2. A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

B. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The sentence of a fine shall be suspended against Defendant 2.

C. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of eight years and fine of eight hundred and seventy thousand won.

When Defendant 4 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 4,350,000 into one day.

3,762,310,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 4.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 4.

D. Defendant 5

Defendant 5 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 5 shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The sentence of a fine shall be suspended against Defendant 5.

3. The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 3 and 6 and the part of the acquittal against the defendant 4 are all dismissed.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 2, in collaboration with Defendant 4, shall:

1) On November 5, 2007, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of the redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in the name of the company running from this judgment), was requested by Co. 11 of the court below to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 5 would be selected as an implementer in the urban environment rearrangement project in the Seodaemun-san Line, which was the employee in charge of the redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 5”) and consented to it. Defendant 2 received a bribe by having Nonindicted Co. 11 and 5 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 as of February 5, 2008, and received a bribe by having Nonindicted Co. 5 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 323,810,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co.

2) On October 3, 2008, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7, received a request from Co. 10 of the court below to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 7 would have been selected as a contractor in the urban environment rearrangement project in Yongpo-26 Seoul, Youngpo-gu, Seoul. Defendant 2 promised to receive KRW 200 million in return for consultation with Co. 10 of the court below regarding the amount to be received as a bribe and the method of preparing a formal service contract, and had Nonindicted Co. 7 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 8, and received a bribe in excess of KRW 55,00,000 among the above KRW 20 million in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, around November 3, 2008, by taking charge of accounting management to Defendant 3.

B) On October 10, 209, Defendant 4 received request from Co-Defendant 9, who is an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7’s company, to the urban environment rearrangement project in Seocheon Copy 1-1, which is the employee of the lower court. Defendant 2 consulted with Co-Defendant 9 in the lower court on the method of preparing a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 7, and subsequently accepted a bribe equivalent to KRW 363,00,000 in total with the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, around November 2, 2009 and around December 15, 2009, by having Nonindicted Co-Defendant 7 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 2.

3) On February 24, 2009, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7 and 8 of the lower judgment, accepted the request from Co. 7 and 8 of the lower court to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 9 would be selected as the contractor in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Seoul-Offset 4, and Defendant 2 received the total amount of KRW 20 million from Nonindicted Co. 7 to Nov. 3, 2009, and transferred KRW 30,000,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 and KRW 220,000,000,000, and KRW 220,000,000,000 from Jun. 25, 2009 to Nov. 3, 2009, respectively, with Nonindicted Co. 3’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 and KRW 30,700,00.

B. Summary of Defendant 2’s assertion

Defendant 2 took charge of only the practice of a rearrangement project management body (hereinafter referred to as “maintenance project body”) in Nonindicted Co. 1, and entered into a side agreement in relation to the selection of a contractor and the payment for the consideration was entirely responsible for Defendant 4. During the performance of the said tasks, Defendant 2 ordered Defendant 2 to enter into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2 through another service company in accordance with Defendant 4’s order, and Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have a functional control over a co-principal as a co-principal. Accordingly, even if Defendant 2 was found guilty, Defendant 2 constitutes a co-principal who is not a co-principal.

At the time of conclusion of a contract with Nonindicted Co. 7 and Nonindicted Co. 8 regarding the Seoul Yeongdeungpopo Area 1-26, “the selection of a work executor” was not included in the scope of the work of the promotion committee or the rearrangement project entity. The promotion committee prior to authorization for the establishment of a project did not have any authority to select the work executor, and most of the money paid from Nonindicted Co. 7 was spent for the OS service cost related to the draft consent for authorization for the establishment of a project. Thus, the money received from Nonindicted Co. 7 cannot be deemed as the consideration

(c) Business relationship with respect to acceptance of bribe related to the Yeongdeungpo 1-26 Seoul, etc. area;

The lower court determined that Nonindicted Co. 1 received money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 7 in return for the selection of work executor, in light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 was in a position to exercise influence over the members of the promotion committee in the above region even if the degree of business progress was in the Seoul Youngpo-26 area, and that Nonindicted Co. 1 could have sufficiently exercised influence on the reconstruction association if the project was in progress.

Upon examining the evidence of this case, the decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the records of this case [In particular, the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, namely, the money paid from Non-Indicted 7 Co. 7 to Non-Indicted 7 Co. 7, the original purpose of which is the promotional services for Non-Indicted 7, the original purpose of which is to establish the association (in the statement of reasons for appeal of Defendant 2, the payment was made by the OS service cost related to the request for authorization for establishment of the association), and in the redevelopment improvement project, there are many cases where the construction company participates as a co-implementer on the premise of the selection as the contractor, and there is a lot of cases where the company selected

D. Determination as to the existence of functional control

1) Issues

The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through the functional control of a crime through the intent of co-processing and the functional control by the co-principal. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met. On the other hand, in order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime as a co-principal, taking into account the status and role of the conspiracy in the whole crime, or control of the progress of the crime, or the influence of the process of the crime, etc., in order to be recognized as a co-principal, it shall not be deemed as a mere conspiracy, but it shall be recognized that a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime exists (see

In this case, Defendant 2 voluntarily concluded a contract with Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 2 through Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 7, and Nonindicted Co. 7, according to the order of Defendant 4, acknowledged some of the facts involved in accepting a bribe, but argued that the degree of participation is merely an aiding and abetting crime. Ultimately, the issues pertaining to this part of the facts charged are whether Defendant 2’s degree of participation in the crime of bribery by Defendant 4 reaches the extent that the functional control over the crime can be recognized through the inherent contribution of the crime.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the trial court and the court below’s evidence duly admitted and investigated, namely, ① Defendant 2 was the managing director of Nonindicted Company 1 from April 2006 at the time when Nonindicted Company 1 was established upon Defendant 4’s recommendation, and the register of shareholders of Nonindicted Company 1 was deemed to hold 25% shares; ② Defendant 2 recommended Defendant 4 to enter into a service contract with Defendant 4 as the company that would conclude the service contract; ② Defendant 2 was actually given and received a bribe through Nonindicted Company 2, etc.; ③ Defendant 11,10, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted Party 10 also discussed matters related to the contract with Defendant 2, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant 2 stated that the degree of participation in the crime of bribery by Defendant 4 in the crime of bribery to the court below was considered to have been functional control over the act by essential means of contribution to the crime.

3) However, in a criminal trial, criminal facts must be acknowledged by strict evidence having probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

4) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 2 was involved in the crime to the extent that it can be recognized as a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime of bribery to Defendant 4. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① Defendant 2 received a fixed amount of benefit, not a substantial shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1.

Defendant 2 is deemed to hold 25% shares on the register of shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 1. However, according to Defendant 3’s legal statement at the lower court and the first instance court’s statement at the lower court, Defendant 4 paid the full amount of share capital in the process of the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 1, and Defendant 2 is registered as a shareholder only in the form of the company.

In addition, according to the records, Defendant 2 received a fixed amount of KRW 3,000,000 to KRW 4,000,000 during the period from 207 to 2010 as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and there was no separate dividend payment.

② Relation to the doorsan Line Maintenance Zone (Non-Indicted 5 Stock Company)

The court below acknowledged that, according to the prosecutor's office of Co-defendant 11 of the court below and the court below's legal statement, when Co-defendant 4 received a bribe from Co-defendant 5, Defendant 2 entered the amount received as a bribe with Co-defendant 11 of the court below and the method of preparing a service contract, and caused the Co-defendant 5 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6.

