20 million won from Defendant 1, and 24.3 million won from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

The Defendant is serving as the president of the ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “○○○ Fisheries Cooperatives”) located in Sejong-si (hereinafter “○○○ Fisheries Cooperatives”) and has personnel rights to operate the said association, employ employees, and promote the said association. On June 30, 2009, the Defendant filed an appeal against imprisonment of one year and six months for the crime of acceptance of bribe with the Gwangju District Court rendered a judgment on June 30, 2009, and currently pending the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2009No1630).

The president of a cooperative shall serve as the president of the general meeting and the board of directors, and represent the cooperative and perform its affairs. The general meeting shall pass resolutions as deemed necessary by the amendment of the articles of association, expulsion of partners, election and dismissal of executives, maximum limit of loans, and matters deemed necessary by the president of the cooperative. The board of directors shall pass resolutions as to qualifications for members and admissions, the enactment, amendment, and repeal of the rules, decisions as to the basic principles for performance of duties, disciplinary action against executives and compensation, maximum amount of loans to one member or sublease, partial reduction or exemption of liabilities for union members and unsound bonds, waiver

대부분 어민들은 잡아온 어류를 ○○수협 위판장에서 경매를 할 수 있는지, ○○수협 ▷▷위판장에서 경매를 하는지, 서부위판장에서 경매를 하는지, 경매 시 경매사가 최초 호가를 어떻게 매기는지, ○○수협에서 정부 및 수협 자체 비축용으로 어류를 구입하여 주는지, 위판장 몇 번 선석에서 경매를 하는지에 따라 어류 가격이 차이가 난다고 생각을 하고 있고, 조합원의 자격이 되는지, 수협으로부터 영어자금, 긴급출어자금, 선박시설자금 등의 수산자금을 받거나 이에 대한 상환 여부, 수협 조합원 가입 및 탈퇴 여부, 면세유 공급, 어망 공급, 선수품 지급, 어대 지급 등 조합원 업무를 총괄하는 조합장의 협조를 바라는 형편이다.

A. Acceptance of bribe

1) The acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 5

피고인은 2001. 조합장으로 당선되어 재직하다가 2005. 3.경 조합장 선거에 출마를 결의한 상태에서 공소외 52에게 출마예정자인 공소외 18의 출마를 막아달라는 부탁을 하였다. 이에 2005. 3. 14. 12:00경 목포시 대반동 소재 ◐◐◐호텔 중식당에서 피고인, 상임이사 공소외 35, 52(제1원심판결의 피고인 1)와 출마예정자 공소외 18, 전조합장 공소외 22, 20이 만나서 조합장 선거에서 서로 싸우지 말고 괴롭히지 말자는 등의 이야기를 나눈 후 피고인은 공소외 52에게 모든 것을 일임하기로 하고 공소외 35와 자리에서 빠져 수협 사무실로 돌아왔다. 공소외 52는 같은 날 13:00경 같은 호텔 커피숍으로 자리를 옮겨 공소외 18, 22, 20이 있는 자리에서 공소외 18에게 선거 불출마를 요청하였다. 공소외 18은 공소외 52에게 불출마 조건으로 그동안 지출한 선거비용 1억 5,000만 원을 달라고 요청하면서 그 액수에 대하여는 공소외 52 단독으로 결정할 문제가 아니니 피고인을 만나고 오라고 요구하였다. 공소외 52는 목포시 금화동 소재 조합장 사무실로 가서 피고인을 만나 상의하자 피고인은 금액이 너무 많으니 절반으로 하고 그 금액은 조카 공소외 19의 취직을 부탁한 공소외 5로부터 마련하라고 지시하였다. 공소외 52는 다시 공소외 18, 22, 20을 만나 공소외 18의 선거 불출마를 조건으로 8,000만 원 상당을 주겠다는 의사를 표시하였고 공소외 18이 동의하였다. 공소외 52는 이 사실을 피고인에게 바로 보고하였으며, 같은 날 20:00경 목포시 상동 소재 우리바다횟집에서 피고인, 공소외 52, 35, 53, 18 등이 있는 자리에서 공소외 18이 조합장 선거에 나가지 않겠다는 의사를 표시하였다.

