beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of 2 years and fines of 22,00,000.
Reasons
1. Of the judgment of the court below in the scope of the judgment of this court, the acquittal part against Defendant A was brought to the trial court in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, but since the prosecutor did not appeal against it and the prosecutor went off from the object of attack and defense between the parties, the above part is subject to the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and the decision is not separately made (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). 2. Summary of the grounds for appeal
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) 1) made an illegal solicitation to the effect that Defendant A would pay the price for the Z supplied in V in collusion with Defendant B and C on March 2013, 2013, in collusion with Defendant B and C of the first instance trial on the charge of the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and that Defendant A would pay KRW 13 million out of the “franchise” stated in the above criminal facts.
However, among the above franchiseing costs of KRW 13 million, the remainder of KRW 3 million was paid under one's own orders without the consent or permission of the companies including the defendant, and without the notification to the companies including the defendant, and there was no conspiracy or participation from the defendant.
Nevertheless, the court below conspired with the above B and C with regard to the whole amount of KRW 13 million by the defendant as above.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The part of the charge of the crime of breach of trust as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, and the charge of the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the defendant B on July 2013.