Co-defendant 11, at the court below's decision, sent the amount of money to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1's office at the time of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1', and Defendant 4 had no office, and Defendant 2 had no office. At that time, Defendant 2 concluded a service contract with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, which would have been less than KRW 150,00,00. The amount of money would have to be paid to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, Defendant 4 and Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1's office at the time of signing the service contract with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, the first instance court's decision. Defendant 2 had been sent to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, the first instance court's office with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, the amount of money to be paid to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, the first instance court's non-indicted Co-Defendant 1, the first-indicted Co-Defendant 4 and the first-indicted Co-Defendant 1, the first-indicted Co-Defendant 1, who proposed the service contract.

In full view of the above statements, it is recognized that Defendant 2 was partially involved in the process of delivering the position of Defendant 4 in the compromise of service payment to be received as a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 5, but further, it appears that Defendant 2 did not agree with Co. 11 of the lower court with the authority to determine the amount of acceptance of bribe or the conclusion of a service contract in a formal form with the authority to decide on the amount of acceptance of bribe or the conclusion of a service contract, so that the service contract is concluded by reducing the amount in the form of money

③ Regarding Yeongdeungpopo-26 Seoul (Non-Indicted 7 Co., Ltd.)

In accordance with the prosecutor's office of Co-defendant 10 of the court below and the court below's legal statement, when Co-defendant 4 received a bribe from Co-Defendant 7 in relation to the Seoul Yongpo-26 area, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 promised to receive KRW 200 million in return for consultation with Co-Defendant 10 of the court below on the amount to be received as a bribe and on the method of preparing a formal service contract with Co-Defendant 10 of the court below, and caused Co-Defendant 7 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 8 of the court below and the above defendant

Co-defendant 10 of the lower court stated in the court’s trial that “Around October 208, 200, or Co-defendant 2 requested that Nonindicted Co. 3 select Nonindicted Co. 7 as a contractor in the urban environment rearrangement project in Yongpo-26 Seoul, which is managed and consulted by Nonindicted Co. 1 as a maintenance business manager. KRW 200 million, which was given to Nonindicted Co. 7 Co. 8 as a cycle of consultation with Defendant 2, is an amount. There was a gathering that Defendant 2 had completed any internal consultation with Defendant 2. Co. 10.” However, Co-defendant 10 of the lower court made a statement with Defendant 2 to the effect that “After the prosecutor’s investigation on March 16, 2010, Co. 3 was aware of the detailed investigation on Non-Indicted Co. 1-26, Nonindicted Co. 3 and Non-Indicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., the part of the lower court’s decision that Non-Indicted Co. 3 was able to enter into an audit Agreement with Defendant 3.

However, Defendant 2 introduced Defendant 4 at the request of Co-Defendant 10 of the court below, which was known to Defendant 2, and sent his opinion among them, was recognized that there was no fact that there was a consultation on the amount of bribery between Co-Defendant 10 of the court below, and Defendant 4 also stated that “Defendant 2 did not determine whether to conclude a service contract and specific service cost” in the court of the court below. Defendant 2 determined service cost in Nonindicted Co. 7 and presented it to Nonindicted Co. 8. After determining whether to conclude a service contract and specific service cost, Defendant 2 did not examine the service contract document with Defendant 3 and did not give instructions to examine it and sign. In the case of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 8, since the company’s official seal, etc. was kept in the accounting team of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, the company’s official seal, etc., and thus, Defendant 3 stated to the purport that “Defendant 2 made a decision on the time to pay the amount of bribe in return for the selection of the contractor.”

Upon examining the above statements, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that Co-defendant 10's statements were inconsistent with the court below's statements, Defendant 3 was trying to play a role as Defendant 2 in relation to his criminal liability, and Defendant 4 was established and operated in the name of Defendant 12, and Defendant 7 and Defendant 4 appears to have been the final right to make a decision on the conclusion of the contract with Defendant 4. However, it is recognized that Defendant 2 introduced Co-defendant 10 of the court below to Defendant 4 and took part in the consultation on the amount to be received as a bribe and the method of preparing a service contract in the form of a bribe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

④ As to Non-Indicted 1-1 (Non-Indicted 7 Stock Company)

The court below found, based on the legal statement of the non-indicted 10, that when the defendant 4 accepted a bribe from the non-indicted 7 corporation in relation to Non-indicted 1-1, Defendant 2 consulted with the non-indicted 9 of the court below on the method of preparing a formal service contract with the non-indicted 7 corporation, and thereafter, the non-indicted 7 corporation entered into a formal service contract with the non-indicted 2 corporation.

At the court of the court below, Nonindicted 10 stated to the effect that “Non-Indicted 10,00 won was found to have been the representative of Non-Indicted 13 Co., Ltd. and was given an order to consult well with Defendant 2. In consultation with Defendant 2, Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd., the contract was concluded with Defendant 2, which would assist the acceptance of orders upon entering into a contract with Non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s acceptance of orders. Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2’s personal seal impression, business registration certificate, and copy of passbook, etc. necessary for the contract. He received demand calls for down payment from Defendant 2. Non-Indicted 13, at the court of the first instance, that “The amount of service payment was determined to be KRW 30,00,000,” and that the amount was either the amount of Defendant 4 and the amount was determined to be the same as that of Defendant 1’s telephone service payment to Defendant 2 or the vice-indicted 1, which was decided to be the same as that of Defendant 1.

In full view of the above statements, Defendant 2 is found to have participated in the preparation of a formal service contract when Defendant 4 received bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7 with regard to Non-Indicted. 1-1, but further, Defendant 2 did not allow Non-Indicted. 7 to enter into a formal service contract with Non-Indicted. 2 after consultation with Co-Indicted. 9 of the lower court on the amount of acceptance of bribe or the method of preparation of a service contract with regard to the conclusion of a formal service contract. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

⑤ Regarding offset 4 (Non-Indicted 9 Stock Company)

In accordance with the prosecutor's office of Co-Defendant 7 and the court below's legal statement, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 had prepared a formal service contract with Co-Defendant 7 and had Nonindicted Co-Defendant 9 conclude a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co-Defendant 3 and Nonindicted Co-Defendant 2.

Defendant 5 stated at the prosecutor’s office that “Defendant 4 would receive money from Nonindicted Co. 9, and the tax would be borne by Nonindicted Co. 1, who received money from Nonindicted Co. 3, and the amount of KRW 30,000 to KRW 40,000 from KRW 30,000,000,00 at the face value.” In addition, Defendant 2 did not participate in the fact that Nonindicted Co. 8 of the lower court’s trial witness decided to enter into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 9 and KRW 80,00,00 with Defendant 4 designated by Defendant 4. The contents of the contract are examined and confirmed by the legal team of Nonindicted Co. 9, and it is impossible to use the contract which was not examined at the legal team. Since the content of the contract was already determined, there was no need to separately determine or adjust the amount or content of the contract. Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that it was a proxy of Nonindicted Co. 7 and Defendant 2, who signed the entire name of the corporation.

In full view of the above statements, in accepting a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 2 is recognized as having been engaged in the preparation of a formal service contract in the form of an agent of the above company in the capacity of Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2 as an agent of the above company, but it appears that Defendant 2 did not allow Nonindicted Co. 9 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2 with the authority to make decisions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

On the other hand, when the court deems that there is no concern about causing a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense in light of the progress of the trial, it may recognize the criminal facts different from the facts charged ex officio within the scope that is recognized as identical to the facts charged, even if the indictment has not been modified. Moreover, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 was the managing director of Nonindicted Company 1 from April 2006, when Nonindicted Company 1 was established upon Defendant 4’s invitation from around April 2006, when Nonindicted Company 2 came to be the managing director of Nonindicted Company 1, recommended the upper Defendant 4 to enter into a service contract with the former Defendant 4, and participated in the preparation of a contract between Nonindicted Company 6, Nonindicted Company 8, Nonindicted Company 3, Nonindicted Company 2 through Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 7, and Nonindicted Company 9 through Nonindicted Company 4 in accordance with the order of Defendant 4 was the act of aiding and abetting the crime of bribery committed by Defendant 4, and Defendant 2 was defending Defendant 2 on the premise that his act constitutes aiding and abetting in the trial process, even if Defendant 2 was punished as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) without taking the procedures for amending the indictment against Defendant 2, to the extent that there is no concern that the punishment against Defendant 2 would be any substantial disadvantage or disadvantage in exercising his right to defense.

