Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances for the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that there was no particular criminal punishment other than a fine imposed on the Defendant on one occasion; (b) the crime of this case was revealed; (c) the bribe was returned to the donor; (d) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself to the investigative agency; and (d) the Defendant was removed from the Korea Expressway Corporation

However, the crime of this case was committed by a defendant who is deemed as a public official in relation to the crime of this case, which received a large amount of bribe which is 50 million won or more in total in relation to his duties, such as actively demanding a bribe in the process, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime are significant, such as actively demanding a bribe in that process, the defendant approved the defendant's false and excessive claim for the payment of the payment for completed portion as it is, thereby practically silenting the act of fraud to the Korea Highway Corporation, and other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, considering the factors favorable to the defendant, even if considering the sentencing conditions favorable to the defendant in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is excessively excessive, and there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original court.

Defendant

It has no record of criminal punishment against the defendant for the judgment on the B's assertion, and bribery.