logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2016노1461 (1)
범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반등
Text

The judgment below

Among them, the acceptance of property in breach of trust against the defendant A, which has been given money from AP.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Defendant C did not take charge of the P business of the radio apparatus T and W at the time of receiving the money from T and W, and the secondary partner’s authority to select the secondary partner is the primary partner. Thus, Defendant C does not receive it in relation to this duty.

(B) T and W delivered money by simple audit to Defendant C with the indication of audit, and upon the mind that X’s 2Gpool mobile phone parts (Dmeme) supply contract, which had been delivered prior to the example, was requested to Defendant C for the maintenance of overseas export, this does not constitute an illegal solicitation because it constitutes a request made to maintain the contractual relationship and secure existing rights.

(C) Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of all the charges, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Even if all facts charged against Defendant C are found guilty, the punishment imposed by the lower court against Defendant C (the penalty of KRW 2305 million is too unreasonable) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts about Defendant A and B), the court below acquitted Defendant A and B on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the amount was the price for an illegal solicitation or that it was the receipt of the Defendant’s duties.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the “illegal solicitation” in the relevant legal doctrine is not necessarily necessary to the extent that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith.

arrow