2. Judgment on the part not guilty against Defendant 4 and the part on Defendant 6 (see, e.g., misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by prosecutor)

The lower court determined that, in full view of the following: (a) it is reasonable to view that Defendant 4 received KRW 770,000,000 from Defendant 6 was made according to an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 4, irrespective of the status of the maintenance business manager; (b) it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 4 received KRW 770,000 from Defendant 6 was made according to an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 4, regardless of the status of the maintenance business manager; and (c) it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted Co. 1 did not have any authority to select Nonindicted Co. 4 as the removal business owner; and (b) Nonindicted Co. 4 paid approximately KRW 90,000 to Nonindicted Co. 1, who was not selected as the maintenance business manager, but did not receive a bribe from Defendant 6 in connection with the maintenance business manager’s duties.

Upon examining the evidence of this case, the court below's decision that this part of the facts charged by Defendant 4 and 6 constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime related to duties is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

3. Determination of conviction against Defendant 4

A. As to Defendant 4’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

1) Business relationship relationship

A) Defendant 4’s assertion

Articles 1, 2-1, 2-1, and 3-1 (a) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; Act No. 9444, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 10268, Feb. 6, 2010; Act No. 10268; Act No. 10268, Feb. 6, 2010; Act No. 10268; hereinafter referred to as “former Act”) provide that “support for the selection of a designer and a contractor” as a manager’s duties, and do not provide “support for the selection of a developer”, thus Defendant 4’s receipt of money from a construction company in relation to the selection of an implementer does not have business

B) Relevant legal principles

Article 84 of the former Act provides, “The executives and employees of an association (referring to the executives and employees of an association in the case of a corporation) and a management entity specialized in improvement projects shall be deemed public officials in applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act.” This is not only the projects having a public nature to improve the quality of residential life by planned rearrangement and improving areas where reconstruction and redevelopment projects are concentrated with buildings, but also the projects having significant influence on the exercise of property rights by the residents or landowners, such as land within the rearrangement zone. It is also aimed at ensuring the fairness and integrity of the performance of duties of the association or the management entity specialized in improvement projects by proxy, so that reconstruction and redevelopment projects can be performed fairly and transparently, taking into account the language and purport of Article 84 of the said Act, and it does not necessarily mean that the management entity specialized in improvement projects who received benefits from the management entity specialized in improvement projects, such as the establishment of an association or the management entity specialized in improvement projects, which shall be deemed to have a public official of the management entity specialized in improvement projects, who received benefits from the management project.

C) Determination

Article 69 (1) 4 of the former Act provides that not only “support for the business of selecting a contractor,” but also “in relation thereto” as the duties of a rearrangement project management contractor. In the redevelopment project, it is reasonable to deem that the act of receiving money from the construction company under the name of the implementer is related to the duties of the rearrangement project manager, in view of the following: (a) there are many cases where the construction company participates as a joint implementer under the premise to be selected as a contractor; (b) there are frequent cases where the company selected as a real implementer is selected as a contractor; (c) Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 16, who offered a bribe to Defendant 4, are selected as a contractor in the redevelopment project zone; and (d) the selection of an implementer may also affect Nonindicted Co. 1 in the process of a general meeting.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that Defendant 4 received money from the construction company in relation to the selection of the implementer is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Whether “Defendant 4A” received a bribe

A) Defendant 4’s assertion

With respect to the criminal facts in which Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3 received a bribe through a bribe, it cannot be deemed that the payment of money and valuables to Nonindicted Co. 9, Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 7 to Nonindicted Co. 2 or Nonindicted Co. 3 was made to Defendant 4. As such, Defendant 4 cannot be regarded as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) under the Acceptance of Bribery.

B) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the trial and the court below, ① Defendant 4 is a corporation established for the purpose of the improvement project management business under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and is the representative director of the maintenance business chain in charge of overall business of the above company, including field management, conclusion of service contracts, and fund management, ② Defendant 4 (40%) above, Defendant 2 (25%) above, Nonindicted 17 (20%) and Nonindicted 12 (10%) are practically Defendant 41 companies. ③ Defendant 4 actually operated Nonindicted 8 Co., Ltd. established under the name of Defendant 12 as the wife and Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. established under the name of Defendant 1 as well as the consulting company under the control of Nonindicted Co. 2 and 3 Co. 4, the consulting company, as well as Defendant 4, who actually received or disposed of any bribe from Defendant Co. 1 and Defendant Co. 4, who received or distributed it from the above construction company to Defendant Co. 4 and Defendant Co., Ltd.

Therefore, although the court below did not expressly state it, it is reasonable to consider that the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3 received a bribe from the construction company is the same as that of Defendant 4, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by Defendant 4.

3) Calculation of the amount of bribe

A) Defendant 4’s assertion

The construction company entered into a service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 3 on the recommendation of Defendant 4, while paying excessive service fees, and the above consulting company actually conducted market research or public relations activities of the construction company. Since it is unreasonable to regard the whole amount paid by the construction company as a bribe, it is unfair to regard the whole amount paid by the construction company as a bribe, it shall be calculated on the basis of the amount acquired individually regardless of the amount of bribe acquired, fine, and additional collection charges as a bribe. Furthermore, the amount paid by the consulting company as value-added tax shall be excluded from the amount of bribe calculated. Furthermore, if the construction company entered into a service contract with Nonindicted Co. 2 or Nonindicted Co. 3 and paid service fees, it shall be excluded from the amount of bribe calculated (Supreme Court Decision 1), Defendant 5, and 2, who are co-defendants, from the judgment below, and the remaining amount acquired by the co-defendant 1 or Defendant 4 as well as the additional collection charges among the co-offenders.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly examined at the court below, it is reasonable to view that construction companies have delivered a bribe to Defendant 4 in disguise of a service contract to conclude a public relations service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3. The payment of the money that Defendant 4 received as a bribe is the delivery of the bribe to Defendant 4. As such, even if the principal agent of the acceptance of the bribe uses part of the money that Defendant 4 received as a bribe in accordance with the public relations service contract concluded formally with the above consulting company or aids and abets the payment of value-added tax in accordance with the public relations service contract concluded formally with the above consulting company, it cannot be applied to the relation that it is only incidental expenses paid for the bribe, and thus, the principle of additional collection among accomplices in this case cannot be excluded from the additional collection charge against Defendant 4, and therefore, the court below's decision that Defendant 4 was just and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

① If the construction company did not demand the Defendant 4 who had the authority to prevent the selection of the contractor as the maintenance business manager, the construction company did not need to enter into a public relations service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 2, and entered into a public relations service contract with Defendant 4 to be selected as the contractor.

② If Nonindicted Co. 6, etc., connected to Nonindicted Co. 1, designated a specific construction company against its members and provided publicity to its members, it is difficult to conduct such publicity because it can be deemed that the members or the partnership enforcement department was abnormal, and the construction company mobilized its own public relations personnel to conduct public relations activities. In particular, in the relevant industry, the novel that “Nonindicted Co. 6 is Nonindicted Co. 1..” was published in the related industry.

