2018Do20175 Acceptance of bribe

1. A;

2. B

Defendants

Law Firm (LLC) C (For Defendant A)

Attorney D, E, and F

Law Firm G (for Defendant B)

Attorney H, I, and J

Jeonju District Court Decision 2018No181 Decided November 23, 2018

March 14, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of hearsay statements containing the Defendant’s statement, and the duty relationship and quid pro quo in bribery, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

The argument, etc. to the effect that there is a mistake of facts regarding the nature of discretionary project costs and the purpose of giving and receiving money and valuables by the defendant constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, pursuant to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed. In this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is unfair is too unreasonable

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa

Justices Kim Gin-soo