Compared to the case before us, in contrast to the low sums of money that the relevant event dealt with in the Shimberg, the benefits were given to defendant 3 there on a number of occasions, while Fischer tried to mediate bribes in one case, and in fact did not derive a financial profit from his actions. In addition, defendant 3 in the Shimberg Brokering bribes when he himself was a public servant, whereas Fischer was not a public servant. In any event, in our case, too, there is justification for deviating from the scope of the voice for reasons of justice, as will be detailed below.
(f) Criminal Case (Hai District) 49454-12-17 State of Israel v. Manna (May 21, 2019) - Defendant 2 was convicted, according to his confession, in an amended indictment, of offenses of bribery and bribery brokerage. These offenses were committed against a police officer who served as an investigator at the local police station. Defendant 2 approached the policeman on a number of occasions in order to promote his police affairs and those of his associates, in exchange for financial and other benefits given to the policeman. An appropriate penalty range of 10 to 24 months in prison, and a penalty was issued at the bottom of the 10 months in prison. Defendant 1, who was convicted of the same offenses but whose circumstances were slightly more serious, were sentenced 12 months in prison, after the appropriate punishment in his case was set at 12 to 30 months in prison. An appeal to the Supreme Court on the severity of the sentence was dismissed by consensus (Criminal Appeal 4572/19).
The bribe amounts in that affair were much lower than the amount of bribes that Fisher tried to receive from a warehouse in order to pass it on to the policeman. On the other hand, the defendants there were also convicted of bribery and not only of bribery, and it was determined that their actions were planned; Some of them in the mediation triangle were dominant; As a result of their actions, there was actual interference in the police investigation.