beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ grounds of appeal 1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) even if Defendant A received KRW 30 million from Defendant A on June 21, 2017 as the borrowed money, the lower court deemed that the said KRW 20 million was a bribe itself, but the said KRW 20 million as the borrowed money is deemed a bribe; and (b) further, the lower court determined that both the financial interest equivalent to the borrowed money as of June 21, 2017 and the KRW 20 million as of February 9, 2018 constituted a bribe, but all the said amount is deemed to lack of bribe as a mere borrowed money irrelevant to his/her duties, and therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant A’s acquisition of the borrowed money as of February 9, 2018.
Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty relationship of bribery.
B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (a year of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 40 million) is too unreasonable. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (a period of imprisonment with prison labor and a fine of KRW 40 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of the offering of a bribe on June 21, 2017, on the ground that Defendant A’s 30 million won transferred from Defendant B on June 21, 2017 constitutes a loan rather than a final delivery, and thus, cannot be recognized as a bribe. In the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charge of offering a bribe on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery, violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment on June 19, 2017, violation of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment and Punishment, etc., and the offering of a bribe on
However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above KRW 30 million per itself constitutes a bribe that Defendant B delivered to Defendant A.