(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017노3519 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017노3519

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) as to whether the Defendant requested B, etc. to accept a bribe by specifying the amount of KRW 500 million, the J consistently made a statement consistent with this and consistent in the investigation agency and the court of the court below, and B also made a statement to the same effect in the court of the court below, and there is no motive for J and B to make a false statement. In light of the above, the above statements made by J and B are credibility.

Even if the judgment of the court below, K has become wind and actively discussed the amount of KRW 500 million.

Even if the defendant, who was heard by the side, did not contact K and rather did so, continued to ask him for the difference between the contract amount and the production cost, etc., the defendant demanded 50 million won as a bribe amount at the time.

may be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged is not recognized that the defendant demanded B, etc. to give a bribe of KRW 500 million.

The judgment of the court below is unfair.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a fine of four years, fine of eight million won, additional collection of KRW 46,270,950, which was imposed by the lower court) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant (unfair sentencing) did not actively demand a bribe first to B, etc. and did not demand a person in charge of G to provide convenience to the I Welfare Council, the sentence that the lower court rendered is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while serving as a non-standing director and a member of the audit committee of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant would assist the Director-General B of the International Welfare Association (hereinafter “I Welfare Association”), the Director-General of the Business Group J, and the Director-General of the Public Relations Office K to supply “I Welfare Association to supply L and MN under a contract with the number of L and MN ordered by G at I Welfare Association.”

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.2.20. 선고 2013고합458 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고합683

-의정부지방법원 2017.02.13 2016고정1920

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16. 선고 2017고합683 판결

-서울고등법원 2014.08.12 2014노605