logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.04.11 2015노378
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fines of 25,00,000.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts, ① Defendant D merely received money from A while introducing or recommending A to a trial with the authority to select a removal company in relation to the removal of X-type reconstruction project, and did not have any influence or pressure on the selection of the removal company.

Therefore, Defendant D’s receipt of money from Defendant D does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) since it cannot be deemed that a person who administers another’s business acquires property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties or who is deemed a public official receives bribe in connection with his/her duties

② In relation to the selection of a designer of an AI reconstruction project, Defendant D only introduced Defendant E to participate in a competitive bidding and received money at the expense of obtaining information, and Defendant D’s business scope is entirely related to the selection of a designer of a reconstruction project.

Therefore, Defendant D’s receipt of money from Defendant E by the representative director of AR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AR”) who is a building design company cannot be deemed as acquiring property in exchange for an illegal solicitation regarding his/her duties, and thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant D (a punishment of 4 years of imprisonment, fine of 60 million won, additional collection of 245 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, ① Defendant E does not provide money or goods to Defendant D under the pretext of an illegal solicitation regarding design acceptance, but rather does not leave the relationship with Defendant D with Defendant D in a state of continuous unfair interference and verbal abuse, etc.

arrow