beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Article 1 of the facts charged in the instant case No. 2012 Go-Ma8335 of the facts charged that the Defendant received a total of KRW 13 million from F through F. However, there is no false statement, such as the fact that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from F and the fact that he/she mediated a subcontract for government-funded construction works, such as the fact that he/she received KRW 2 million from F. 2,000,000,000,000 won, and the fact that he/she received KRW 1.8,000,000 won at an attorney’s office at the F’s request, such as identifying the progress of the instant case in connection with H’s criminal case, but there is no fact that the Defendant did not demand entertainment expenses under the pretext of solicitation or received cash of KRW 2,000,000,000).
There is a fact that F receives KRW 2 million from F, but it is not accepted as a request for a criminal case against H.
3) Although there was a fact that 4.2 million won was received from the J of the instant case No. 2012 Highest 8873, Q, an original company, was attempted to obtain a subcontract, and thereafter, failed in default or failure. B. The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of 10 months is excessively unreasonable).
2. Determination
A. 1) On the assertion of mistake of facts, the facts charged in the instant case No. 2012 Godan8335, supra) the Defendant had committed deception in relation to the subcontracting of government-funded construction projects; according to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court: (a) the Defendant did not have access to C University Law Schools (the Defendant did not have access to the educational process of C University and only graduated from the C University Administrative Graduate School); (b) the vice president of E Company (the representative: D; hereinafter “E”) was aware of the Defendant, after hearing the statement that the Defendant could have extended the number of the Defendants and attempted to receive construction orders; and (c) the Defendant was introduced to the F Company.