(A) A broker for the crime of bribery)

C. Law Firm

Attorney in charge D

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

89,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The Defendant is a police officer who served as the head of the intelligence criminal investigation (revision) of the E police station affiliated with the Seoul Special Police Agency from January 30, 2015 to January 25, 2016 and served as the head of the F police station affiliated with the Seoul Special Police Agency from January 26, 2016.

1. From January 2015, the E police station’s Intelligent Investigation Division of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) conducted an investigation into H et al., which operated SG’s “C” upon the request of the Financial Supervisory Service to investigate the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and made a recommendation to the prosecutor to conduct an investigation into H et al., on May 2015. However, even if the prosecutor was instructed to investigate the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission (hereinafter “Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission”), he/she applied only the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act to H et al. on July 14, 2015, and sent the case to the prosecutor without any suspicion of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Receiving Business without Permission (hereinafter “the instant case”).

On August 5, 2015, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to police officers' investigation duties by using shopping bags containing KRW 50 million in cash under the pretext of giving convenience to the investigation process of G from K and having closed the investigation process of G, along with the case of giving convenience to the investigation process of G-related cases.

In addition, the Defendant received from June 2015 to August 5, 2015 a total of KRW 60 million from K on three occasions as shown in the following table.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to police officers' duties of investigation.

2. Details of delivery and receipt of good offices, acceptance of bribery; and

A person shall be appointed.

After searching and searching the L (hereinafter referred to as the "L") from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office around September 2015 at the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office, M, a driver of H, was asked K to find out H's concealed property on the part of the victim, and H asked K to arrest and investigate the M through police officers of the E Police Station (hereinafter referred to as the "M theft case").

On October 2015, the defendant was issued from K to N, who received KRW 10 million in cash from K and delivered KRW 5 million to N, and received the remainder of KRW 5 million.

In addition, from October 2015 to April 15, 2016, the Defendant received total of KRW 29 million from K on seven occasions, under the pretext that he/she is in charge of investigating cases related to H and this attorney-at-law, and asked for the provision of convenience in investigation to subordinate or former police officers under the Defendant’s de facto influence.

As a result, the defendant uses his status to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of other public officials, and thereby, the contents of acceptance of bribe.

A person shall be appointed.

In relation to this, the bribe was received.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (as regards the acceptance of bribe around July 28, 2015, and the acceptance of bribe to a good office around October 2015, and around April 8, 2016, it refers to the defendant's legal statement).

1. Legal statement of witness V;

1. Partial statement of the witness K in the court;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and N;

1. Statement by each prosecutor's office on W, H, X, andY;

1. Part of the prosecutor's statement concerning the Z;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of A personnel record card, review report of the investigation process of the case, MA, etc., and append copies of the analysis and records of the case, such as M habitual theft, and attach copies of analysis and records of L victim representative accusation case (Breach of trust, such as H), analysis of monetary records of L victim complaint case, analysis of the progress of the same case as H, confirmation of the motive for offering bribe, analysis of the contents of A and K currency, attachment of A personnel record card, attachment of A personnel record card, and clientR of this case, and append copies of the case analysis and records);

1. A copy of the consent voluntarily submitted on June 22, 2016 (related to VUSB);

1. Details of transactions in W National Bank Account, 12 copies, current status of entry into and departure from Korea by individuals (K), references to each of the instant cases, accusation (U being the accused), investigation report, investigation report (contest), request for replacement of investigators, inquiry into criminal records and investigation records, personal confinement status, inquiry into information about prosecution cases, six copies of each judgment, court rulings, criminal records and personnel placement status of the E police station, last half of 2016, details of A personnel issuance, receipt certificates, A-AB telephone records, A-AB telephone records, and A-AC telephone records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, inclusive of bribery and Bribery), Article 132 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

[A public prosecutor was indicted of a single comprehensive crime committed by each of the crimes committed by the Defendant, but the crime of bribery and good offices differs from the elements of the crime, and since the crime of bribery and good offices differs from the pattern of the act, the time of acceptance, and the object of solicitation, it is difficult to deem that the same crime was committed by a single or continuous criminal intent. However, the crime of bribery and good offices constitutes a single comprehensive crime, since the singleness, continuity, and the identity of legal interests of each crime is recognized (the crime of bribery and good offices are examined after the crime is examined).