한편 공소외 52는 2005. 3. 16. 10:00경 목포시 북항동에 있는 ◑◑◑ 커피숍에서 공소외 5로부터 “ 피고인 1 조합장에게 조카 공소외 19를 취직시켜 달라는 청탁을 해주고 그에 대한 사례비를 전달해 달라.”는 부탁을 받으면서 10,000,000원 권 자기앞수표 1장(국민은행 목포지점, 수표번호 생략)과 현금 500만 원을 건네받았고 이를 그 시경 조합장 사무실에서 피고인에게 보고하며 건네주었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, after copying the above cashier’s checks at that time, sent them again to Nonindicted 52, and directed Nonindicted 18 to do so on the part of Nonindicted 18. Nonindicted 52 around that time, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 21, each of whom was the election campaignmen of Nonindicted 18 side, gave KRW 5 million to Nonindicted 20 and KRW 4 million to Nonindicted 22.

As a result, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 52 (a total of one year and four months of imprisonment on June 30, 2009) and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

2) The acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 6 and 7

On October 2006, the Defendant received KRW 1 million from Nonindicted 7 of the fishermen, respectively, under the same name, under the pretext of requesting the fishermen to join the ○○○○ Cooperative members from Nonindicted 6 in the office of the head of the ○○ Cooperatives, and from Nonindicted 7 of the fishermen.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe from Nonindicted 6 and 7 in relation to his duties.

3) The acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 8

Around November 2007, the Defendant received a solicitation from Nonindicted 8 to the end of December of 2007 for the extension of the agreement obligation, which the Defendant decided to repay from Nonindicted 52 to the end of November of 2007, at the partnership’s office, at the place along with Nonindicted 52. The Defendant: (a) directed Nonindicted 8 to submit a written request for postponement; (b) directed Nonindicted 52, who was on the said place, to make a good gift; and (c) stated that the picture of Nonindicted 90 million won would be good. Accordingly, Nonindicted 8 provided 4 million won to Nonindicted 52; and (d) Nonindicted 52 paid the same amount to Nonindicted 90 million won, and (e) 52 gave the Defendant a good gift from the partnership’s office around December 2007.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe from Nonindicted 8 in relation to his duties.

B. Performance of official duties

Around 10:00 on May 9, 2008, the Defendant called to the investigation office and office of the Mapo Maritime Police Office at the remote area of the Sipoposi, and asked the head of the police officer Nonindicted Party 30, who discovered a violation of the Malodor Prevention Act (hereinafter “Mapopopo Office”) 2009-type 1536, to the head of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “Spoposi Office”) on several occasions. Nonindicted Party 10, the victim Nonindicted Party 10, following the phone, following the phone, she was aware that “the width was ever,” and “the width was ever,” she was under the control of the ○○○ Dopopool’s order. There were many people with high knowledge of the Mapo Office and high number of people in the prosecutors’ office. There are several items of trees, and there are no legitimate threats to the police officer’s execution of his/her duties.” It seems that the police officer did not interfere with the personal investigation.

C. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

On February 25, 2009, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that, like the above paragraph (a) (3) of the Magpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, Simpo-si, the Defendant received a solicitation from Nonindicted 8 for the extension of the repayment of the Suhyup obligations and received through Nonindicted 52 (on March 2008, the amount equivalent to KRW 4 million) the investigation was conducted on the charge of acceptance of bribe, and that, on the same day, Nonindicted 52 was donated in good faith, not received from Nonindicted 8, and was going to the Simpo-si, and was written on the donation management ledger on the same day. However, on March 2008, the donation management ledger was not established.

Meanwhile, around February 2009, the Defendant directed the head of the cooperative office Nonindicted 11 to make a ledger for the management of donated articles by giving the head of the general secretary non-indicted 11 at the cooperative office, and designated the items and date, and Nonindicted 11 made a false book for the management of donated articles. On February 26, 2009, the Defendant submitted a false book for the management of donated articles.

In addition, on April 16, 2009, the Defendant appeared at the Mapo-si Office and stated on March 2006 that “The management ledger of donated property was first prepared around March 2006, prior to the relocation of the office by ○○○ Fisheries Cooperative, and was given a statement that he was given the above Mana on March 21, 2008, which was falsely recorded on the register.” Nonindicted 11 was present at the Mapo-si Office on April 16, 2009, and the donated property management ledger was first prepared around March 2006.

