beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.
(b).
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the additional collection of 2 years, 50 million won, and 10 months, 20 million won, by imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment is based on the following: (a) the amount of money received by the Defendants is not much specified; (b) Defendant A and B received money from the Defendants; (c) Defendant C performed illegal business operations in relation to the Gwangju K apartment construction; (d) the Defendants’ act is a qualitative and structural corruption that is practically conducted in relation to the subcontracting construction; and (e) there is a risk of causing defective construction works due to the unreasonable reduction of construction cost by the sewage supplier; and (e) Defendant C actively demanded the delivery of money to the Defendants.
However, the defendants recognized the crime of this case and against the defendant A and B, after the commencement of the investigation of this case, they returned all or part of the amount received by the defendant C to the deliveryer of each of the money after the trial of this case, the defendant C paid the collection charge in the court below, the defendant A and B prepaid the collection charge in the trial of this case, the victim limited partnership Eul is the company with unlimited liability, the defendant Eul is the defendant Eul's wife and the victim limited partnership Eul is the company with unlimited liability, the defendant C expressed his intention of not to punish the defendants in the trial of this case, the defendant C expressed his intention of not to punish the defendants in the trial of this case, the defendant C did not actually use the money received by the defendant C for the personal purpose, the amount received by the defendant C is not deemed to have been used for the personal purpose due to the default of the company of this case, the defendant A was sentenced to a fine in 206, the defendant C was not subject to any specific punishment other than the punishment imposed for the crime of this kind in the year 1989, and the defendant B was subject to criminal punishment for up to this day.