The forty-six days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

Seized 10,000 paper paper paper 20,000 (No. 1) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Defendant 2 is not guilty.

On August 24, 2004, at around 22:00, Defendant 2 provided a bribe in relation to the duties of Defendant 2 who exercises overall control over the affairs of Incheon Metropolitan City by informing Defendant 2 of his intention to provide money and valuables, indicating “I have prepared for the assistance of him,” requesting Defendant 2 to inform his will to inform him of his will, Defendant 2 provided the house of Nonindicted 3, his female mother, and delivering Nonindicted 3’s house located in Incheon (detailed omitted) at around 22:40 on the same day to the house of Nonindicted 3, who is located in Incheon (detailed omitted).

1. Statement of each protocol of examination of suspect as to Defendant 1 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement made in each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4, 5, and 6 prepared by the prosecutor

1. Statement on Nonindicted 7’s statement prepared by the public prosecutor (including the statement on the part of Defendant 1’s offense)

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 8, 9, 10, and 11 in his/her written statement;

1. Each statement made in each statement made by the police officer with respect to Nonindicted 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26;

1. Statement of seizure records dated September 8, 2004, prepared by the police;

1. Each investigation report prepared by the police (the investigation records No. 2004 senior 603 senior 603 senior 2004 senior 54 senior f03 senior f03 senior f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st f1st

1. Each entry in the statement of transactions of passbooks of Bosung Construction (1st page 404, 603, 2004, 603, 1st page 404, and 2nd page 776, of the same investigation records);

Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion

1. Summary of the defendant 1 and his defense counsel's defense counsel

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel listened to Defendant 2’s statement that they should support the welfare facilities in the Incheon area. Defendant 2 only paid cash of KRW 200 million to be used as the welfare facility fund, and Defendant 2 did not provide money or other valuables in relation to Defendant 2’s duties as the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City.

2. Therefore, Defendant 1 was provided with prior information on the details of the order issued by the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor's office for the purpose of using the above money at the time of the public prosecutor's meeting. In addition, Defendant 2 participated in the exercise of the headquarters of the Incheon Metropolitan City's non-indicted 2 (hereinafter "non-indicted 2") and gave it to the public prosecutor's office for the purpose of using the above money at the time of the public prosecutor's meeting for the purpose of using the above money at the time of the public prosecutor's meeting; Defendant 2 did not appear to help the public prosecutor's office for the purpose of using the money at the time of signing the public prosecutor's meeting for the purpose of using the money at the time of the above public prosecutor's meeting; Defendant 2's personal information on the purpose of using the money at the public prosecutor's office at the time of signing the public prosecutor's meeting; Defendant 2's personal information on the purpose of using the money at the public prosecutor's office at the time of signing the public prosecutor's meeting; Defendant 170 billion won.

Based on the perception that this corruption was one of the major causes of harming the national competitiveness, the defendant's actions committed in this ma, where not only the government but also the people are making efforts to take measures against corruption, should be strict.

In addition, on May 23, 1995, the Defendant had already been sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million for a fine of KRW 23 million to the head of the Information and Communication Policy Department at the Seoul District Court on October 13, 1998, and issued a summary order of KRW 10 million to the Director of the Information and Communication Policy Department, and a fine of KRW 5 million to the Director of the Bureau on October 13, 1998. On September 19, 2002, the Defendant again received a summary order of KRW 8 million for a total of KRW 2 million to female public officials at the Gwangju District Court's Net Branch Branch on September 19, 2002.

However, on January 28, 1975, there was no sentence imposed by the Supreme Court for a violation of the Emergency Measures Act except for the defendant's punishment, and the bribe of this case was not for specific solicitation on any pending issue, and the defendant 2 was unable to achieve its purpose by reporting it. From the perspective of the defendant, there was a possibility of misunderstanding that the defendant would demand money due to a speech inappropriate by the defendant 2, the defendant would be misunderstanding that he would demand money in lieu of his own criminal act, etc., and the defendant appears to have divided the crimes, such as age, career, home environment, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., and all the sentencing factors specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, career, home environment, motive, means and consequence, after the crime, shall be

Defendant 2, who was in office as the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City from July 2002 and performed a duty to exercise overall control over the administration of Incheon Metropolitan City, including the ordering construction work,

At around 12:00 on May 15, 200, Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) was introduced at the Guro-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City Lyalian Tourist Hotel restaurant by Nonindicted Co. 11 through Nonindicted Co. 11, and around that time, Nonindicted Co. 1 received the office from Defendant 1, and asked for the help of Nonindicted Co. 2, who moved its head office to Incheon to grow as the Incheon regional enterprise. On July 30, 2004, “(title omitted)”, “Seoul Gyeyang-gu Office 901-4, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City Office of Operations, 207, and contacted Defendant 2 at Defendant 2 again at Defendant 1’s request, Defendant 1’s request on August 23, 2004, and promised on the following day:

