logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.06.14 2013노169
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On August 11, 2009, Defendant A1 received KRW 265 million upon request from DN to deliver it to the PP market on or around August 11, 2009. Since 35 million won ( KRW 300 million-265 million) was divided into S according to a distribution agreement, Defendant requested DN to provide KRW 300 million on or around July 24, 2009 and received KRW 300 million on or around July 27, 2009, the lower court constitutes the crime of receiving and delivering accepted and delivered materials, not the crime of receiving and delivered materials under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or the crime of delivering and receiving accepted materials, due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court constitutes the crime of receiving and delivering materials, not the crime of receiving and delivering materials, since the Defendant did not violate the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 300 million).

A portion of which the amount received is at least 30 million won shall constitute the same crime.

There is an error of law recognized as the Commission.

B) Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant received USD 90 million from DN on August 2009, on the pretext of obtaining permission for gas charging stations, meat processing factories, golf driving range, etc., or under the pretext of honorariums, the Defendant received KRW 40 million from DN on Sep. 2009, KRW 20 million on Sept. 2009, KRW 30 million on Oct. 18, 2009, KRW 30 million on May 18, 2010, and KRW 300 million on May 18, 2010, the lower court recognized this part of the facts charged as a crime of bribery by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the Defendant received USD 90 million on the part of the facts charged as a crime of soliciting bribery, but it was reasonable that the Defendant received KRW 200 million on the part of a member of the National Assembly member on Nov. 1, 2010.

arrow