beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of the entire facts charged on the ground of the testimony in this case without any other evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, on the ground that Defendant B’s testimony and testimony, which are the bribe payer, are insufficient and consistent, specific, and the Defendant provided money.
B. The Defendants and the prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing decision are the purport that each sentence (a year of imprisonment, a fine of 20 million won and additional collection, and a fine of 6 months and additional collection) imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too unreasonable and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, in the case of bribery, where the Defendant, who was selected as the consignee, denies the fact at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no objective material to support it, the statement made by the lender and the sender must be admissible as evidence, and there should be credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined not only the rationality of the contents of the statement itself, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after, but also the existence of an interest in the statement that he is his human being and his human being (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3798, Jul. 27, 2007). The bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of the money and valuables received because it is the process of the performance of duties by the public official, trust in the society, and the impossibility of the purchase of duties, and it is not necessary to make a solicitation or an unlawful act related to his duties. In addition, there is no need for a special solicitation to accept the money and valuables.
Any benefit that a public official gains is in a quid pro quo relationship.