At around 22:20 on August 24, 2004, Defendant 1 was asked from Defendant 1 to “the intention of Nonindicted Party 2 to grow in Incheon,” and “the intention of offering money and valuables has been consented to the disclosure of intention to offer money and valuables as “the intention of offering money and valuables has been prepared for his gender so that it may grow in Incheon.” At around 22:40 on the same day, Defendant 1 received KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

2. Confirmation of facts charged;

The facts charged as stated in the indictment of this case reveal that Defendant 2 received KRW 200 million in cash from Defendant 1 in connection with his duties “it appears that Defendant 2 was indicted for the fact that Defendant 2 received KRW 200 million in cash from Defendant 1 as a bribe. However, it is stated that the applicable provisions of this case are not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but the Criminal Act Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act on the second trial date. The prosecutor stated that Defendant 2 sought the application of Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that it cannot be specified when Defendant 2 knew that the amount of money and valuables delivered by Defendant 1 was KRW 200 million, since Defendant 2 received KRW 200,000 in cash from Defendant 1 as a bribe or received money and valuables from Defendant 20,000 won in connection with his duties, it is limited to the crime of bribery to the effect that Defendant 3 was indicted for the mere crime of bribery.

II. The issues of the case and the Defendant’s assertion

1. Issues;

The facts charged of this case is ultimately premised on the fact that Defendant 2 was aware that Defendant 1 was money and valuables related to his duties beyond the ordinary and ordinary futures (the criminal intent of simple bribery) and had Defendant 1 bring about the said money and valuables to Nonindicted 3’s house at any time thereafter, at around 20:20 on August 24, 2004, at the time of delivery of Defendant 2’s intent to offer money and valuables from Defendant 1. Whether Defendant 2 was aware of the cash amount of KRW 200 million and accepted Defendant 2’s intention to possess it is not directly related to the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, in the lower court, it is reasonable to judge whether Defendant 2 received money and valuables, recognizing that it was a bribe at the time when Defendant 2 received the money and valuables from Defendant 1, and, in other words, whether Defendant 2 had the intention to commit the crime of bribery.

2. Summary of the defense counsel between Defendant 2 and his defense counsel

Defendant 2 and his defense counsel were consistent from the investigative agency to this court. Defendant 2 rejected Defendant 1’s request from Defendant 1 on August 24, 2004 at the (title omitted) be granted and received what is, but Defendant 1 rejected it, but Defendant 1 was difficult to bring it to the road. Defendant 1 thought that Defendant 1 would have to deliver a usual and courtesy gift, such as a regional special product, etc., he would bring it to Nonindicted 3’s house. At the time, Defendant 1 did not know that he would deliver a large amount of bribe, such as money and valuables, etc., and Defendant 2 did not know that Defendant 1 would bring it to Nonindicted 3’s house. From August 27, 2004 to August 29, 2004, Defendant 200, Defendant 1 did not know that there was a large amount of money and valuables, etc., and Defendant 1 had no knowledge of the fact that there was an emergency bribe between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3’s house.

III. Judgment

1. Bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of money and valuables received since the process of performing the duties of a public official, the trust in the society, and the non-purchase of the act of performing his duties are protected. It does not require a solicitation or an unlawful act. In addition, when a public official receives money and valuables from a person subject to his duties, it is sufficient that such money and valuables were received in connection with his duties, and there is no need to be an individual act or a quid pro quo relationship. When the public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from the person subject to his duties, it cannot be deemed that there is no connection with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is clearly recognized that such act is due to the need for decentralization. If a public official received money and valuables in connection with his duties, even if he received money and valuables in accordance with his duties, such money and valuables shall be deemed a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1442, May 28, 2004).

Therefore, even if ordinary and courtesy gifts are recognized as related to the duties, the crime of bribery may be established if the relation to the duties is recognized. However, in determining the relation with the duties, the determination should be made by examining the following: (a) whether the defendant recognizes the relation to the duties; (b) in particular, in a case where the defendant, as in the instant case, intended to deliver what kind of money or valuables to the other party while he directly shows or clearly expresses it to the other party; and (c) in a case where there was no intention to offer money or valuables related to the duties of the person who received the money or valuables, and intended or accepted the result of the offer or acceptance of the money or valuables, not dependent on the statement of the person who received the money or valuables, or based on the specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside, the possibility of the relevant criminal facts should be inferred from the standpoint of the person who received the money or valuables.

