beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The original sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;
2. The instant crime is that the Defendant received money and valuables equivalent to KRW 121 million in return for the illegal solicitation of the recruitment of fixed-term teachers from the fixed-term teachers, while serving as the principal of an private high school.
The Defendant is against all the crime of this case, and most of the money received prior to the commencement of the investigation was returned to the person who has presented evidence, and the employment of regular teachers, which is the contents of the solicitation made in the process of receiving money in this case, was not realized, and the Defendant did not have the authority to decide on the recruitment of regular teachers.
The defendant does not have any other criminal records except for the previous criminal records of a fine on one occasion due to drinking driving prior to ten years, and it seems that social ties are clear.
However, the crime is not good, and the amount of money and valuables received is very heavy, and the defendant's responsibility is also very heavy, as the act of destroying the general trust of the society in the course of employing teachers and causing damage to the fairness and transparency of the entire society of our society.
In addition, the defendant tried to destroy evidence at the time of the audit and inspection of the Office of Education, such as accepting money and valuables from a temporary teacher, who is known to the school, as a student of the crime of this case, was bound to make a statement as a loan.
In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is acceptable as being within the appropriate scope of punishment according to the Defendant’s liability, and it is not recognized that it is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.