logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.12 2016노419
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of prosecutor's appeal grounds;

가. 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반( 알 선수재) 의 점 1) 논리 모순 SK 네트 웍스 주식회사와 SK 브로드 밴드 주식회사 (2009. 10. SK 네트 웍스 주식회사의 인터넷전화 등 사업부분을 이관 받았다.

The sum of these shall be hereinafter referred to as the "SK") that the defendant proposed the business of the defendant A.

While recognizing facts, it is logical to determine that the role of Defendant A is the discovery of business proposals and business opportunities.

SK received advice from Defendant A and conducted the valuation of the value of the instant large amount, and it did not mention what is the content of the advice even if it recognizes that the amount is excessive compared to the role of Defendant A.

The logic that SK, which is a private economic entity, has no problem because it conducts an excessive evaluation of the role of Defendant A, does not serve as a basis for determining that there is no illegality of money received.

2) Fact-misunderstanding that there was no entity of the cooperative contract entered into between Defendant A and SK, and that SK anticipated to Defendant A was Defendant A’s street. Defendant A, using connection and influence, was clear that there was solicitation of business owners of SK’s public officials in charge of NN Office of Education, submission of internal data of NN Office’s NN Office’s NN Office’s status as an incumbent NN Assembly member, and that there was an arrangement to inform SK of the relevant information, and received the instant money in return for that act. The instant money was derived from the SK and Defendant A’s fatal plan to conceal the fact that the method of paying the instant money was the acceptance of good offices.

Nevertheless, the court below did not arrange the defendant A to believe only the statement of the person related to the defendant A.

In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it is deemed a commission under a legitimate partner contract.

3) If a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine accepted money or other valuables on behalf of SK as intermediary, any intermediary act is actually conducted.

arrow