Therefore, in order to determine whether Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that the money to be delivered by Defendant 2 was a bribe related to his duties at the time when Defendant 1 was delivered by Defendant 1, Defendant 2 will look at the delivery of the above cash amounting to KRW 200 million, the time of the delivery, and the situation after the delivery.

2. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the evidence adopted earlier, Nonindicted 3, 1, 27, 28, and 5 testimony of each court, the inspection results of this court, each statement (including the statement on the part of Defendant 1), Nonindicted 23, 29, and 28 of the protocol of statement made by the prosecutor as to Defendant 2, each statement made by the prosecutor as to Nonindicted 3, 30, and 31 of the protocol of statement made by the police, each copy of the statement made by Nonindicted 32, 32, and 105, and 1054, each copy of the statement made by Nonindicted 2, 36, 36, and 96, 196, 36, 196, 36, 196, 36, 196, 4, 196, 4, and 4, 196, and 5, respectively, respectively.

(a) Circumstances prior to the delivery of emergency excavation;

1) Defendant 1’s acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 2 and relocation of its head office

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Party 1 located in the west-gun, in order to secure it through corporate mergers after entering the results of Nonindicted Party 1’s government-funded construction work, through Nonindicted Party 1, through Nonindicted Party 1, acquired Nonindicted Party 2, who has high recognition in the field of civil engineering work and apartment construction work, who has high level of government-funded construction work, in the case of Incheon, the competitive regional construction company is less competitive, and the demand for the future construction work will increase due to the designation of a free economic zone, etc., and on April 2004, Defendant 1 transferred Nonindicted Party 2’s head office from Seoul to Incheon to enjoy the benefit of guaranteeing the ratio of participation in construction work for the local enterprises in government-funded construction.

2) Introduction upon Defendant 1’s request by Defendant 2

Defendant 1, as the worship of himself and his trend, high school, and university around that time, was the 15th member of the National Assembly with Defendant 2, determined that Nonindicted Party 11, who was the head of Incheon Metropolitan City, was an appropriate person to introduce himself to Defendant 2, and that Nonindicted Party 11 was to take over Nonindicted Party 2, but Nonindicted Party 11 was planning to actively participate in the projects, etc. conducted in the Incheon Special Economic Freedom Zone by transferring Nonindicted Party 2’s head office to Incheon, but it is a question on how to have no connection with Incheon, and how to do so. The request Defendant 2 to introduce himself to Defendant 2, who was asked to introduce himself on one occasion to the Mayor of Incheon, and Nonindicted Party 11 consented thereto.

(iii) the first fully South;

(A) At around 12:00 on May 15, 2004, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 was taken over. It is a plan to move the head office of Non-Indicted 2 to Incheon in the future, which is well a plan to carry on the business. It is well requested to request Non-Indicted 2 to help Non-Indicted 2.”

(B) Accordingly, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to ask for the size of Nonindicted 2’s assets, annual sales, number of employees, etc., and “The moving of the construction company under the name of Nonindicted 2 to Incheon is an ASEAN. It is in the effort to attract a good company in Incheon, and Nonindicted 2 is moving the headquarters to Incheon. Nonindicted 2 is the head office of Incheon. Nonindicted 2 is moving to Incheon, not only the company to Incheon but also the employees have to move to Incheon. There is a request to employ a large number of the human resources of Incheon. In this regard, Defendant 2 would have the head office of Incheon to move to Incheon to Incheon, and directly attend the event if there is a significant change in the event. In that sense, Nonindicted 2 would have the head office of Incheon to have the head office moved to Incheon. In that sense, Nonindicted 2 would have a public relations as well as would have the office opened to gather, and would have all employees attend the event.”

(C) In addition, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2, who recommended the employment of people in the Incheon metropolitan area, to recommend a person who can be employed as an executive officer of Nonindicted Party 2, who is “not having any relationship with Mancheon” and who can be employed as an executive officer of Nonindicted Party 2.

(D) Meanwhile, since Defendant 2 was appointed to the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor, it was important to attract large enterprises from July 2002 to promote the Incheon Metropolitan City’s regional economy, and to continuously induce large enterprises to publicize the future of the Incheon area and to relocate its headquarters, Defendant 2 constituted a public-private partnership promotion group, and consulted with each domestic company and government-invested institution. On January 19, 2004, Defendant 2 reconvened that it should be promoted as a major policy at the extension of the Si branch of the Si branch of the Si branch of January 19, 2004, and was actively promoting policies to attract large enterprises’ headquarters and various construction and public corporation’s headquarters in the Incheon region at the time of the relocation of the headquarters (Defendant 2’s attorney-at-law submission of reference materials for Defendant 2’s attorney-at-law; this Court 2004Da6499, Jun. 275, 200).

