(b) Offering of bribe;

2.(b) A2 (Res 48 years old, South) and XX Construction Representative Director;

3.(b) A3 (66 years old, South)

Attorney Kwon Young-young (for the defendant A2)

However, with respect to Defendant A1 and A2, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The penalty of KRW 1,013,00 shall be collected from Defendant A1. The sentence against Defendant A3 shall be suspended.

From December 24, 2004, Defendant A1 served as the president of the Korea Highway Corporation bb branch, and from December 10, 2006, Defendant A1 served as the director of the management headquarters of the above constructionCC headquarters from December 10, 2007, Defendant A2 is the representative director of the road repair business x construction business, and Defendant A3 is the Y representative director of the Y corporation, the ice manufacturer.

1. Defendant Al;

(a) Acceptance of a bribe in the A2 test;

Defendant A1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) became aware of the fact that he is engaged in the road repair work in the mid-190s. During the period of his work as the head of the above B B branch, the above B branch, under a negotiated contract, 11 cases of total road repair work worth KRW 27 million,000,000,000,000, which was ordered by the said B branch. The above A2, on August 24, 2005, transferred KRW 1 million to the Defendant’s national bank account to the Defendant as well as KRW 200,000,000,000 to the end of December 31, 2004 through the end of 206, provided the Defendant with only one of the following documents: (a) under a negotiated contract, one of which is deemed to have been given by the public officials of the said B branch, and (b) the public prosecutor of the said B branch, who was given an order to give and receive a bribe to the Defendant under a negotiated contract, including evidence and evidence.

(b) Acceptance of a bribe in the A3 test test;

Around 200, the Defendant came to know of the YY representative A3, a high school group in the area south of the said construction project, and received golf and meals from the said high school group. From November 4, 2007 to August 8, 2007, the above A3 was to manufacture and supply asphalts from the Korea Highway Corporation that was awarded a contract for road packaging construction works with its employees, and it was to know where the road packaging works are carried out, and it was possible to see business convenience by wideizing human relations. As such, the Defendant was to attend a high school group in the area south of the Republic of Korea, which is working for the Korea Expressway Corporation, with some of its meal expenses or golf meetings, and entered into a relationship with the Defendant. As such, the Defendant borrowed the above 3,000 won to the above 3-year government meeting with a view to obtaining more convenience than 3,000 won as a public official from the above 3-year government meeting without having to receive more convenience than 3,000 won.

2. As described in paragraph 1(a), Defendant A2 and Defendant A3 A2 provided a total of KRW 9 million to Defendant A1, and Defendant A3 provided a bribe equivalent to KRW 30 million as stated in paragraph 1(b) and offered a bribe in relation to the duties of a person who is deemed a public official.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes: Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 133 (1) and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grant of brain. The grant of brain is made in favor of Defendant A2, and the choice of fines in respect of Defendant A3

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated increase in the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe on the grounds of a heavy A2 test with respect to Defendant A1);

1. Punishment to be suspended: Fine of 1,000,000 won;

1. Attraction in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (a fractional amount of KRW 60,000 per day against Defendant A3);

1. Calculation of number of days pending trial: Article 57 of the Criminal Act (Defendant A1, A2);

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A1, A2);

1. Suspension of sentence: Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (it shall be considered that there is a passive provision of money to Defendant A1);

1. Collection: The defendant's assertion under Article 134 of the Criminal Act (the amount equivalent to the financial profit received from the defendant A1 and A3 test shall be deemed to be the interest 1.30,000 won per annum which shall be the interest 6% per annum from November 9, 2004 on the loan date to June 26, 2008, which shall be the ordinary interest of financial institutions, and the amount shall be collected additionally) and the judgment thereon

1. As to the receipt and payment of money between Defendant A1 and A2, Defendant A1 asserted that the amount of KRW 1 million received A2 test on December 31, 2004 is not related to the duties of Defendant A1, and Defendant A2 provided money to Defendant A1 does not grant money in relation to Defendant A1’s duties, and Defendant A2 stated the same purport in this court as a witness, when there is a special private-friendly relationship with A1 due to the formation of a fiduciary relationship with A1, and when there is a special private-friendly relationship with A1, A1 came to the head of bb branch, it is a person’s objection to the receipt and payment of money, and it is nothing more than giving money in response to the receipt and payment of money when it is difficult for Defendant A1 and A2 (the Defendant 1 also stated the same purport as the witness after separation from the pleading).

The crime of bribery is established in order to ensure the fair performance of duties by a public official, an executive officer, or an employee of a public institution, and to protect the social trust with respect to his/her duties. It does not constitute a crime of solicitation or an unlawful act in relation to his/her duties. When receiving money, valuables, or other benefits from a public official, an executive officer, or an employee of a public institution, or a person subject to his/her duties or duties related thereto, the crime is established only if he/she commits an unlawful act. In light of social norms, barring any special circumstance, such as where he/she can be deemed to have no relation with his/her duties because he/she is merely a consideration in light of social norms, or because he/she is deemed to have a personal-friendly relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3579, Oct. 12, 201).