③ At the request of Nonindicted Co. 1, the said consulting company did not have any other transaction performance except for entering into a public relations service contract, etc. with the construction company.

④ The above consulting companies were actually under the control of Defendant 4, such as payment of money that the said consulting companies received from the construction companies was paid to the OS employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 OS, or transferred money to Nonindicted Co. 1 or Defendant 4 and disposed of based on Defendant 4’s intention.

(5) The amount of brochures supplied by consulting companies in return for services to construction companies is not worth seeable by construction companies as they are, as they are, a pipe or output of materials on the old office or the Internet.

【Defendant 4 submitted the cost payment draft book, etc. from December 3, 2007 to December 28, 2007 with respect to Nonindicted Co. 5’s “Seosan Line,” which is related to Nonindicted Co. 5 Company, to which Nonindicted Co. 11, who is a person in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5, was selected as a consortium through a general meeting of joint implementers on December 28, 2007. The consulting service contract written on November 22, 2007 was made retroactively on January 2, 2008. Defendant 4 tried to enter into a service contract in line with KRW 30 million, which is the amount required in return for the selection of work executor, and it was not appropriate for Nonindicted Co. 5 to enter into the service contract with Nonindicted Co. 5, who is the person in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 1, who made a false statement in order to promote the credibility of the service contract, even if it appears that it was inappropriate for Nonindicted Co. 4 to enter into the above service contract.”

B. Ex officio determination

The lower court recognized Defendant 4 and Defendant 2 as co-principal, and additionally collected KRW 2,956,405,000, including KRW 1,611,810,000, KRW 1/2,05,000, and KRW 2,150,50,000 solely received by Defendant 4 and Defendant 4 as co-principal, from Defendant 4.

However, as seen earlier, the first instance court held that the charge of committing the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) in collusion with Defendant 4 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, but determined that the crime of aiding and abetting was established.

Therefore, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 was merely an aiding and abetting offender, and the subject who received a bribe from the construction company was Defendant 4 and Defendant 2 did not receive and distribute a bribe jointly with Defendant 4. As a result, the judgment of the court below erred in the calculation of the additional collection amount against Defendant 4.

3,762,310,000 won when the amount of lawful collection against Defendant 4 is calculated.

* KRW 3,762,310,00 = Nonindicted 5 Company 323,810,000 + Nonindicted 15 Company 632,50,000 ( KRW 220,000 + 412,50,000) + Nonindicted 16 Company 1,518,000,000 ( KRW 396,000 + + 792,000,000 + 330,000,000) + Nonindicted 7 Company 418,00,000 ( KRW 55,000,000 + 363,000,000) + Nonindicted 97,0000,0000

As such, among the judgment below, the judgment of the court below on conviction against Defendant 4 erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, this part of the judgment below cannot be upheld.

4. Judgment on Defendant 1

A. The part concerning the acceptance of bribe

1) As to Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

A) The assertion that there was no aiding and abetting the crime of bribery against the defendant 4

The court below determined that Defendant 1’s act of receiving money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 5 in the manner of pretending to receive money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 6, as stated in the crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment below, on the following grounds: (a) Defendant 1 was registered as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 on the corporate register upon his request; and (b) Defendant 1 was aware that Defendant 4 was established with the construction company related to Nonindicted Co. 1; and (c) Defendant 6 was only related to Nonindicted Co. 1, and did not perform other duties; and (d) it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 knew that he was aware of the fact that Defendant 4, who was registered as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 4 on the corporate register, knew of the fact that he received money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 5, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, was negligent in aiding and abetting Nonindicted Co. 11’s criminal act of receiving money and valuables.

Examining the evidence of this case, the court below's decision that the defendant 1 assisted the acceptance of bribe by the defendant 4 through the name of the non-indicted 6 corporation, the receipt and delivery of funds, the money laundering, and the withdrawal and management of money based on the above fact-finding and the determination of evidence is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B) The assertion that there is no duty relationship related to the selection of the implementer

As seen earlier, Article 69(1)4 of the former Act provides that not only “support for the affairs related to the selection of a contractor,” but also “related advice” as the duties of a rearrangement project management contractor. In the redevelopment improvement project, it is reasonable to deem that the act of receiving money from the construction company is related to the duties of the rearrangement project manager, namely, “a consultation related to the selection of a contractor,” in view of the fact that there are many cases where the construction company participates as a joint implementer on the premise that the construction company is selected as a contractor; that there is many cases where the company selected as a joint implementer is selected as a contractor; that Nonindicted Co. 5, which offered a bribe, is selected as a contractor in the redevelopment improvement project zone; and that the selection of an implementer may act in the process of a general meeting of the members.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the above defendant 4 received money from the non-indicted 5 corporation in relation to the selection of the implementer is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (as to the prosecutor's assertion of establishment of a co-principal)

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 11, as a business president at the time of November 2007, was involved in the preparation of a service contract with Nonindicted 5 Company by being in charge of the external business affairs of Nonindicted 6 Company as a business president, and Defendant 1 was not aware of the business affairs of the rearrangement business entity, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1 committed a crime for the purpose of receiving money and valuables in collusion with Defendant 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Upon examining the evidence of this case, the court below's decision that it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 committed a crime with the above defendant 4 in collaboration with the above defendant 4 on the basis of the fact-finding and the determination of evidence is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. On the part of occupational embezzlement (Defendant 1's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, a representative director of Nonindicted Company 6, had Nonindicted 18, an employee in charge of the fund management and accounting of the said Company, withdraw the corporate funds in custody under the pretext of provisional payment or loan, and let him use them for private purposes;

Around April 21, 2008, at the office of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted) Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 4 voluntarily withdraws KRW 100,000 of the Company’s funds in the same manner between April 21, 2008 and June 3, 2009, in order to use them as operating expenses, etc. of Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 4, who had been in his business custody, in the form of provisional payment, withdrawn KRW 100,000 of the Company’s funds in the form of provisional payment, and deliver them to Defendant 4, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1), arbitrarily withdraws from April 21, 2008 to June 3, 2009;

From November 24, 2008 to February 12, 2009, the sum of KRW 160,58,650, as shown in the annexed Table of Crimes (2) from November 24, 2008, including withdrawal of KRW 1,00,00,00 from the office of Nonindicted Co. 6 around December 31, 2008, even though Nonindicted Co. 19 did not work at the site of the rearrangement project of Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 19, as the field of the rearrangement project of Nonindicted Co. 19, shall be withdrawn from the office of Nonindicted Co. 6 for labor expenses

At the office of Nonindicted Co. 6 around January 16, 2009, the sum of KRW 1,934,000, around December 9, 2008, including withdrawal of KRW 5,028,00 as the site labor cost for Nonindicted Co. 20 even though Nonindicted Co. 20 had not worked at the site of the rearrangement project of Nonindicted Co. 6, and the sum of KRW 7,929,000, around June 24, 2009, including KRW 1,934,00,000, around June 24, 2009, shall be withdrawn as the labor cost for Nonindicted Co. 20;

The total amount of corporate funds of KRW 918,040,650 was embezzled by using it for personal use.

2) Summary of the grounds for appeal

Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that the crime of occupational embezzlement by Defendant 1 cannot be established, on the grounds that, in relation to the crime of bribery against a construction company against Defendant 4, the part where Defendant 1 used the bribe was an act ex post facto after the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 4, inasmuch as the crime of bribery against a construction company against Defendant 4 was established (Defendant 1 confessions the remainder of the crime of occupational embezzlement).

3) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the crime of occupational embezzlement is established on the premise that, inasmuch as Nonindicted Co. 6’s money was deposited from the construction company to the corporate account, the said money is treated as the funds of Nonindicted Co. 6, on the premise that Defendant 1’s total sum of KRW 910,111,650 as stated in the annexed List of Crimes (1), and (2) is arbitrarily withdrawn and used without going through lawful procedures during the course of business keeping the funds of Nonindicted Co. 6 in custody

4) The judgment of this Court

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the trial and the court below, ① Defendant 4, who is the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, established the non-indicted 6 corporation, and operated it as in fact as the individual company. ② Defendant 1 was in charge of the fund management, etc. with the non-indicted 18 who is an employee under the order of the above defendant 4, ③ it was requested by the non-indicted 4 to the effect that the non-indicted 6 corporation will be selected as the contractor or implementer, and the non-indicted 4 will enter into a formal service contract with the non-indicted 6 corporation on February 5, 2008, and it was recognized that the non-indicted 323,810,000 won from the non-indicted 5 corporation on March 4, 2008, the non-indicted 200,000,000 won from the non-indicted 15 corporation on September 9, 2008

In order to establish the crime of occupational embezzlement, there is a legal or de facto consignment relationship between the custodian of the property and the owner of the property (or any other person on the part of the owner). However, according to social norms, the said construction company’s deposit in the deposit account of Nonindicted Company 6 is the same as Defendant 4 directly receives a bribe. Thus, there is no legal or de facto consignment relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 6 with respect to the money deposited in the deposit account in the name of Nonindicted Company 6. In other words, Defendant 1 was not in the position of keeping the money deposited in a bribe for the victim Nonindicted Company 6. Thus, Defendant 1’s withdrawal and disposal of the said money in accordance with the direction of Defendant 4 does not constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement.

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the money withdrawn and disposed of by Defendant 1 in the deposit account of Nonindicted Company 6 was less than the amount deposited as a bribe against Defendant 4, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 1 withdrawn and disposed of the unique assets of Nonindicted Company 6, which was in his business custody, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge this otherwise.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with respect to the total amount of KRW 918,040,650 by recognizing the guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement in the attached Table (1) and (2) as guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts concerning the status of the custodian

5. Judgment on Defendant 3

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (as to the prosecutor's assertion of a co-principal's establishment)

The lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 3 committed the above crime with an intention to jointly accept money and valuables in collusion with Defendant 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, even though it was found that Defendant 3 performed the accounting business of Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 8, and Nonindicted Co. 6, but did not have participated in the determination of the amount of bribe received in return for the selection of the contractor or the timing of payment, etc., and Defendant 3 merely received benefits from Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd. and was in charge of the preparation and accounting

Upon examining the evidence of this case, the court below is justified in holding that it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 3 committed a crime with the intent to receive money and valuables in collaboration with Defendant 4 on the basis of the fact-finding and the determination of evidence as above, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) imposed on Defendant 3 by taking account of the favorable or unfavorable sentencing factors as indicated in its holding is relatively minor under the circumstances where the degree of participation in the crime is relatively minor. It is not so far as it is too weak even in light of the sentencing factors asserted by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

6. Judgment on Defendant 5

Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant 5 and the Prosecutor, the lower court ex officio did not concurrently impose a fine on Defendant 5 who committed a crime of aiding and abetting in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

Article 2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) provides for the following:

Article 2 (Aggravated Punishment for Bribery) (1) Any person who commits a crime referred to in Article 129, 130 or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be punished aggravatingly as follows according to the value of the bribe which is received, demanded or promised to receive (hereafter referred to as "amount of the accepted bribery" in this Article):

1. If the amount of the accepted bribery is one hundred million won or more, he shall be punished by imprisonment for life or not less than ten years; and

2. If the amount of the accepted bribery is not less than fifty million won but less than one hundred million won, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term of not less than seven years.

3. If the amount of the accepted bribery is not less than thirty million won but less than fifty million won, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term of five or more years.

(2) Any person who commits a crime specified in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine not less than two times but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery in the punishment determined for the crime (including the cases specified in paragraph (1)).

A person who aids and abets a crime under Article 2(1) of the above Act is punished as an aiding and abetting offender under Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act. Furthermore, considering the legislative intent of strengthening punishment for a person who commits a crime not only a principal offender but also an aiding and abetting offender under Article 2(2) of the above Act, considering the systematic structure, language, and text of Article 2(1) and (2) of the above Act, and the legislative intent of strengthening punishment for a person who commits a crime not taking a public office, it is reasonable to interpret that “an offense specified in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act” includes not only the principal offender but also an aiding and abetting offender.

However, the lower court found Defendant 5 guilty of the charges of aiding and abetting Defendant 5 to “the receipt of bribe equivalent to KRW 440,000,000 in total, including the receipt of KRW 220,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 9 around February 24, 2009, and KRW 220,000,000, around April 2, 2009,” but did not impose a fine as to Defendant 5 concurrently.

This constitutes a case where there was an error that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to a misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 2(2) of the above Act, and the judgment of the court below rendered a single sentence as to the whole criminal facts in the judgment against Defendant 5, and the part of the judgment below as to Defendant 5

7. Conclusion

Since the part against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reversed without examining Defendant 2’s assertion of unfair sentencing. In this regard, since the conviction part against Defendant 4 in the judgment of the court below is also a ground for ex officio reversal in relation to the calculation of the amount of penalty, this part is also reversed without omitting the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing between Defendant

In addition, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court below should be reversed on the ground that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of fact or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part which was found guilty as with the original judgment, but this is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, such as the above 4.B.), and the remaining crime of the above defendant in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Furthermore, among the judgment of the court below, the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 5 in the judgment of the court below is reversed because it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the remaining crimes of the defendant in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes with the above reversed part in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced. Thus, the part

Therefore, the judgment of the court below regarding the conviction of Defendant 1, 2, 5, and Defendant 4 shall be rendered again after the pleading as follows.

On the other hand, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 3 and 6 and appeal against the non-guilty part against the defendant 4 are dismissed on the other hand.

Defendant 4, as the representative director of the rearrangement business established for the purpose of running the rearrangement business under the Urban Improvement Act, was in charge of overall business of the above company management, including site management, conclusion of service contracts, and fund management, and was actually operated by Nonindicted 8 corporation established under the name of the wife, and Nonindicted 6 corporation established under the name of the wife, Defendant 2 was in charge of on-site management, service conclusion, and fund management as the managing director of Nonindicted 1 corporation. Defendant 3, as the auditor of Nonindicted 1 corporation, was in charge of Nonindicted 1 corporation, Nonindicted 8 corporation, Nonindicted 6 corporation, and Nonindicted 6 corporation. Defendant 1 was in charge of the financing management and accounting of Nonindicted 1 corporation, Nonindicted 8 corporation, and Nonindicted 6 corporation. Defendant 2 was the representative director of the court below established for the main purpose of rebuilding, redevelopment business agency, etc. in Mapo-dong Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted), and Nonindicted 2 was the representative director of the Mapo-gu corporation established for the purpose of the management and consultation of the Seoul corporation and its main purpose.