(iv) the lapse after the first met;

(A) Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s request, contacted Defendant 1 with Defendant 1 on two occasions on July 1, 2004 and July 2, 2004, etc., and made a call, such as recommending Nonindicted 33, who is dispatched to the Incheon Correction Research Institute as an executive officer of Nonindicted 2’s office to the Incheon Correction Research Institute. However, Defendant 1 decided not to appoint Defendant 3 as an executive officer of the construction company in light of his career. Defendant 2, on July 3, 2004, sent two phone calls from Defendant 2 to the mobile phone (detailed number omitted) phone calls from Defendant 2 to seek understanding on this.

(B) Defendant 2’s (detailed number omitted) mobile phone used at the time of Defendant 2 opened the name of Nonindicted 22, which was the wife of Nonindicted 23, and opened the phone to Defendant 2 in December 2003. After that, Defendant 2 used (detailed number omitted) mobile phone for official duties, Defendant 2 used (detailed number omitted) mobile phone for personal purposes as a concern about Do office in the case of (detailed number omitted) mobile phone used for official duties. Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 took contact using the above mobile phone even before Defendant 1 and the third Man-Nam.

(v) the second fully South;

(A) On July 29, 2004, Defendant 2 called Defendant 1 by telephone and asked Defendant 1 to meet with the place and time set. Accordingly, around July 30, 2004 at around 20:20, Defendant 1 met Defendant 2 at the (name omitted), Defendant 2, at the (name omitted) biochemical beer’s (name omitted), which was on the second floor of Incheon (detailed address and building name omitted).

(B) (Name omitted) Gerrier’s (name omitted) is a main station operated by Nonindicted 34, Defendant 2’s branch, Defendant 2, and is located at a place where approximately 5 minutes including waiting time to turn to the left at a passenger car, and about 10 minutes including waiting time to turn to the left. around that time, Defendant 2 made a direct promise to (name omitted) Gerrier’s (name omitted) by telephone at the Gerrier’s office at approximately 19:30 to 20:0 and 100, she divided the mother and her mother into a parallel-to-day car, and it was difficult for Defendant 2 to drink by drinking at a 10-day room or 12-day room that makes it possible to avoid another customer’s vision with a door located on the inside of the inside of the road.

(C) Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 at the time, to what extent the Incheon migration of Nonindicted 2’s employees was proceeding, and re-emphasized that Nonindicted 2 employed a large number of employees of the Incheon local community, and that Defendant 2 would help the Incheon local community welfare facilities. Defendant 2 would help the Incheon area. Defendant 2 would like to call for welfare facilities in the Incheon area. On several occasions, Defendant 2 tried to talk about the role of the Incheon regional logistics base, etc. as a logistics base according to the activation of the Youngdo, Cheongdo, Cheongdo, Cheongdo, Cheongdo, and Songdo, and the Gesung Corporation.

6) Circumstances leading up to Defendant 1’s formation of a mine doctor

(A) Thereafter, Defendant 1: (a) considered that Defendant 2 had a sense of defense against himself; (b) considered that there was a considerable consensus on the development of Incheon between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2; and (c) determined that Defendant 2’s assistance was urgently needed to grow up to Defendant 2 as the center of the Incheon Metropolitan City area; and (d) determined that Defendant 2’s assistance was urgently needed to Defendant 2, who was the head of Incheon Metropolitan City, through Nonindicted 11, Defendant 2 first called Defendant 2 and re-exploed Defendant 2; and (e) decided to provide Nonindicted 200 million won in cash to Defendant 2 in order to secure the location of Nonindicted 2 in the Incheon area, as a response to the continuous solicitation of Nonindicted 2’s attempt to assist in the welfare facilities in the late Incheon area, based on the response to Nonindicted 11.

(B) In particular, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2 did not directly pay money to Defendant 2 because Defendant 2 talked about a welfare facility at the prosecutor’s office, and if Defendant 2 did not talk about a welfare facility, Defendant 2 did not have a trust to the extent that he would give the money first (the first protocol of examination of Defendant 1 as to Defendant 1 in the prosecutor’s preparation; the court’s 2004 high-class 603 investigation records of the case No. 20037).