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, the following circumstances may be revealed: (i) there is no provision that A1 and A2 shall settle the said money with respect to (i) lending money to A2 or providing money; (ii) money brought up by A2 may be repaid later, but there is no circumstance that A1 would be liable for the said money if he/she did not repay the money later; (iii) A2 was established as a juristic person in consideration of the fact that A1 would have received money from a public official to whom he/she was given a contract for construction work on the basis of his/her own life in Msan, Changwon, and Haban area, and that he/she would have received money from a public official (i.e., to whom he/she was given a contract for construction work on the basis of the said public official’s order, and (ii) the said public official would have received money from a new public official who was given a contract for construction work on the basis of the fact that the said public official would have received money from a new public official who was given an order for construction work on the basis of his/her own life and interest.

2. As to giving and receiving money between Defendant A1 and Defendant A3

Defendant Al and A3 claim that money exchanged between them is not related to their duties but purely borrowed money.

However, according to the above evidence, as recognized in the above facts of the crime, A3 has manufactured and supplied asphalts to the construction company contracted with the Korea Highway Corporation, and received a request from the said construction company to lend money for the business interests, including acquisition of construction-related information, from the above construction company's high-income group, and the Defendant did not have any more favorable relationship and did not receive any convenience or disadvantage. The above Defendants' assertion is not accepted.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the charge on the part of the receipt or delivery of a bribe of one million won between Defendant A1 and A2 as of the end of 2006 is that Defendant A1 received a bribe of one million won in cash at any place within the city of Changwon as of the end of 2006 from A2 in return for a negotiated contract as described in paragraph (1) of the crime, and Defendant A2 offered a bribe to Defendant A1 with the same content.

As to this, Defendant A1 did not receive money, Defendant A2 did not pay money (the third trial date statement), or Defendant A2 did not pay money (the third trial date statement), and he borrowed money of KRW 1 million due to lack of telephone rates. The claim that the full payment is the charges of this part (the summary of pleadings stated by the defense counsel on the fourth trial date). Even if comprehensives of the evidence mentioned above, there is no evidence to prove that the full payment is not a full payment of the money borrowed as stated by Defendant A2, but that it was paid in connection with the work of road construction bb offices, such as the conclusion of a free contract, etc.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the absence of proof of crime. However, prior to the crime, Defendant A1’s crime of acceptance of bribe and Defendant A2’s crime of offering of bribe is found guilty, and thus, the judgment of not guilty is not separately pronounced.

2. The part of the facts charged that exchanging KRW 30 million between Defendant A1 and Defendant A3 constitutes acceptance of bribe or offering of bribe in total amount of KRW 30 million

Of the facts charged as seen earlier, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution on the charge that Defendant A3 received financial gains of KRW 30 million from Defendant A1 as a bribe and Defendant A3 provided said part as a bribe by remitting KRW 30 million to Defendant A1 among the facts charged as seen earlier, by constituting the facts charged that Defendant A1 received all of KRW 30 million as a bribe and Defendant A3 offered said part as a bribe, instead of financial gains of KRW 30 million, Defendant A1 received all of KRW 30 million as a bribe and Defendant A3 gave it as a bribe.

하지만 앞서 든 증거들과 그 밖에 이 사건 공판에 현출된 여러 사정을 종합하여 알 수 있는 피고인 A1과 A3 사이의 관계, 만나게 된 경위, 만남의 정도와 그 성격, 피고인 A1의 당시 자금 필요 경위 등 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 동생이 돈을 곧 갚겠다고 하고 돈을 빌려가 동생한테서 돈이 곧 들어올 것이라고 생각한 피고인 A1이 고등학교 동문 선배로서 한국도로공사 경남지역 동문 모임에서 만난 10년 아래 후배에게 고민 끝에 3개월 정도 쓰고 돌려 줄 테니 돈을 빌려달라고 요구할 때 그 돈을 갚지 않을 생각으로 돈을 요구한 것은 아니었고, 피고인 A3 또한 A1의 요구를 받고는 기분이 나빴지만 10년 선배인 피고인 A1이 돈을 안 갚지는 않을 것이라는 생각으로 고민 끝에 Al에게 돈을 준 것으로 보인다.

On the contrary, there is no evidence that the entire amount of 30 million won paid and received by Defendant A1 and A3 is a bribe.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, prior to the crime, Defendant A1’s crime of acceptance of bribe equivalent to financial gains and Defendant A3’s crime of offering of bribe is found guilty, and thus, the judgment of not

1. Reasons for sentencing: It is inevitable to suspend the execution of imprisonment, taking into account the amount received.

1. Defendant A2: Imprisonment is inevitable in that it actively provides money even if the other party did not demand it, and the execution of the sentence is suspended;

1. Defendant A3: The sentence shall be suspended, taking into consideration the passive response to the other party’s demand for borrowing money and the fact that financial gains are not much high;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.