As a result, the Defendant had Nonindicted 11 prepare the donated article management ledger retroactively from March 2006, and had him make a statement as if he had been drawn up and trusted it, submitted the donated article management ledger drawn up falsely to the Manana Office, and Nonindicted 11 had Nonindicted 11 make a false statement in a quantity first drawn up around March 2006, thereby interfering with the investigation duties of the public prosecutor by fraudulent means, subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion, such as having Nonindicted 11 make a false statement in a quantity first drawn up.

(d) Intimidation;

성명불상자는 2008. 12. 19. 장소불상지에서 ○○수협 ◁◁지점에 근무하고 있던 피해자 공소외 32(여, 24세)에게 2회 전화하여 “몸이 뚱뚱해서 일을 할 수 있느냐. 수협 이미지와 어울리지 않는다. 그만두어라. 그만두지 않으면 가만두지 않겠다. 빨리 나가라.”고 하였다. ◁◁지점장 공소외 33은 2008. 12. 22. 11:00경 목포시 용해동 소재 ○○수협 ◁◁지점 지점장실에서 피해자에게 “네가 금요일에 전화 받은 거 너희 아버지가 관련된 것 같다. 이게 시작에 불과하다. 나중에 더 크게 될 것이다. 아버지와 조합장의 관계가 좋지 않은 것을 아느냐. 여기를 다녀봤자 피해를 당할 것인데 그만두는 것이 어떻겠느냐.”라고 말하고, 17:00경 피해자로부터 수협에서 계속 일할 것이라는 의사를 확인한 후 이를 피고인에게 보고하였다. 이에 피고인은 같은 날 17:24경 피해자를 그 다음날부터 ☆☆지소로 출근하라는 인사명령 공문을 발송하였다. ☆☆지소장 직무대리 공소외 34는 2009. 1. 2. 04:00경 목포시 금화동 소재 ○○수협 ▷▷위판장에서 거행된 새해맞이 초매식에서 피해자에게 “그냥 집에 들어가서 시간되면 출근해라. 조합장님이 너 꼴도 보기 싫다고 한다. 빨리 눈앞에서 사라지라.”고 이야기하였다.

On February 10, 2009, at the 09:30 on the 09:30, at the closed place, the name-freeist stated that the victim “I will leave her job.” The parent will leave her seat. He will not leave her seat.” The Defendant followed that “I will not leave her seat but leave her seat. I will leave her seat 32? I will leave her seat. I will leave her seat. I will leave her seat 32? I will leave her seat. I will leave her seat. I will leave her seat : I will leave her seat : I will leave her seat : I will leave her seat : I will leave her seat : I will leave her phone from the office of the 00-dong Standing Director, who will leave her seat : I will leave her seat : I will leave 20-year telephone before I will leave her seat 3:0-day. I think I will leave her name and she will leave her seat her... I will. I will. I will. I will leave her. I will. I will. I will. I will. I. I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. I. I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. I. I. I. I will. I will. I. I. I will. I. I. I will. I. I. I will. I. I. I. I.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with a person who is not infinite name and threatened with the victim to threaten the victim to commit any harm to the victim's personal condition unless the victim ceases to exist from the compromise.

(e) A teacher who forges evidence or uses forged evidence;

Around January 30, 2009, the Defendant issued an order to establish evidence that Nonindicted 12 and 38 used the donations equivalent to KRW 13 million for the spawd related to the spacing system to the fisheries association public funds, which are the gatherings of the fishery members, “FEE” under the title of “FEEMC” (Nonindicted 37), but in the name of FEM, only KRW 00,000,000, which were in custody in the name of FEF, was completely withdrawn after nine months, and delivered to the president of the Association. The Defendant instructed Nonindicted 12 and 38 to establish the evidence that the Defendant made the aforementioned spacing out the donations amounting to KRW 13 million for the spacing system with the approval of Nonindicted 2 and 38’s office on April 21, 2005, Nonindicted 25, 205, 505, 505, 505, 2005.

On February 25, 2009, the Defendant was investigated into the occupational embezzlement case of KRW 13 million, which was contributed to the expenses related to spawn-related to spawn. At that time, Nonindicted 12 instructed Nonindicted 12 to submit false evidence to the spawn branch, and Nonindicted 12 was investigated into the 404 Sinpo-si Office on February 26, 2009, and submitted two forged official seals.

