logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.04 2015노151
뇌물공여
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not instruct H to offer a bribe, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant did not have ordered H to offer a bribe. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 10 million won”) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (De facto Error) committed a mistake of mistake that the lower court found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case even though the Defendant had provided meals at H and AG restaurants on November 8, 2010, there was no other fact that he received entertainment from H except that, and the said meal was not offered entertainment related to solicitation.

2. Determination on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was asked by the Defendant to the effect that he would be able to assist in the change of the starting point of the IG lines owned by G and the change of the J route from H, a real manager of the company G (hereinafter referred to as “G”; hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) while in charge of obtaining the authorization and permission, management, and change of routes related to bus routes, the Defendant received entertainment equivalent to KRW 34,600 from the W restaurant on June 1, 2010, from that time to January 8, 201, and received entertainment equivalent to KRW 5,177,100,000 from that time on 22 occasions, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from that time.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant could be recognized as having received entertainment from H as a bribe in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence adopted by the lower court.

1 A is a person who substantially operates approximately 30 bus companies, including G and Q, and Q is awarded a successful bid by the FM around 2009.

arrow