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the maximum term of punishment and maximum amount of punishment for each crime prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with heavy punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that the Defendant receives money or valuables from K, or there is no difference in the amount or the name thereof, and there is no relation to the duty relationship or the act of good offices. In addition, even if certain criminal facts are recognized in relation to the occupation of good offices and bribery, it cannot be deemed a single criminal offense.

Criminal Head Office

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination

A. As to the acceptance of bribe

In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant received a bribe from K in return for the solicitation of the G case.

1) From January 30, 2015, the Defendant was working as the head of the intelligence criminal investigation division of the E police station from around January 30, 2015, and was in charge of H-related G8 as the final approving authority of the case. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant recognized the bribe of KRW 5 million received on or around July 28, 2015, K was sufficiently aware that there was a relationship with H around the time of receipt of each of the money and valuables.

2) There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant and K have formed and maintained a private-friendly relationship irrelevant to their duties.

(1) Around 2004, while serving as the head of the E police station and the investigator, the Defendant became aware of K as a partner of the AI slope, a police officer assigned to the AJ police station in around 2007, but the contact was discontinued. Since around 8 years and around June 2015, the contact came back again with K at around June, 2015. K first contacted the Defendant through AM, a former police officer operating a business of “AL” in Seoul at the time, who is a former restaurant, operating the business of “AL” in Seoul at the time, while denying the Defendant’s solicitation in this court, and at the time, K stated that there was a 20 million won delivery to AM in relation to the G solicitation.

(2) On October 2008, K escaped to China for the purpose of evading criminal punishment regarding the smuggling export incident, etc., but was repatriated after being arrested at the end of January 30, 2012 and was convicted of having completed the enforcement of sentence on January 30, 2015, and immediately thereafter, K was placed in full charge of various route expenses related to H’s criminal cases from the time of introduction of H from W that was known at the Seoul detention center. Meanwhile, AI slope was dismissed in around 2008 due to the suspicion of providing K with the illegal inquireation information, etc. < Amended by Act No. 13183, Jan. 30, 2015>

(3) Although the Defendant was aware of the past history of K, he received money and valuables in this part without any specific doubt or rejection. There is no circumstance to deem that he had been given contact or assistance with K based on his personal-friendly relationship.

3) In light of the amount of money received by the Defendant, or the timing and circumstances of the receipt, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant received money on the pretext of simple money or borrowed money as alleged by the Defendant.

(1) KRW 5 million received on June 2015

① Around the time when the Defendant received this part of money and valuables, K was in charge of H’s L’s G case street, and the Defendant, who was the final approving authority for the investigation of the G case for which no contact was made for more than eight years, was contacted first to the Defendant and provided this part of money and valuables.

The Defendant recognized the receipt of money and valuables in this part from the date on which K was re-issued. In light of the fact that the Defendant (as of June 2015, around) and K (as of April 15, 2015, there was a telephone call from June 2015) and the Defendant stated that K was introduced on the next day after the date when the meeting was held in the “AL restaurant,” and that the said ceremony was received around June 2015, the Defendant stated that K was re-issued. In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that the said ceremony was around June 2015, the day on which the meeting was re-issued, and that there was a specific 9).

In light of the timing and circumstances in which the Defendant received money and valuables, it is difficult to understand that the amount is excessive not only to be deemed as money but also to be a police officer in charge of investigation, and in particular, K, who was involved in the past criminal case, has been given and received money on any actual pretext or reason for a long time.

③ Around July 28, 2015, the Defendant recognized the receipt of a bribe of KRW 5 million from K, and there is no reason to deem that K received only this part of the money as “use money.” Moreover, even if K recognizes that there was a monthly income of KRW 100 million without any justifiable reason, receiving KRW 5 million as “use money without any justifiable reason,” as well as in light of the role of K, the Defendant is sufficiently doubtful of the fairness in performing his duties. The Defendant stated that K, a police officer in charge of the instant case, stated that it would be friendlyly investigating H with the E police station on the day he was accompanied by the E police station.

(4) Considering the above circumstances, this part of the money and valuables was given and received as a solicitation in connection with H’s G incident, and it is determined that the Defendant had fully recognized the quid pro quo relationship with his duties.

(2) KRW 50 million received on August 5, 2015

1) The Defendant received this portion of money from K and did not prepare a loan certificate or provide a security, unlike the general loan relationship, and there was no express agreement on the maturity of payment or the payment of interest.