(b) Situation at the time of preparation of an emergency excavation;

(i)the third commitment and the preparation of cash KRW 200 million;

(A) On August 21, 2004, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 to communicate with Defendant 2 again, and requested Defendant 2 to communicate again on August 23, 2004. Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to communicate again on August 23, 2004. On August 23, 2003, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 1 to prepare KRW 200,000 in cash for Nonindicted Co. 35 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 35”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted 35”), the Vice Minister at Nonindicted Co. 1’s office located in Gwangju, and instructed Nonindicted 5 in charge of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted 35 to prepare for the accounting affairs of Nonindicted Co. 35 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 35”), and around 20:31 on the same day, Defendant 2 made a phone call to Defendant 2 on the same day, and Defendant 2 made a promise to contact with Defendant 2 on the following day.

(B) On the other hand, on August 23, 2004, Nonindicted 5 ordered Defendant 1 to prepare cash KRW 200 million. On the other hand, Nonindicted 5, on the one hand, sought two copies of the characters, such as one stith of a white stie type in the wooden stike pattern and one stith of a wooden stie pattern, on which the words “Yeeeungsungsung stibing expenses” were printed, wherein Nonindicted 5, the vice head of his and Nonindicted 1’s general team, had Nonindicted 6 withdraw the cash KRW 200 million from each bank account, etc., and divided the cash KRW 100 million into a white stike and white stike in the shape of the tree 1 office in Gwangju, and had Defendant 1 carry it on the stike stike on the same day, and then let Defendant 1, the stike on the same day.

(다) 당시 공소외 1의 은행계좌에서 인출해 온 현금 2억 원은 1,000만 원씩을 100만 원 10다발 한 묶음으로 하여 가로와 세로로 한 번씩 압축시킨 다음 플라스틱 끈으로 묶어 놓은 상태였는데, 공소외 5는 먼저 나무결 무늬의 상자에 1,000만 원 묶음 10개 합계 1억 원을 나누어 담았고, 이어 흰색 스티로폼 상자의 내부 곡면을 칼로 베어 직각으로 만든 후 나머지 1억 원을 그 안에 담았으며, 흰색 스티로폼 상자의 뚜껑이 잘 닫히지 않자 뚜껑이 벌어지더라도 바깥에서 쉽사리 돈인 사실을 모르도록 흰 종이로 돈 다발을 덮은 다음 뚜껑을 닫았고, 위 상자들을 모두 노란색 상자봉합용 테이프로 감싸 봉하였으며, 다시 위 보자기로 상자들을 모두 쌌는데, 이들 굴비상자(이하 “이 사건 굴비상자”라 한다)는 겉보기에 굴비가 든 보통의 굴비상자와 다름이 없었으나, 이후 이 법원의 현장검증 당시 그 무게를 측정한 결과 현금 1억 원이 담긴 나무결 무늬 상자는 무게가 11.5㎏가량(검찰 압수 당시 측정치는 11.58㎏가량), 현금 1억 원이 담긴 흰색 스티로폼 상자는 무게가 12㎏가량(검찰 압수 당시 측정치는 11.66㎏가량) 되었다{이 법원의 검증결과, 검찰 작성의 수사보고(현금 2억 원 무게 측정보고); 이 법원 2004고합603호 사건의 수사기록 4책 1765쪽}.

(D) Since then, Defendant 1 moved to the Gwangju House by getting off and leaving a car, she again saw the operator of the instant mining emergency at the Gwangju House on August 24, 2004, which is the following day, and came to the Incheon as well as to go through Incheon. After having arrived to the Incheon, Defendant 1 returned to Incheon and returned to the Incheon, followed Nonindicted 4 of the driver's staff at the restaurant located in Gyeyang-gu Operationsdong, and went to the Gyeyang-gu in Incheon. At around 20:00, Defendant 2 got out of the passenger car and went to the Seoul House, and she started to go to the Seoul. Defendant 2.

(c) Circumstances at the time of providing emergency excavations;

(i) the third fully South;

(A) On August 24, 2004, around 20:00, Defendant 2 left the exclusive market, arrived at the house, entered the house, and then arrived at the (title omitted) a re-motor vehicle in front of the growth beer, and left the dedicated vehicle, left the dedicated vehicle, left the dedicated vehicle, leaving the dedicated vehicle, leaving the dedicated vehicle, leaving the dedicated vehicle, leaving the dedicated vehicle, and leaving the dedicated vehicle, and Defendant 1 came into the dedicated beer's office, and there was only Defendant 1 in the 10 room.

