(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.10.16 2019노971 | 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) 창원지방법원 2019.10.16 2019노971

뇌물공여

Text

Defendant

All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. On September 20, 2019, the Defendant stated the grounds for appeal as mistake of facts and unfair sentencing on September 20, 2019 on the first day of the appellate trial.

However, the petition of appeal submitted by the defendant on May 21, 2019 only states that the grounds for appeal are unreasonable. The defendant was served on June 10, 2019 on the receipt of the trial record and the notice for the appointment of a public defender, but did not submit the grounds for appeal within 20 days thereafter.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant stated a mistake of fact as the ground for appeal as above as a legitimate ground for appeal, and the defendant appealed only on the ground of unreasonable sentencing.

However, we will examine ex officio mistake of facts.

The punishment of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Since the prosecutor (the defendant B) granted a bribe in relation to G's duties, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the defendant's acquittal.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the purport that the crime of bribery is not established because the Defendant provided a tool for the frequency regardless of G’s duties, by comprehensively taking into account the business relationship between the Defendant and G, the circumstances leading up to the provision of money and valuables, the frequency and amount of the money and valuables, etc., on the ground that the ombudsman, etc. offered by the Defendant constituted a bribe recognized as related to G’s duties and quid pro quo. In comparison with the records and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts of the judgment of the court below. 2) The Defendant did not have the penal power exceeding the judgment on the

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2019.03.22 2018노463

-대법원 2002. 5. 14. 선고 2002도666 판결

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.20 2019노109

-대구고등법원 2013.04.25 2012노644

-인천지방법원 2021.01.21 2019고단7403