This is not a ruby ​​money for a Chinese official … The law "



[ad_1]


[이미지출처=연합뉴스]

[이미지출처=연합뉴스]

[아시아경제 이기민 기자] The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of company executives accused of paying more than 200 million won for the so-called "Relationships", a lobbying activity against Chinese officials .

Supreme Court No. 1 (Chief Justice Park Jung-hwa) announced on June 28 that he had been acquitted of Mr. J's injustice.

In mid-July 2012, they will begin acquiring the land use certificate at the 18,900 industrial site in Shandong Province, China, and lobbies borrowed by the company on behalf of the company without the approval of this will be 1.1 million RMB ($ 196 million).

The prosecution concluded that the city government did not consider the city government as a task of its business, but borrowed money and paid the Chinese officials for the damage done to the company.

The first case is that a bribe is shot if the directors of the company, and so on. Bribes the company's funds in violation of their obligations. In addition, it was the same for cases in which the company's executives lease corporate bonds and use them as lobby funds.

The court first stated: "Despite the opposition of the company's leaders, it is acknowledged that the defendants were intentionally charged with refusing to use the money from their accused to borrow money, "said Chung and Seo to two years in prison and two years in prison. He was sentenced to one year probation.

On the other hand, the 2nd Army Corps condemned them "One can not find objective data to admit that the national headquarters employees have asked the defendants not to spend money in lobbying. "

In particular, the Second Court of First Instance stated: "As a national enterprise established in China with difficulties in establishing a public administration and the rule of law, it was important to establish good human relations with Chinese authorities to obtain a building permit.I thought this was not an activity against the mission.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the second judgment was correct.

Ki-Min Reporter [email protected]



[ad_2]
Source link