(B) Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 2 dnished the two-hours of the two-hours of the two-hours of the two-hours of the two-hours of the two-times of the two-times of the two-times of the two-times of the two-times of the two-times of the two-ways of the two-ways of the Defendant 1 explained that Defendant 2 was delayed against the labor union’s opposition to the Incheon relocation of the two employees of the two-ways of the two-ways of the People’s Republic of Korea. Defendant 2 divided the two-way dialogue with Defendant 1

2) Details of Defendant 1’s expression of a mine intention and response by Defendant 2

(A) After 22:20 on the same day, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 expressed Defendant 2’s request that Defendant 2 be asked that Defendant 2 have prepared for the payment, and Defendant 2 would not receive any money, but Defendant 1 again expressed Defendant 1’s intention to refuse, “I would like to receive any money,” “I would like to receive any money,” “I would like to receive any money, I would like to receive any money,” “I would like to receive any money from I would like to go from I would like to go to I would like to go to.”

(나) 이와 같은 피고인 1의 계속된 간청에 피고인 피고인 2는 “집에 지금 사람이 없으니 동생 집에 가져다 놓으세요”라고 하면서 (명칭 생략)생맥주집의 여종업원으로 하여금 메모지를 가져오게 한 다음, 그 메모지에 피고인 피고인 2의 여동생인 공소외 3이 사는 아파트의 이름과 동호수를 적어 피고인 1에게 건네주면서 “이 앞 큰 사거리에서 대각선 방향으로 건너서 큰길로 가다가 고가에 진입하기 전에 우측 아파트로 진입하세요”라고 길을 알려 주었고, 이어 22:21경 (상세번호 생략) 휴대전화를 이용하여 공소외 3에게 전화 연락을 하여 “누가 뭘 좀 가지고 갈 것이니 받아 두라”고 하였다.

(C) At the time, Defendant 1 does not mean that, “at the time,” Defendant 2 brought a living abroad to Defendant 2 or brought a local special product “,” etc., is nothing more than what the goods have been specifically brought to.

3) Delivery of the emergency excavation of the instant case

(A) After 22:30 on the same day, Defendants 1 and 2: (a) landed to the first floor of the (title omitted) residential beer building; (b) cut to the first floor of the corridor; and (c) Defendant 2 returned to the house because he was 10 to 15 minutes after having a 1st floor door, and returned to the house; and (d) Defendant 1 went to the house by Nonindicted 3, who was informed by Defendant 2, on board the vehicle parked in the public parking lot on the convenience behind the building.

(B) At around 22:35 on the same day when Defendant 1 was going to find Nonindicted 3’s house, Defendant 2 contacted Defendant 1 with Defendant 1 with his mobile phone (detailed number omitted) and asked Defendant 1, “I am well going to go to Gwangju? I am well? I am? I am to go to go to Gwangju,” and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 for 22 seconds, including “I am to go to the light, I am to the light, I am to the light,” but did not express the case, such as Defendant 1 1 am to am to the front day.

(C) On the same day, at around 22:40 on the same day, Defendant 1 arrived at Incheon (Sweak Address and apartment name omitted), and divided it into two parts with Nonindicted 4 and one by one by one by one by one by one by one by two by one by two by one by two by one by two by one by three by one by three by one by one by three by one by one by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by two by one by one by one by one by one by one by one in the house, and Nonindicted 3 left the house of three by one by one by the two by two by one by two by one by two by one by two by one by two by two by one by two by one by two by one by two by one by two by one by one by two by one by one by

(D) Nonindicted 3 was living together with 20 children in the above (nameed apartment name omitted), and Defendant 2 was living together in the same apartment (age omitted) as the denied hospital was hospitalized for a long time at the hospital, and Defendant 2 was in a mixed with the same apartment (age omitted). Defendant 2 was difficult to deliver all the gifts, etc. that entered his own name and entered, to Nonindicted 3’s house.

4) Current status of Nonindicted 2’s bidding on construction projects and whether Defendant 1’s solicitation on the pending issues

(A) From the time when Defendant 1 moved Nonindicted 2’s head office to Incheon, Nonindicted 2 had never participated in the construction project in Incheon. However, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City did not participate in the tender of the construction project of the water supply and construction project in Incheon Free Economic Zone (Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 3686) under Article 27(2) of the Act on Designation and Management of Free Economic Zones, Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 3686 of the Ordinance on the Establishment of Free Economic Zone Authority (Ordinance No. 3686). Nonindicted 2 participated in the tender of the road construction project between the Public Procurement Service and the Busan Free Economic Zone Authority on August 31, 2004 (the estimated amount of KRW 73 billion) but excluded from the tender of the water supply and demand company, the head of Incheon Metropolitan City prepared to jointly participate in the construction project of the water supply and demand-based sewage project (the estimated amount of KRW 500 million) and prepared to jointly participate in the construction project of the Incheon Free Economic Zone.