② From this court to this court, K made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, and the Defendant’s wife also made a statement corresponding thereto. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the above statement.

TK stated at the time that the defendant did not borrow money for a long time in a situation where the deposit is temporarily needed, but there is no demand to return or receive interest from the defendant.

QK paid KRW 50,00,000 in the form of an official seal to the Defendant, which differs from the ordinary lending relationship, and the source of the fund is connected to H. In light of the role of K, which was in charge of L with expenses under the delegation of H at the time, it is difficult to deem that this part of the fund was an personal monetary transaction relationship. Furthermore, K recorded this part of the money on the ground that it shows that it was used for H. Furthermore, K had a photograph affixed to this part of the money on the ground that it displayed that it was used for H.

C. The Z stated that the above KRW 50 million was delivered by the Defendant and used the money borrowed from the “N as the down payment for the deposit for the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.” In light of the fact that the Defendant first requested K to lend approximately KRW 360 million out of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis of KRW 650 million, it is difficult to readily understand that the Defendant received only KRW 50 million which falls short of the above money and used it for the above purpose, not the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.

D. On July 19, 2015, the Defendant, immediately after N was detained (on July 16, 2015), provided money to Y, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million and interest KRW 1250,000,000,00 to Z through the Z. In light of the fact that the time of repayment was one year after the Defendant received money, and that the Defendant’s talked about the money through the AO attorney-at-law meeting the K and paid the money rapidly, it is deemed that the relationship of money lending was pretended ex post facto. In this regard, V stated to the effect that “the money is not returned” is not a money lent by K in the course of investigation by the prosecution.

③ At the time of carrying out the duties according to the K instruction, V, at the time of carrying out the duties for 10 years, has stored and kept the photographs taken by K in accordance with the direction of cutting off cash of KRW 50 million from the office’s treasury to USB, and attaching pictures at the office’s treasury to USB, “AP10”).” In this regard, on August 5, 2015, K stored the same as “AP director 50 million won and J restaurant” in the cell phone schedule as of August 5, 2015. K thought that the above USB was more important to order V not to be seized to the prosecutor’s office, and stated that it was used for H as to the reasons for taking the pictures and keeping them. If a personal loan is affixed, there is no reason to keep it as above (K’s business list).

④ Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, this part of the money and valuables received by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been borrowed as a deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the G case.

B. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and K as seen earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier with respect to the acceptance of bribe, the fact that the Defendant received money from K as a broker for various criminal cases can be sufficiently recognized as stated in its reasoning.

1) Progress of the relevant case

At the time of the defendant's receipt of each part of money, there are cases related H and 0 in the E police station.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The following was followed.

2) The act of arranging the defendant

At the time of the receipt of each part of the money and valuables, the Defendant arranged and recruited the cases requested by K to the subordinate police officers in charge of H or 0 criminal cases as follows.

(1) On April 4, 2016, the Defendant informed K of the contact details of the N who will take charge of Mthie case, and in fact, made an intelligence report on Mthie case on the same day, and came into existence in Ma. After which, the Defendant participated in N’s solicitation and provision of convenience related to the instant case, he/she exchanged with K for text messages to the effect that N was unable to properly handle the instant case. In relation to N, N also recognized that the Defendant was introduced into Mthie case and K and received a bribe from K under the pretext of the instant solicitation. After that, N was also in charge of Rats case, N was also involved in Rats case.

(2) With respect to H’s breach of trust cases, the Defendant received text messages about K and investigation situation, etc. In particular, the Defendant directly took charge of the instant case before transferring the case to the F police station. On March 28, 2016, immediately after the instant case was sent to the prosecution, the Defendant arranged for a plenary session of the AD, a police officer in charge, at the request of K.

(3) On April 15, 2016, with respect to U complaint cases, the Defendant arranged for a amblance with the AB mitigation, directly or through AC, which was the head of the on-day duty team, even though he/she did not have a relation to usual contact. K received a written complaint against U immediately after the night according to the advice of the Defendant and AC, and completed the investigation by the complainant.

3) K’s statement

K stated in this Court that the amount, name, details, or time of each of the money and valuables in this part is not specific memory, but recognized that the money of several thousand won, such as parliamentary expenses, school expenses, and handphones, has been assisted by the defendant for several cases investigated by the E police station.

