beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment below against Defendant C is reversed.
Defendant
C Imprisonment with prison labor and fines of KRW 27,000,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Under the below, the defendants use the title "defendant" only for the defendant who falls under any of the items, and the remaining defendants shall state only their names.
1) As to Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (A) as to the fact-finding of the instant crime No. 3. A of the 2015 High 162, Defendant B’s judgment, the lower court did not have made a solicitation to the Defendant immediately before the local election at the time when the Defendant received KRW 20 million from D on May 20, 2014, and KRW 6 million on June 2, 2014, and there was no circumstance to make a solicitation, and the Defendant did not offer any convenience in the S Traditional Commercial Building and “U” business, which was conducted D by taking advantage of his position as a member of N Si Council.
In other words, the money received by the defendant from D is merely a name for election expenses, and it is not received in return for the provision of business convenience, and there is no relation or consideration with the defendant's duties.
(B) Regarding the facts constituting the crime of 2015, 162, 3.b. of the crime of 2015, 2015, 162, the Defendant loaned D money by requesting D to assist with financial difficulties, and there is no fact that at the time, the Defendant would use the said money for the appointment of the attorney-at-law related to the trial of the Defendant. As such, the said money received from D is only a loan, and it does not receive it in return for the provision of business convenience, and there is no relation or quid pro quo with the Defendant’s duties.
In addition, there is no simplification of intention between each giving and receiving act, so this part of the crime is not a single crime but a substantive concurrent crime by each giving and receiving act.
(C) Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found all of the charges charged in the above part of the charges as guilty, and also held that the instant crime No. 3. b. of the 2015 High Gohap 162, supra, is included in the lower judgment.