As a result, the Defendant had Nonindicted 38, 12, 54, 55, and 56 manipulates false evidence, thereby forging evidence and forcing to use such forged evidence.

F. Violation of the Fisheries Act

On June 2, 2005, the Defendant issued the loading certificate of △△△ (1.32 tons) that was registered as the master with Nonindicted 13, who is the same as the owner and the owner of the wood market, and obtained a coastal complex fishery permit on or around the 7th day of the same month.

A fishery right holder shall not have any other person de facto control over the operation of his/her fishery business. Nevertheless, on June 2, 2005, the Defendant said that Nonindicted 13 (the same person’s stay of indictment) (the same person’s relative) is “Operation of △△ho-ho, thereby making the living expenses,” and Nonindicted 13 actually operated the said △△-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-be from that time until May

Accordingly, the Defendant had Nonindicted 13 de facto control over the management of coastal complex fisheries through the above △△△.

2. Defendant 2

피고인은 아래 각 범행 일시경 ○○수산업협동조합 이사로서 임원이고, 위 피고인 1 조합장의 친동생이다. 대부분 어민들은 잡아온 어류를 ○○수협 위판장에서 경매를 할 수 있는지, ○○수협 ▷▷위판장에서 경매를 하는지, 서부위판장에서 경매를 하는지, 경매 시 경매사가 최초 호가를 어떻게 매기는지, ○○수협에서 정부 및 수협 자체 비축용으로 어류를 구입하여 주는지, 위판장 몇 번 선석에서 경매를 하는지에 따라 어류 가격이 차이가 난다고 생각을 하고, 수협으로부터 영어자금, 긴급출어자금, 선박시설자금 등의 수산자금을 받거나 이에 대한 상환 여부, 수협 조합원 가입 및 탈퇴 여부, 면세유 공급, 어망 공급, 선수품 지급, 어대 지급 등에 대하여 조합직원들에게 협조를 바라는 형편이다. 수협이사는 이사회의 구성원이고, 이사회는 조합원의 자격 및 가입에 관한 심사, 규약의 제정·변경 또는 폐지, 업무집행의 기본방침의 결정, 조합원 1인에 대한 자금의 대출 또는 전대의 최고한도액, 준조합원에 대한 가입금의 결정, 조합원 및 불건전채권에 대한 채무일부감면, 상각채권의 포기, 그 밖에 조합장 또는 이사 5분의 1 이상이 필요하다고 인정하여 제의하는 사항, 조합장의 업무집행상황 감독, 조합장 궐위 시 직무대행 권한 등이 있다. 따라서 피고인은 어민들의 ○○수협 가입 및 자격 여부, 조합원으로 한정된 ▷▷위판장 사용 여부에 관여할 위치에 있는 사람이다.

A. The acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 14

어민 공소외 14는 2007. 8. 말경 ○○수협 소속의 공소외 57 명의 ▽▽호를 인수하여 어업을 시작하였으나 자신은 ○○수협 소속이 아니고 유자망수협 소속이어서 ○○수협 ▷▷위판장에서 어류를 위판할 수 없는 상황이었다. 이에 공소외 14는 피고인에게 ▷▷위판장에서 어류를 경매할 수 있도록 해 달라는 청탁을 하고 금품을 전달하고자 하였고, ○○수협 이사인 피고인은 공소외 14가 ▷▷위판장에서 위판할 수 있도록 편의를 봐주는 것으로 묵시적으로 승낙하였다.

1) Around November 8, 2007, the Defendant: (a) expressed that he was in interesting fishers located in Sejong-dong, the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 14 to the head of the cooperative and the employees of the cooperative; and (b) received KRW 6,300,000 from Nonindicted 14 on a check, etc. under the pretext of a series of checks, etc., by Nonindicted 14, including Defendant 1’s head of the cooperative.

2) On or around December 26, 2007, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from Nonindicted 14 on the ○○○○ Credit Union, located in the coast-dong, in front of the coast-dong on the road.

3) On February 2008, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from Nonindicted 14 in front of the Nonghyup Dong-dong-dong-dong, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from Nonindicted 14.

