(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.23 2016노797 | 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) 서울고등법원 2016.09.23 2016노797

수뢰후부정처사등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged even though he did not engage in a similar act with E, or did not receive KRW 1 million from E, and on October 15, 2014, he did not inform E of information related to the designated number.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, one million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (not guilty part) E has become aware of multiple times through the Defendant

Considering the facts stated, and the fact that the Defendant had made a telephone conversation with E at the time of inquiring about the number of occasions designated on December 1, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. A. On October 4, 2014, the summary of this part of the charges is determined as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. The Defendant: (a) provided meals at a restaurant in front of G loan in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si; and (b) provided coffee at a coffee shop in the vicinity; (c) provided a woman on his/her own vehicle with a khiffbbbbbbbbbbbbbs; and (d) provided the khife with the knife’s khiffbbbs; and (c) provided a similar knife with the knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s kniffbbbs

After the receipt of the request from E, the Defendant asked the PDA to determine whether or not the designation was made to E with the end of October 15, 2014, and then notified the Defendant of the information on the geographical indication.

Accordingly, the defendant, as a public official, received a bribe of one million won or more in relation to his duties, and committed an unlawful act, and disclosed secrets in the course of performing his duties.

2) The lower court’s determination is that E’s investigation agency.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.02.19 2015고합241 (1)

-서울북부지방법원 2017.07.07 2017노188

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.04 2015고합285

-대구지방법원 2016.03.24 2016고단288

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.28 2017고단4375