(B) Meanwhile, around 198, Nonindicted Party 1 was ordered by Incheon Metropolitan City to complete the construction of a bridge-west-dong road and was scheduled to complete the construction in 2005.

(C) However, Defendant 1 did not specifically make any solicitation to Defendant 2 regarding the above bid issues until delivering the emergency situation in the instant case to Defendant 2 until the delivery of the emergency situation in the instant case.

(d) Circumstances after the provision of an emergency situation for mining;

1) Defendant 2’s telephone conversation details and Defendant 2’s Chinese business trip

(A) After August 26, 2004, around 12:50 on August 26, 2004, Nonindicted 3 contacted Defendant 2’s office to the market library and exchanged with Defendant 2 on one occasion with Defendant 2. Defendant 2, using a mobile phone (detailed number omitted) from August 26, 2004 to Nonindicted 3, on 14 seconds around 22:50 on August 26, 2004, about 5 seconds around 08:05 on August 27, 2004, around 1:2 seconds around 09:25 on August 28, 2004 and around 09:25 on August 29, 2004, returned from China to each of the phone calls using a mobile phone at around 18:48 seconds around 18.

(B) However, after August 24, 2004, Defendant 2 did not communicate with Defendant 1 by September 1, 2004, on the day following the day on which Defendant 2 reported to the Clin Report Center to the Clin Report Center.

(C) Meanwhile, Defendant 2 departed from the 10:30 Incheon International Airport on August 27, 2004 and went to the Incheon International Airport on August 29, 2004, and returned to the Incheon International Airport on August 29, 2004.

2) The time when Defendant 2 confirms cash

Defendant 2 consistently asserted from the prosecutor’s office to the present court, Defendant 2, at around 21:00 on Sundays 29, who returned to the Chinese business trip, that he was aware of the fact that the said person was in cash at the time of carrying out the said excavation emergency person at around 21:00, and it is difficult to find out at any time when the Defendant was actually aware.

3) Defendant 2’s report

(A) On August 30, 2004, at around 07:30 on August 30, 2004, Nonindicted 3 re-entered two emergency operators of the instant excavation at the house with the tape instead of being sealed in the original softened red instead of the re-influor for each of them, and let Nonindicted 29 drivers, who parked a market-only vehicle in the same parking lot of the said apartment, for Defendant 2’s attendance at the office of Defendant 2, enter it into the string line for market-only exclusive use.

(B) On the same day, at around 08:20 on the same day, Defendant 2: (a) arrived at the office building of Incheon Metropolitan City with exclusive market lanes; (b) brought Nonindicted 27 and 14, a market secretary, to the market room; and (b) had Nonindicted 28, a viewing auditor, who was a viewing auditor, who was in charge of Chinese business trip, filed a report with the viewing clean reporting center, along with USD 5,000, which was received from him as a Chinese business trip; and (b) Nonindicted 28 filed a report with the viewing clean reporting center with the content that Defendant 2 was provided by a non-commercial provider.

(C) Since Defendant 2 assumed office at the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor, Defendant 2 had continuously emphasized the duty of integrity for public officials, and had been able to avoid corruption at the conference with business people (the reference materials for Defendant 2’s attorney-at-law submitting attorney-at-law evidence; Defendant 6No. 2267 of investigation records of this Court No. 2004Gahap649), and accordingly, Defendant 2 established a clean report center on January 25, 2003 to operate it in the viewing audit room.

(D) The Clock reporting center is operated by a public official who received money, directly or indirectly, against his/her will, in relation to his/her duties, in a manner that he/she received money from the public official, becomes aware of the donor, or is unable to return to the donor, voluntarily reporting it to the public prosecutor’s office in charge of viewing, and where it is confirmed, the donor shall return it to the donor with the letter issued in the name of the inspector, and where it is not confirmed by the donor, the donor shall recover it for 14 days on the viewing website, and where the donor does not find it by the expiration of the period of public notice, it is operated at the end of

(E) Even around April 2003, Defendant 2 reported USD 2,000 to the viewing reporting center, and Defendant 2 deposited USD 2,000 which was reported on December 2, 2003 due to the fact that the donor did not appear thereafter with the money deposited with the Community Chest of Korea.

4) Defendant 2’s communication

(A) Since then, Defendant 2 reported cash KRW 200 million to the viewing reporting center on the date of reporting, and Nonindicted 3 was summoned to the police on September 1, 2004 and was investigated on September 1, 2004.

