logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2013.10.11 2013노59
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant A are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In collusion, the Defendants received a bribe of KRW 70 million from Q who wants to employ a regular teacher of a private school, and even if Defendant B received the money solely by himself, Defendant B should be punished as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, although the first instance court cannot recognize the facts of conspiracy, and Defendant B’s act not in a position to be related to his duties cannot be seen as a bribery, and thus, Defendant B was acquitted of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against the Defendants.

B) Although Defendant A received each delivery of KRW 1.5 million and KRW 2 million under the pretext of personnel management for the appointment of a special research teacher from B and T, the first instance court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove this, and sentenced Defendant A not guilty of each of the illegal actions after the acceptance of each bribe against Defendant A, and the first instance court determined that there was an error in the standard time for the validity of the indictment in the event of changes in indictment, and sentenced Defendant B to acquittal on the ground that the indictment of the bribe against Defendant B was prosecuted after the completion of the statute of limitations.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, first of all, as to whether Defendant A had offered a public offering of KRW 70 million from Q at the time of receiving KRW 70 million from Q, the first instance court is in relation to the employment of regular teachers of Q from the seventh page of the judgment.

arrow