4) From October 13, 2008 to March 13, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 2 million from Nonindicted 39,000 upon Nonindicted 14’s request from Nonindicted 39 on the roads under which Nonindicted 39 was living at Nonindicted 39 at the end of the same month.

5) On February 2008, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 2 million from Nonindicted 39 upon Nonindicted 14’s request from Nonindicted 14 at the road at the winter-do; and (b) received from Nonindicted 39.

6) After January 13, 2009, the Defendant was found to have received KRW 3 million from Nonindicted 39 upon Nonindicted 14’s request from the road price at the time of the Gu administration.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 19.3 million in total from Nonindicted 14 to six times in relation to his duties.

B. The acceptance of bribe related to Nonindicted 15

On October 13, 2006, the Defendant stated that “In order to become a member of the ○○○ Fisheries Cooperative, the Defendant shall be granted the fishermen the visibility value and medical expenses when the visibility occurred in the 2002 width and B’s bilateral assault incidents, which occurred in the year 2002. In the future, Nonindicted 15, on October 13, 2006, issued KRW 3 million to the Defendant via Nonindicted 7 under the pretext of changing the members of the ○○○ Fisheries Cooperative.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe from Nonindicted 15 in relation to his duties.

C. The acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 7

On October 2006, the defendant, at the non-indicted 7's non-indicted 7, stated that the defendant "as he was a member of the association, he changed the expenses for the meeting of the board of directors", and the non-indicted 7 delivered 2 million won to the defendant under the name of the meeting expenses of the board of directors in the city.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe from Nonindicted 7 in relation to his duties.

1. Legal statement that corresponds to part of the facts stated on the sixth trial date by Defendant 1;

1. In the second trial records, all or part of the witness Nonindicted 5, 21, 20, 18-, and the third trial records of the witness Nonindicted 7, 6, 8, and 52 are written.

1. The prosecutor's interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 52 (No. 2005 type No. 13141) and the prosecutor's second interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 as to Defendant 1, each part of the statements (including Nonindicted 52 cross-examination) (including the evidence list No. 15, 30)

1. Each prosecutor's statement (including a duplicate of the evidence list) (including a transcript) with respect to Nonindicted 52, 20, 8, 18, 6, 11, and 7

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 7 (including Nonindicted 6’s replacement) (Evidence List Nos. 174, 175, 226)

1. An investigation report (Attachment of Defendant 1’s submission data, attachment of documents for sending white faxs to Defendant 9, attachment of the rules on the operation of auction houses, attachment of the rules on the operation of auction houses, attachment of the articles of association to ○○○○ Union, attachment of documents on the date of repurchase to Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7, attachment of documents on Nonindicted 8’s extension of repayment of depreciation bonds, attachment of Nonindicted 8’s report on the results of the check tracking and confirmation on the date of check filing, and attachment of the position guidance for the large examination on the basis of Nonindicted 52’s statement [Attachment 34,62, 61, 101, 15, 157, 158, 1

1. A copy of the donation ledger, a copy of the details of transactions of Nonindicted 6 Suhyup (Omission), and a statement of transactions of free savings [Evidence Nos. 35, 183, 242];

【Court No. 1-B. Fact: Defendant 1’s obstruction of performance of official duties】

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 10 in the fourth trial record

1. Part of the protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 1 by the prosecution (Evidence List No. 145)

1. The prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 63 (Evidence List 92)

1. Each explanatory note prepared by Nonindicted 31 and 30 (Personnel of the Ganpo Coastal Police Station) (Evidence List 70, 72)

1. Copies of records in violation of the Malodor Prevention Act (No. 1536) No. 2009-type 1536, and reports related to civil petitions filed by the police officer responsible for the control of booming police officers (Evidence List No.

