beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part of conviction against the Defendants (including the part of acquittal) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment of the court below is only against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and since the prosecutor did not appeal against the prosecutor, the part not guilty portion of the judgment of the court below (the use of a falsified joint research commitment among the facts charged against Defendant B) becomes final and conclusive and is not subject to the judgment of the court of the court below, and the part not guilty (the charge of acceptance of bribe of KRW 16,261,200 in the name of his father’s benefit, and Defendant B: the charge of acceptance of part of the crime of breach of trust due to the offering of entertainment in BL) is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. Thus, the judgment of the court below is in accordance with the conclusion of the judgment of the court below without separately determining this, and only the guilty portion against the Defendants recognized by the court below
2. In the summary of the grounds for appeal, the name “Defendant” is referred only to as “Defendants” and the name is omitted, except where it is necessary to specify each Defendant’s items.
Defendant
A: Error of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The defendant guilty of the charges on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against the defendant although he did not have committed a bribe of KRW 150 million between M and M as follows, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment as follows. A) On September 24, 2011, M of acceptance of cash KRW 4 million around September 24, 201, the defendant "O" (O) and the abbreviation of the judgment of the court below will be used as it is, and next, the abbreviation of the judgment of the court below will be as it is. The defendant delivered KRW 4 million to the defendant at the time of providing convenience in selecting him as a manager of the BT project, along with a solicitation to the high seas price and various conveniences related to BT projects, but at the time of the BT project.