beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court acquitted the prosecutor on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the sum of KRW 145 million in total, 145 million, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment on certain evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Meanwhile, although the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below, the prosecutor does not state the grounds of objection against the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal.
2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower court, on the following grounds, in collusion with the Defendants, received KRW 140 million in total from A, as a bribe, for the amount of KRW 140 million in total, 70,000,000 from A.
The decision was determined.
(1) From A to A on March 2014, the Defendants received KRW 110 million in total, and KRW 140 million in total, KRW 80 million in the crime sight table Nos. 7 in the judgment below, and KRW 30 million in total, as indicated in the judgment below, on May 17, 2014.
(2) The amount received by the Defendants constitutes a bribe that is received in order to assist a government-funded public corporation brokerage business in connection with Defendant B’s duties.
(3) Defendant C conspireds to prepare election funds through government-level contracting arrangement business between Defendant B and A, and takes an essential role in receiving a bribe directly from Defendant B on behalf of Defendant B, which constitutes a joint principal offender for the crime of receiving a bribe.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders with respect to the performance of duties in the crime
Defendants are given various circumstances.