beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1; (b) Defendant D’s misunderstanding of breach of trust; and (c) Defendant D’s misappropriation acceptance of ; (d) Defendant A paid KRW 2 million to Defendant D using the account in the name of AX (hereinafter “K”)’s accounting staff at the company K (hereinafter “K”) upon Defendant D’s request to see that it would be well-known; and (b) Defendant D received money to the effect that it would be well-known in the next bidding to be conducted in relation to the aforementioned money selected as cleaning service company; and (c) reversed the statement, Defendant A and the Defendant D stated that “The convenience to be selected as the W apartment cleaning service company was changed” and the above KRW 2 million is recognized as a consideration for such unlawful solicitation.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.
B) Defendant F’s violation of the Housing Act: (a) the Defendant asserted that the amount received from Defendant A was received as a profit by investing the amount of KRW 70 million in K; (b) it is inconsistent with the statement of BB and BC that it invested together at the time when it is inconsistent with the account details in the name of the Defendant; (b) if the Defendant received the profit by investing in K, it is inconsistent with the statement of BB and BC that it was made; (c) there is no reason to receive the money under the name of the Defendant’s arche as the Defendant’s employee; and (c) the Defendant is in a position to exercise influence over the selection of the cleaning service company of V apartment buildings, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant received the money unlawfully from the Defendant related to the management of V apartment buildings
Nevertheless, the court below erred in this part of the facts charged.