(iv) the name of money and the circumstances of giving and receiving it;

(1) KRW 2 million around 31.2 and around 200 million, KRW 5 million around January 25, 2016, and KRW 2 million around February 4, 2016

As seen earlier, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant received each part of the money, the Defendant denies the relationship between H or 0 as seen earlier, given that there were continuously and continuously criminal cases between H or 0, and thus, there is no clear circumstance to deem that K received money from the Defendant in connection with the intermediation of the instant case. However, as seen earlier, considering the fact that there is no obvious reason to deem that the Defendant received money from the Defendant in connection with the intermediation of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have offered significant convenience in relation to the actual case, and that the amount of money received is excessive in light of the pretext, it is determined that each part of the money was paid as a consideration for the intermediation of the instant act. Even if the Defendant’s assertion is included, the relationship between H or 0 is recognized as a consideration for the entire act, as long as the relationship with the intermediation of the instant case cannot be denied.

(2) KRW 5 million around March 28, 2016, and KRW 5 million around April 15, 2016

The Defendant, while recognizing the fact that he met AD or AC and K at the time, denies the fact that he received money. However, the Defendant recognized the fact that he received money (the Defendant requested the Defendant to make a specific statement after being under the third investigation at the prosecution) while making a false statement (the Defendant requested the Defendant to make a false statement after being under the third investigation at the prosecution, and then recognized the fact that he received money). In light of the fact that the Defendant, who has been long served as the police officer, made the above statements after sufficient time with the attorney, or it is difficult to discover any inconsistency with the situation or circumstances at the time and it is difficult to find out that there was no actual experience, the credibility of the above statements can be sufficiently recognized. In particular, the Defendant was supported by the fact that the pictures of this part were stored in the USB, which was managed and kept under the direction of the Defendant to show to H, under the so-called "the so-called "the activity list to present at H," in order to support the Defendant in this part of the criminal case.

C. As to the receipt of a crime

From early 2015 to June 2015, K took full charge of the street expenses in relation to H’s criminal cases, and granted money to the Defendant for the purpose of receiving or receiving assistance in each type of criminal case under investigation at the E police station using the Defendant as “rovis.” The fact that K created and managed an “A director” in USB by affixing the pictures of money paid to the Defendant or the Defendant through the Defendant is supported by these circumstances. In the process, the Defendant had offered convenience of the instant case, such as arranging the passage of the police officer in charge, and was paid cash worth KRW 200 to five million from time to time. The case where the Defendant requested by K to arrange by the Defendant was proceeding in close vicinity (the case where H, thief cases, Qu case, and Qu case, etc.). In light of the circumstances and circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s respective criminal cases, the Defendant’s act of seeking assistance by the defense counsel during the same period of time as that of the instant case constitutes a single crime of bribery or a single criminal case, and thus, the Defendant’s act of assistance is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 4 (at least KRW 50 million but less than KRW 100 million)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, 5-7 years of imprisonment

(b) Crimes of bribery and acceptance: The fact that the sentencing criteria are not set; and

(c) Scope of recommendations according to standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years;

2. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years and a fine not exceeding one hundred million won;

Although the Defendant, as a senior police officer, was in a position to handle duties in a fair and clean manner, received a bribe of KRW 89 million in relation to his duties and good offices. In light of the background of the crime, the amount of the accepted bribery, the position and relationship of the Defendant, etc., the nature of the crime and the criminal intent are bad. In the instant crime, the fairness and the purchase of police officers’ duties and their social trust were considerably damaged, and the police officer’s honor that impliedly performed duties was respected. Furthermore, the Defendant introduced N, a subordinate police officer, to K to induce another crime that would receive a bribe. Considering such circumstances, the Defendant requires a strict punishment.

However, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment shall be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant. In addition, considering the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

As stated in the facts charged in the judgment, the Defendant received a total of 25 million won and received a bribe on five occasions in total, as follows, concerning arrangement of matters belonging to investigation duties of subordinate police officers or subordinate police officers by taking advantage of their status, as provided in paragraph (2) of the same Article.