[Defendant 4]

Defendant 4, in the process of managing a reconstruction project and a housing redevelopment project in the Seoul and Gyeonggi area, was asked by Nonindicted Co. 1 to help and to be selected as a contractor by the construction company that wants to select a contractor of a rearrangement project through the call of Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., the contractor of a rearrangement project, such as a promotion committee or association head, partnership head, etc., and to take charge of management and consultation on the selection of the contractor as a rearrangement project manager in the process of managing a reconstruction project and a housing redevelopment project in the rearrangement zone, with the intention of using the bank account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., the contractor of the rearrangement project;

1. On November 5, 2007, Co-defendant 11 of the lower court, who is an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s company, accepted the request from Co-defendant 11 of the lower court to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 5 would help and help to select Nonindicted Co. 5 as an implementer in the urban environment rearrangement project in the Seodaemunsan Line, and then let Nonindicted Co. 5 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 5 in a manner of having Nonindicted Co. 5 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 323,810,00 in the name

2. A. On January 4, 2008, Co-defendant 12 and 13 of the court below, who is an employee in charge of the redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 15, received a request from Co-defendant 12 and 13 of the court below to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 15, in the urban environment rearrangement project of the Incheon Song-gu District, intended to select Nonindicted Co. 15 as the contractor, and consented to it. On March 4, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 15 received a bribe equivalent to KRW 220,000,000 from an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, and accepted a bribe, by allowing Nonindicted Co.

B. On June 18, 2009, Co-defendant 12 and 13 of the lower court accepted the request from Co-defendant 12 to the effect that Non-indicted 15 corporation will be selected as the contractor in the urban environment rearrangement project, and then accepted the acceptance of bribe amounting to KRW 412,50,000 in total, including KRW 137,50,000,000, around July 14, 2009, and KRW 137,500,000,000, around November 16, 2009, and KRW 137,500,000,000 in total, around November 16, 2009, respectively, by having the Non-indicted 15 corporation enter into a formal service contract with Non-indicted 2 corporation.

3. A. A. On May 2008, Co-defendant 14 and 15 of the lower court, who is an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 16, who was an employee in charge of the redevelopment of housing belonging to Nonindicted Co. 16, received a request from Nonindicted Co-defendant 14 and 15 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 16 will be selected as an implementer. On May 9, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 16 received a bribe amounting to KRW 396,000,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, May 198, 2008; and received a bribe on September 5, 2008, around October 24, 2008, by having Nonindicted Co. 16 enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 396,000,000 won.

B. Around June 2008, Co-defendant 14, 15 of the lower judgment received the request from Co-defendant 14, 15 to the effect that Nonindicted Co-Defendant 16 would help him select as a work executor in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Seoul Off-five Zone, and accepted the request, and then, Non-Indicted Co-Defendant 16 shall enter into a formal service contract with Non-Indicted Co. 8, Jun. 18, 2008 with the name of Non-Indicted. 8, around July 3, 2008, around July 3, 2008, and around July 3, 2009, received the bribe amounting to KRW 792,00,000,000 respectively, and received the bribe, respectively.

C. On February 4, 2009, Co-defendant 14, 15 of the lower judgment received a bribe in amounting to KRW 330,00,00 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 6’s name and received KRW 330,00,00 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 6 around February 4, 2009, by requesting that Nonindicted Co-Defendant 16 select Nonindicted Co. 16 as the contractor in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Seoul New-ro 16, Seoul.

4. A. On October 3, 2008, Co-defendant 10 of the lower court, an employee in charge of the redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7, who was the employee of Nonindicted Co. 10 of the company, accepted the request to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 7 would have been selected as the contractor, and promised to receive KRW 200 million in consideration of the request, and made Nonindicted Co. 7 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 8 and to receive KRW 5,00,000 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8 on November 3, 2008, and received a bribe by receiving KRW 55,00,000 out of the above KRW 20,000 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8;

B. Around October 2009, Co-Defendant 9, who is an employee in charge of redevelopment belonging to Nonindicted Co. 7, received a request from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 9 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 7 would help them select Non-Indicted Co. 7 as the contractor in the urban environment rearrangement project, and accepted the bribe by receiving the total amount of KRW 363,00,000 from each of the accounts in the name of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 2, around November 2, 2009 and around December 15, 2009, by allowing Nonindicted Co-Defendant 7 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 2, a work with Nonindicted Co. 7.

5. From February 24, 2009 to Co-Defendant 7 and 8 of the lower court’s judgment’s employees in charge of redevelopment of housing in Seoul-Offset 4, upon receiving a request from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 9 to the effect that Nonindicted Co-Defendant 9 would have been selected as the contractor, and then, upon receiving a request from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 9 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., the amount of KRW 220 million to the corporate account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 on or around February 24, 2009; KRW 220 million to the corporate account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 on or around April 2, 2009; KRW 430,000 to the corporate account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 from June 25, 2009 to November 13, 2009; KRW 970,700,000 respectively.

6. A. A. around September 2009, at the parking lot for the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association's office located in the Geumju-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-ri, through Defendant 1, the case of Nonindicted 23 to the head of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association's association located in the housing redevelopment and improvement project in the housing redevelopment and improvement project in the housing redevelopment and improvement project in the housing redevelopment and improvement project in the housing development and improvement project at the same time to deliver a bribe of KRW 10,000,000 in cash, along with a solicitation to the effect that various conveniences are changed in the future improvement project;

B. Around November 2009, at the ○○○○○ commercial parking lot located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, 24 (hereinafter omitted), Defendant 2 offered a bribe equivalent to KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 24, who is a director of the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association, for various convenience related to the maintenance business of Nonindicted Company 1, including support of the general meeting for the selection of work executor, etc.

[Defendant 2]

1. Defendant 2, on November 2007, participated in the process of delivering part of Defendant 4’s position in the compromise of service payment to be paid as a bribe by Co-Defendant 11, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s company, and consented to the urban environment rearrangement project in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by allowing Nonindicted Co. 5 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 323,810,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 5 on February 5, 2008, in order to assist the acceptance of bribe, Defendant 2, upon receiving the request from Co-Defendant 11, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s company, to facilitate the crime by delivering the above Defendant 4’s position in the manner of delivering it.

2. A. A. On October 2008, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7’s company, obtained a request from Co. 10 of the court below to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 7 would have been selected as a contractor and agreed to receive KRW 200 million in return for the commission of the urban environment rearrangement project, at the request of Co. 10 of the court below, which was an employee in charge of the development of the urban environment in Yongpo-26, Seoul, Youngpo-gu, Seoul, and promised to receive KRW 200 million. On November 3, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 7, by allowing Nonindicted Co. 8 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 8’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, and received a bribe, thereby aiding and abetting the crime by facilitating a part of the consultation on the amount to be received as a bribe and the method of preparing a formal service contract.

B. On October 2009, Defendant 4, an employee in charge of redevelopment belonging to Nonindicted Co. 7, 2009, accepted a request from Co-Defendant 9 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 7 Co. 7 will be selected as the contractor in the urban environment rearrangement project in Seocheon Copy 1-1, thereby allowing Nonindicted Co. 7 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 2, on or around November 2, 2009 and on December 15, 2009, with an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, each of KRW 363,00,000, in total, around 181,50,000, as well as around December 15, 2009, in order to assist the receipt of bribe, by participating in the preparation of a formal service contract, thereby facilitating the crime.

3. On February 24, 2009, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7 and 8 belonging to Nonindicted Co. 9, received a request from Nonindicted Co. 7 and 8 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 9 would select Nonindicted Co. 9 as the contractor in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Seoul-Offset 4, thereby allowing Nonindicted Co. 9 to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 and to enter into a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009, around February 24, 2009, 220 million won with the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 Co. 3 and 220 million won with the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 on April 2, 2009, from June 25, 2009 to November 13, 2009, assisting the Defendant to receive and deliver the total amount of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 2’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s company, Ltd.

[Defendant 1]

Defendant 1:

1. On November 5, 2007, Defendant 4, an employee in charge of redevelopment who belongs to Nonindicted Co. 5, received a request from Co. 11 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 5 would select Nonindicted Co. 5 as an implementer in the urban environment rearrangement project in the Yongsan Line, and consented to it. On February 5, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 4 received a bribe by receiving KRW 323,810,00 from an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 6, thereby aiding and abetting the bribery of Defendant 4 by providing the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 6, receiving, receiving, receiving, and managing, money laundering, and withdrawing money.

