivers five million won in cash to the Defendants including a solicitation in relation to paragraph (3) of the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the judgment of the court below.
In full view of the fact that it is difficult to view the amount of money granted only as a private case in light of the relationship with the Defendants and M and the amount of money given, etc., the Defendants received money under the pretext of solicitation for cases or affairs handled by public officials as stated in the judgment of the court below.