Details of acceptance of bribery

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination

The evidence that seems to correspond to this part of the facts charged lies in the defendant's prosecutor's statement and K's legal statement. However, the defendant is recognized to receive KRW 2 million each on or around December 31, 2015 and around February 4, 2016. The defendant's prosecutor's statement is that he receives money from K on each date specified in the facts charged, and he does not memory the amount. The defendant's prosecutor's statement is that he receives money from K on each date specified in the above facts charged, and K's court statement does not memory the specific time or amount of the defendant's offering of a bribe against the defendant. Therefore, it is insufficient to directly prove that the above statement alone is sufficient to directly prove that the defendant received KRW 5 million each on each date specified in the above facts charged, and there is no other

3. Conclusion

Of the facts charged in this part, the fact that the portion of the charges received KRW 5 million each around December 31, 2015 and around February 4, 2016, in excess of KRW 2 million each, and that each received KRW 5 million around February 13, 2016, around February 27, 2016, and around March 24, 2016, respectively, constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the crime of bribery to good offices in relation to such crime, it shall not be sentenced separately in the disposition.

Judges Park Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jae-nam

2) The Defendant was indicted on the charge of receiving KRW 5 million around April 2015, but the time when the Defendant again delivered K or received this part of the money, as seen thereafter, is recognized as around June 2015 and the fact that the Defendant accepted KRW 5 million in the course of a trial is recognized as being around June 2015, and it does not seem that there is a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense, in view of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 5 million in the name of the date of delivery or the date of delivery again, and that there was dispute over the name of payment or the date of payment.

3) The case in which P lawyer, the president of the L victim recovery cooperative, as the principal of the P lawyer, filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against 11 persons related to H

4) An attorney-at-law is a genuine case at the police station on charges of larceny, defamation, attempted extortion, and false accusation, etc., of family affairs (such as divorce and consolation money, etc.) and civil (rental) cases, the client of the instant case.

5) While 0 attorney-at-law defended against the Defendant (such as H) in the H’s breach of trust case, through the written opinion submitted around March 3, 2016, the case is true if 0 attorney-at-law committed an illegal act, such as the accomplice of M thief, violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (a violation of both representation and confidentiality, a demand for fees of KRW 33 million and a demand for contingent fees, a violation of the duty to maintain dignity), public conflict, intimidation, perjury, and an unreshion, etc., against the Defendant attorney-at-law.

6) If 0 attorney-at-law was assaulted by U on April 12, 2016 at the meeting room of the Seoul detention house (hereinafter “Seoul detention house”) on April 12, 2016, he/she was detained, injured by assault, insult, or defamation and accused by assault, assault, insult, or defamation.

7) The indictment is "Bek on January 25, 2015," but it appears that it is a clerical error.

8) The major progress of the G case is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

9) In the prosecutor’s office (Fourth), the Defendant stated that “H was accompanied to the police station and sought the Defendant from the time when he was first examined as the witness ( April 22, 2015),” and that “H was stated to the police station,” the Defendant’s statement related to the point at which K was sought again is somewhat inconsistent. However, in light of the above circumstances and the fact that the Defendant was unable to accurately memory the point at that time (the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s statement related to the point at that point was in question) and that H could not be mistaken for the date when he first was investigated as the suspect at the police station ( June 23, 2015), it is determined that the time of the Defendant’s statement is consistent with the evidentiary relationship, and in light of this, it is sufficiently recognized that H had a relationship with the Defendant around the time when the Defendant received money and valuables in this part.

10) At the time, V was mistakenly aware of the name of the defendant as "AP".

11) On September 22, 2016, N was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months at the Seoul Central District Court on September 22, 2016.

12) On March 28, 2016, the Defendant made a statement that, upon K's request, he received two bags containing KRW 5 million from K in the main place of SD and sent one remainder to AD and received the other one from K. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant requested K to provide U-B-friendly and help with 2016, April 12, 2016, which made it difficult for K to contact AB, and made it difficult for K to use AB-friendly and 5 million won to communicate, and the Defendant made a statement that, after which he/she received KRW 5 million from K to K in the main place of SD, he/she took part in A-C, and it was difficult for K to use A-B-C-related and 50,000 won in the first place of J-type, and it was difficult for K to use A-B-D and 50,000 won in the first place of the case.

13) With respect to the receipt of KRW 5 million around March 28, 2016, the file name of the photograph taken is stored as the head of A, the head of the Intelligent Criminal Investigation Team, and the head of the AS investigator (US investigator) on March 24, 2016. However, V stated that the photograph taken by K’s cell phone around March 24, 2016 was stored after transmission on March 28, 2016, and that V’s digital forensic system on the cell phone was analyzed as the above photographic file was created on March 28, 2016.