(B) Accordingly, Defendant 2 asked Nonindicted 23 to create a new mobile phone on September 1, 2004, and received from Nonindicted 23 the mobile phone (detailed number omitted) that he joined his mother’s name, and Defendant 1’s (detailed number omitted) mobile phone managed by Nonindicted 4 as the above mobile phone on the same day and five times per hour during the same day, Defendant 2 sent a text message stating that “I do not have any Incheon or CCTV. I do not know about it difficult to conduct an investigation. I will know about it. I will well work. I will contact.” On September 3, 2004, Defendant 2 sent a text message stating that “I will find you know you know you will know you will know you know you will know you will do.” On September 13, 2004, Defendant 204, and Defendant 1 appointed the emergency victim of the instant case as the result of the investigation, and made an investigation to prepare for the Defendant 1 as an attorney-at-law.

3. Determination

In order to support the facts charged in this case against Defendant 2, the most direct evidence presented by the prosecution can be deemed as the statement of Defendant 1, the bribe offerer. However, each protocol of examination of Defendant 1 prepared by the police, other than the prosecutor, is an interrogation protocol of the suspect against the other defendant in relation to the defendant and his accomplice, which is prepared by the investigation agency other than the prosecutor, and even if the authenticity of its establishment is acknowledged by the suspect's legal statement, the admissibility of evidence is denied if the relevant defendant denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185 Decided July 15, 2004), and since Defendant 2 consented to it and it cannot be admitted as evidence, it is examined only in the prosecutor's and the court's statement of Defendant 1.

Defendant 1 stated at the prosecutor’s office that “I think I would have known that I would not have any peculiar or simple gifts.” However, I would like to say “I would have been aware of the fact that I would have ‘I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation. I would like to say I would like to say I would not have been aware of the fact that I would have ‘I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation’. I would like to say that I would not have “I would like to know I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation; I would like to say I would like to say that I would not have been aware of the fact that I would not have ‘I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation’; I would like to say I would like to say that I would not have been a witness at the time of interrogation ‘I would not have been aware of the fact that I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation; I would like to say that I would not have been aware of the fact that I would have been a witness at the time of interrogation. I would like to say that I would not have been 3.

Defendant 2, at the time of Defendant 2, clearly rejected Defendant 1’s statement that Defendant 1 could have gotten off, and then, Defendant 1 stated to the effect that Defendant 1 “I have been holding in a large and long manner, not to be separate,” and that “I have been holding it again,” it is difficult to deny the possibility that Defendant 1 would have denied the possibility of being a usual and exceptional gift because Defendant 1 had been sent to Nonindicted 3’s house, which is the birth of the birth of Nonindicted 3 if I think that it is difficult for her to see that it would be an easy thing, such as the birth of the birth of his mother, and that he would be sent to Nonindicted 3’s house. In view of Defendant 2, even though Defendant 1 had expressed his intention not to receive money.

In light of the fact that the delivery of cash in KRW 200 million by inserting it in a so-called so-called “non-indicted 3’s office” itself is extremely exceptional, and it cannot be expected that it would normally be predicted. Defendant 2 knew that the items to be delivered by Defendant 1 are cash, but it goes beyond common sense that Defendant 2 would deliver them to a woman’s house living together with two early generations. Defendant 2 was hospitalized in a hospital for several years, and Defendant 2 was living together at his own house, such as meal, cleaning, washing, etc., and it depends on the non-indicted 3, who is ordinarily living together, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 2’s business activities were related to the above non-indicted 3’s office before and after the transfer of the headquarters. However, it is not easy to recognize that Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 did not know that it would have been carried out by the above non-indicted 2’s office in light of the circumstance that Defendant 2 would not have been aware that it would have been carried out after the transfer of money and valuables.

The facts charged of this case are naturally premised on the fact that Defendant 1, who operates a company of a large scale, intended to deliver what is to Defendant 2, who is the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City. However, the fact that Defendant 1 is money and valuables with a considerable high-value value, as a matter of course, can be perceived from the standpoint of Defendant 2. However, the mere fact that Defendant 1 runs a company of a large scale, cannot be premised on this fact without any objective evidence. In the end, the delivery to Defendant 2 in this case is a cause of cash 200 million won. It can be deemed that Defendant 2 reported to the large center as seen earlier by Defendant 2, thereby giving up the intention of acquisition without allowing the acceptance. Since there is no delivery of what is high-priced quid pro quo, which the prosecutor asserts that Defendant 2 allowed the number of Defendant 2, the public prosecutor did not have any standard to know where the scope of perception of Defendant 2 with respect to the money and valuables to be delivered by Defendant 1.

IV. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the judgment of innocence is to be rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)

Judges, High-class special leave of absence, who cannot sign and seal;