【No. 1-D. Fact at the time of sale: Defendant 1’s intimidation】

1. Legal statement made by Nonindicted 37 on the fifth trial date;

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the second trial record

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of Nonindicted 33, 34, 35, and 36 (including Nonindicted 32 replacements) (Evidence List Nos. 85-87, 89)

1. The prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 32 (including a copy of the calendar attached thereto) (Evidence List 66)

1. Investigation report (report on the attachment of video CDs, the attachment of Nonindicted 32’s accompanying documents to Nonindicted 37’s accompanying documents, the date Nonindicted 35 calls Nonindicted 32 to Nonindicted 32), recording (Evidence List Nos. 67-69, 88)

[Attachment 1-e. Fact at the time of sale: Defendant 1’s teacher to forge evidence and to use forged evidence]

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 37 in the second trial record

1. Second suspect examination protocol (Duplicated) against Defendant 1 by each prosecutor’s office (Evidence List 30, 150);

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement against Nonindicted 54 and 38 (including Nonindicted 12 substitutions) (Evidence List Nos. 80,147)

1. Investigation report (the report on the date and time of the relocation of the head office of the ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives, and attaching a draft of the use of the ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives in 2009) (Evidence Nos. 63, 78 of evidence);

1. “The settlement of accounts and reimbursement of expenses for the 2005 Pest Control Events event and reimbursement of expenses,” which are included in the funds flow chart of the fishery association and reference materials, “the execution of the expenses for the exercise of Pest Control event in 2005”, and “the details of the use of the expenses for the exercise of Pest Control event in 05” [Evidence Table 33]

(f) Fact 1: Defendant 1’s violation of the Fisheries Act

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the fourth trial record

1. Part of the statements in the police interrogation protocol Nos. 2 and 3 interrogation protocol against Defendant 1, and the police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 13 [Evidence List Nos. 187, 188, 239]

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 58, 59, and 60 (Evidence List Nos. 198, 200, 201)

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a copy of records in violation of the Public Waters Management Act against Nonindicted 13) (Evidence List No. 171)

1. Statement of entry into and departure from a fishing vessel, current status of payment of duty-free oil (from June 8, 2005 to April 8, 2009), fishery permit, shipping certificate, fishery permit register, and power of attorney (related to receipt of duty-free oil) / [Evidence List 188, 191, 195-197, 199];

【Fact 2 at the time of sale: Each acceptance of bribe by Defendant 2】

1. Partial statement made by Defendant 2 on the 8th trial date;

1. Each legal statement made by Nonindicted 64 and 39 on the fifth trial date

1. Each statement made by the witness in Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 61 and 15 in the fourth trial record among the third trial records

1. Part of the protocol of examination of suspect against Defendant 2 by the prosecution (Evidence Nos. 146)

1. The whole or part of each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 14, 7, and 39 (Evidence List Nos 110, 112, 117)

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 7 (including Nonindicted 6, 61, and 15 confrontations), Nonindicted 61, and 15, respectively, of the police’s protocol of statement against Nonindicted 7 (Evidence List Nos. 175-17, 226)

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Rules on Operation of Auction Houses, Report on Results of Tracking cashier’s checks endorsed by Defendant 2, Attachment of Certificate of ○○○○○ Union’s Articles of Incorporation, Attachment Date of the Union of Korea’s ○○○○ Union’s Articles of Incorporation, and Attachment of Certificate of Employment to Defendant 2) (Attachment of Certificate of Employment to Defendant 2)

1. A copy of Nonindicted 40 (number omitted), a copy of Nonindicted 6’s account (number omitted), a copy of Nonindicted 6’s account (number omitted), a copy of Nonindicted 6’s check exchange photograph, Defendant 2,50,00 won check (Nonindicted 40’s check Nos. 182, 183, 221, and 222)

A. Defendants

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes [Article 30 of the Criminal Act is added to each bribery at the time of sale, and Article 1-A(1) of the Decision]

B. Defendant 1

Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of the obstruction of performance of official duties on the market), Article 137 of the Criminal Act (the point of the obstruction of performance of official duties on the market), Articles 155(1), 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of each teacher who assists in the forgery of evidence and the use of forged evidence on the market), Articles 283(1) and 30 (the point of the intimidation on the market) of the Criminal Act, Articles 95 subparag. 4, 48(1), and 34(1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 9948, Jan. 25, 2010) (the point of violation of the Fisheries Act on the market)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Collection of additional dues (the defendants);

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Defendants are members of the ○○○ Fisheries Consultative Organization, which is an independent cooperative organization to improve the economic and social status of fishermen, and the Defendants are not guilty of having received bribe from fishermen, and the sentence is inevitable because they do not recognize their mistakes. The sentence is inevitable, taking into account all the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are revealed in the process of trial and investigation, and setting the term of punishment like the order. However, the statutory detention does not take into account the health conditions of the Defendants.

Judges male citizens