2. On January 16, 2009, in the office of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted) Non-Indicted 6 Co. 20, his wife withdrawn KRW 5,028,00 for the site labor expenses of Non-Indicted 20 and embezzled KRW 7,929,00 for the aggregate of KRW 1,934,00 on December 9, 2008, around June 24, 2009, after withdrawing KRW 967,000 for the labor expenses of Non-Indicted 20 for his own personal use, even though Non-Indicted 20 did not work at the site of the improvement project of Non-Indicted 6 Co. 3.

[Defendant 5]

Defendant 5:

1. A. A. An intent to pay the capital of Nonindicted Co. 3 by borrowing money from another person and immediately withdrawing it and repaying the borrowed money, and around April 30, 2007, at the lower branch of the Republic of Korea Bank located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, borrowed KRW 50,000 from his father Nonindicted Co. 26 to deposit the money into the lower branch, and received a certificate of deposit of stock payment and received a certificate of deposit of stock payment. On the same day, the Seoul Central District Court completed a registration of incorporation with the amount of KRW 50,000 with the capital of Nonindicted Co. 3, using a certificate of deposit of stock payment at the commercial registry of the Seoul Central District Court on May 11, 2007, by withdrawing the total amount of KRW 50,000,000 paid for the stock on May 11, 2007, and pretending the payment of KRW 50,000 for Nonindicted Co. 3’s capital.

B. Around April 30, 2007, at the commercial registry office of the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court submitted documents necessary for the registration of establishment of a company, such as a certificate of stock payment, to a registered public official who is well aware of the fact despite the disguised payment of the established capital of the non-indicted 3 corporation. On the same day, the registered public official made a false registration of the total number of outstanding shares and total amount of capital of the company, and had the registered public official keep the commercial registry stating the fact of such fraudulent at the same time and place

2. Around February 2009, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 7 and 8 of the lower court, requested that Nonindicted Co. 9 select Nonindicted Co. 3 as a contractor in the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in Seoul-S-4 Seoul, and assisted and abetted the acceptance of bribe amounting to KRW 440,000,000, including the receipt of KRW 220,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 9 to Nonindicted Co. 3’s account on February 24, 2009; and received bribe amounting to KRW 220,000,000,000, around April 2, 2009.

Since the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, it shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Defendant 2]

(Article 1)

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 4;

1. Each legal statement of Co-defendant 11 and 18 of the lower court’s witness of the lower court

1. Each investigation report (Attachment, etc. of a certificate of registration for rearrangement project management business and a copy of business registration certificate, confirmation of the relationship between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 6, reporting of the confirmation of the status of Defendant 4 operation, attachment of the results of tracking the relevant financial account (No. 21, No. 30), and copy of the service contract

(A) Article 2-2 (Case A)

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 4;

1. Each legal statement of the witness of the court below, non-indicted 12, 27, and co-defendant 10

1. Each investigation report (verification of relation between corporations, attachment of a certificate of management business of rearrangement project and a copy of business registration certificate of the rearrangement project management business and a copy of the business registration certificate, analysis of the contents of the disbursement resolution of Nonindicted Co. 8, Defendant 4, confirmation report on Defendant 4, attachment of the result of tracking of the relevant financial account (Articles 21, 24, 29, and 30), attachment of the details of deposit to Nonindicted Co. 8, attachment of the service contract signed by Nonindicted Co. 7, attachment of the copy, etc. of the service contract signed by Nonindicted Co. 8,

(Article 2-2(b) of the Trade Commission)

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 4;

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 13 as a witness of the political party;

1. The legal statement of Non-Indicted 10 of the witness of the court below

1. Investigation protocol of Nonindicted 22 by prosecution

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 13

1. Each investigation report (the confirmation of relation between corporations, attachment of a certificate of registration for rearrangement project management business and a copy of business registration certificate, the service contract confiscated by Nonindicted Co. 1, the confirmation report of Defendant 4 operated corporation, attachment of the result of tracking the relevant financial account (Articles 30, 37, and 45), the report related to the △△△ Forum, attachment of the copy of the service contract concluded by Nonindicted Co. 7, and the flow of the deposit funds by Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 7

(Article 3)

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 4;

1. Defendant 5 and Co-Defendant 8’s each legal statement

1. The legal statement of Co-defendant 8 of the court below as the witness of the party;

1. Each legal statement of Co-defendant 7 and 2 of the court below as the witness of the court below

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 22

1. Each investigation report (verification of relation between corporations, attachment of a certificate of the management business entity specialized in improvement projects and a copy of business registration certificate, a service contract confiscated by Nonindicted Co. 1, a copy of an organization affiliated with the Dong branch office of Nonindicted Co. 9, attachment of a copy of Nonindicted Co. 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 30, 45), attachment of a copy of accounting records of Nonindicted Co. 9, attachment of a copy of the results of financial transaction tracking [Attachment 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 30, 45], attachment of accounting records of Nonindicted Co. 9, reporting on confirmation of the operation of the corporation, confirmation of the contents of the market survey books, copy of the establishment authorization, etc., reporting on the flow of funds related to Nonindicted Co. 9 Co. 9, execution (Evidence No. 1638 of evidence records] of search warrant

[Defendant 1]

(Article 1)

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 4 in part;

1. Each legal statement of the lower court witness 10, Co-defendant 11, and Nonindicted 18

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 11

1. Each investigation report (Attachment, etc. of a certificate of registration for rearrangement project management business and a copy of business registration certificate, confirmation of the relationship between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 4's confirmation report, attachment of the results of tracking the relevant financial account (No. 21, No. 30), copy of service contract concluded by Nonindicted Co. 5

(Article 2)

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. The legal statement of Non-Indicted 18 of the witness of the court below

1. Fourth prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination against Defendant 1;

1. The statement of Nonindicted 20

1. Investigation report (Attachment to Nonindicted Co. 6’s corporate account)

[Defendant 5]

Since the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, it shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Defendant 4]

① The receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 5, ② the receipt of a bribe related to Nonindicted Co. 15, ② the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 15, ③ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 16, and ③ the receipt of a bribe related to the “Indones 2”: Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Act No. 9169”), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 9444, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”).

- Article 2(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9444), which provides that the upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years as provided in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act)

① The receipt of a bribe related to “Intent 1-1” from Nonindicted Co. 15, ② the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 16, ③ the receipt of a bribe related to “Seoul Set-5,” ③ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 16, ④ the receipt of a bribe related to “Seoul New-ro 16,” ④ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7, ④ the receipt of a bribe related to “Intent 1-1,” ⑤ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9, ⑤ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9, ⑤ the receipt of a bribe from Nonindicted Co. 4, the receipt of a bribe from the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Act No. 10210), Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the former Act, Article 84 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 1063).

- The point of offering of a bribe: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 84 of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 10268);

[Defendant 2]

① Aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 5: Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9444); Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (elective of imprisonment for a limited term, but the upper limit of imprisonment for a limited term is 15 years as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 42

- The aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7 in relation to “Seoul Youngpo Area 1-26”: Article 2(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9444); Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (However, the upper limit of punishment is 15 years as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act

① Aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7’s “Non-Indicted 1-1” and ② Aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9: Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10268), Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (In addition, comprehensive imprisonment, choice of punishment and concurrent imposition of fines, provided that the upper limit of imprisonment is 15 years as set forth in the main sentence of Article 42

[Defendant 1]

- The aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe: Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9444), Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (elective choice of imprisonment for a limited term, however, the upper limit of imprisonment for a limited term of 15 years prescribed by the main sentence of

- The point of occupational embezzlement: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of imprisonment);

[Defendant 5]

- Violation of the Commercial Act: Articles 628(1) and 622(1) of the Commercial Act.

- The point of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed: Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

- The point of exercising the original notarial deed: Articles 229 and 228(1) of the Criminal Act.

- The aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe: Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10268), Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of imprisonment and concurrent imposition of fines, but the upper limit of imprisonment shall be 15 years as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act)

1. Aid and mitigation;

- Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendants 2 and 5: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

- Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery): Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 of each Criminal Code, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Code, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

- Defendant 4: The most severe punishment; imprisonment with prison labor and fines provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that accept a bribe from Nonindicted Company 9; heavy penalty

- Defendant 2: Imprisonment with prison labor and fines under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that aids and abets the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9 and the crime of aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7 and the crime of aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9 (in case of a fine, to the extent that it is aggregated with the maximum amount of the crime of aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 7 and the crime of aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9)

- Defendant 1: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment imposed on the crime of occupational embezzlement heavier than punishment; Provided, That the lower limit is based on the punishment set forth in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

- Defendant 5: Aggravation of concurrent crimes to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with the largest punishment

1. Discretionary mitigation (to take into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing as follows):

- Defendants 4, 2, and 5: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

- Defendant 1: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 4: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing shall be repeatedly considered);

Defendant 1 and 5: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

[Defendant 2]

-the penalty to be suspended: 435,000,000 won;

- Detention at workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2)(2) of the Criminal Act (2,175,000 per day)

- The main text of Article 59(1) and Article 59(2) of the Criminal Act (including, in light of the following reasons for sentencing, significant consideration is given to previous circumstances);

[Defendant 5]

(i) Penalty to be suspended: 20,000,000

Shedon detention: Articles 70 and 69(2)(1,100,000 per day) of the Criminal Act

Article 59 (1) (main sentence) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 4: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 4: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

○ The scope of imprisonment with prison labor: Imprisonment from five to eleven years;

○ Final sentencing range recommended by sentencing guidelines: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 12 years;

[Types of Crimes] Types 6 (based on the sum of the amounts received for the same concurrent crimes and the amount received for the same concurrent crimes) among the crime group of bribery charges

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : None

Reduction element: None

[Scope of Recommendation] The punishment of imprisonment is recommended from 9 years to 12 years.

○ General Sentencings on the sentencing criteria

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: None

Reduction element: Serious reflect

○ Determination of sentence

Defendant 4, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, as a result of the rearrangement project, has a big property impact on many members and has a significant conflict of interest, despite the lack of fair performance of duties due to the nature of the rearrangement project in which interests conflict, Defendant 4’s heavy bribe that reaches approximately KRW 3.8 billion in total from many construction companies using one’s position, and a bribe that employees and employees of the rearrangement project ultimately receive from the construction company is ultimately used for the project cost of the construction company, and thus, the increase in construction cost and the poor construction may be caused, and the damage therefrom shall be borne by good members.

However, in each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant 4, the institutional problems of the urban rearrangement project and the erroneous practices of the industry generated therefrom are caused, and part of the bribe received by Defendant 4 appears to have been used to undertake the rearrangement project, including loans to the reconstruction association establishment promotion committee, and there is no previous conviction in the same kind, and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in this case, such as the age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime.

[Defendant 2]

Defendant 2’s officer of a rearrangement project body deemed as a public official receives a large amount of bribe amounting to approximately KRW 1,610,00,000 from a third party’s executive officer, Defendant 2 was in charge of preparing a formal service contract and made it easy to commit such crime. Although, it is inevitable to punish a large amount of bribe in light of the degree of his participation.

However, the benefits directly acquired by Defendant 2 as a result of the instant crime are insignificant, and there is no record of criminal punishment except for the punishment of fines twice due to drunk driving, and other various circumstances, such as the degree and age of participation in the instant crime, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the instant crime, are considered.

[Defendant 1]

As the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6, assisted Defendant 4 in the name of the corporation, the name of the corporation, money laundering, etc. to receive bribe from Nonindicted Co. 5, and embezzled KRW 7,929,000 of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 6, thereby

However, Defendant 1 is merely a nominal representative director of Nonindicted 6 corporation, and the degree of participation in the crime is relatively minor by processing the work in accordance with Defendant 4’s instruction, and the payment of damages to the embezzled money is made, there is no previous conviction, and his mistake is divided and reflected, and other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, such as Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of the crime, consequence, and circumstances after the crime.

[Defendant 5]

Defendant 5’s aiding and abetting Defendant 4 to receive a large amount of bribe from Nonindicted Co. 9 to KRW 440,000,000, thereby hindering the fair and transparent progress of reconstruction and redevelopment projects.

However, there is no particular criminal punishment except for the benefits acquired by Defendant 5 as a result of the instant crime, the violation of the Labor Standards Act, the fact that Defendant 5 has committed a violation of the Labor Standards Act, the fact that there is no particular criminal punishment, and that Defendant 5 repents his or her mistake and reflects his or her depth, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, such as the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence

The summary of the facts charged regarding Defendant 2’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) is as shown in the preceding 1. A. D. As seen in the foregoing paragraph, since this part of the facts charged falls under the time when there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 2 was guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

[Defendant 1]

○ Part of acceptance of bribe

- Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 conspiredd with Defendant 4 on November 2007, Defendant 4, who was an employee in charge of redevelopment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s company, was asked by Co. 11 of the lower court to assist in the urban environment rearrangement project in the Seodaemunsan Line, to be selected as an implementer of Nonindicted Co. 5. Defendant 1 participated in the conclusion of a formal service contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 7, and received a bribe equivalent to KRW 323,810,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6’s account on February 5, 2008.

- Determination

As seen in the above 4.A.2, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) which is included in the above facts charged, the

○ Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as the above 4.B.1 (b) and 4.b.4 (b) above, as shown in the preceding 4.B.4), since the facts charged in the part of occupational embezzlement in the attached Table 1 (1) and (2) are when there is no proof of crime, it is necessary to determine innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the facts charged in the occupational embezzlement in the judgment related to the above part of innocence are found guilty, it shall not be sentenced

[Attachment]

Judges Maximum Pung (Presiding Judge)

1) According to the indictment on the part concerning acceptance of bribe against Defendants 2 and 4 regarding the urban environment rearrangement project, among the facts charged in the instant case, although the date of the crime requested or received a bribe was stated as “2008”, it is apparent that the date of the crime was a clerical error in the “2009” and the parties have also proceeded with a trial on the premise thereof in the process of the trial and the original trial. Since the date of the crime was corrected to “2009” and indicated in the judgment of the original trial, the lower court also stated that the above Defendants were indicted of the criminal act in 2009 and convicted the Defendant at the original trial.

(2) According to the indictment, Nonindicted 24 was the general director of the Partnership Promotion Committee from August 27, 2009, and was the director of the Partnership even around November 2009, when the bribe was received. However, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below are indicated only as “total duties of the Association Establishment Promotion Committee,” and it is corrected as it appears to be a clerical error due to mistake.

3) Article 2(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210) provides that “Any person who commits a crime as prescribed in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine of not less than two times but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery to the punishment prescribed for the crime (including the case of paragraph (1)).” In light of the principle of non-performance of criminal laws and regulations under Article 13(1) of the Constitution and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act, “the establishment and punishment of a crime shall be governed by the Act at the time of the act,” in cases where the crime of bribery, which is a single comprehensive crime, was committed over the period before and after the enforcement of the said new provision, the amount of the accepted bribery, which serves as the basis for the calculation of fines under Article 2(2) of the said Act, shall be limited to the amount received after December 26, 20101.