Attorney B,C

Law Firm E (LLC, Attorney F

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months and by a fine of five thousand won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period of one day converted by the amount of one million won.

43,020,345 won shall be collected from the Defendant. Of the facts charged in this case, Y and DNA-related violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) shall be acquitted. The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

A. Regarding acceptance of bribe from Y

1) The relation to third party acceptance of bribe following the exemption of debt to women 1

A) Y did not bear obligations equivalent to the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis against women 1, and did not donate the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis to women 1.

B) It is not due to the fact that female 1 escaped was due to the sexual abuse of Y, nor due to the fact that there was no conclusive declaration of intention of debt exemption.

C) Y made a statement to the prosecutor to the effect that 100 million won which must be received from women 1 was cleanly renounced, and it is reasonable to deem that there was a conclusive declaration of intention to exempt debts.

D) Y is reasonable to deem that there was an illegal solicitation between Y and the Defendant, as it was anticipated that the Defendant would have exercised influence as a high-ranking prosecutor, and that Y exempted female 1 from liability.

2) According to the records of Y and the Defendant’s phone calls related to Y and the Defendant’s illegal actions after the acceptance of the bribe due to the case inquiry against YY, the currency content of Y side and AS, and the case inquiry by EF from the Prosecutor E-E of the Prosecutors’ Office, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant informed the Defendant of how the AS case is proceeding upon Y’s request, which constitutes an illegal action after the acceptance of the bribe.

3) Regarding the part of the grounds for appeal

The court below found that the statute of limitations expired with regard to the Defendant’s offering of entertainment equivalent to KRW 31 million from Y from around 2006 to February 2, 2008, such as money and valuables and sexual intercourses, but it found the Defendant guilty of the crime of bribery to a third party, which is related to the general crime, and the crime of bribery to a third party after acceptance of bribery.

As long as the statute of limitations has expired, it cannot be deemed that the statute of limitations has expired.

B. Regarding acceptance of bribe from AU

1) In light of the statement of AU related to the receipt portion of merchandise coupons, details of purchase of merchandise coupons by AU, etc., AU may fully recognize the fact that AU delivered merchandise coupons to the Defendant each time from February 2, 2007 to January 201.

2) The cost of using a mobile phone paid by AU on behalf of a defendant is given in relation to his/her duties.

3) Regarding the part of the grounds for appeal

The lower court determined that the statute of limitations has expired with respect to money and valuables or property gains provided prior to May 19, 2009; however, insofar as the part of the receipt of merchandise coupons in relation to a single comprehensive crime or the part of the receipt of money and valuables using a borrowed cell phone is found guilty, the statute of limitations may not be deemed to have expired.

1) Money that the Defendant received from DN is received in connection with his/her duties.

2) The lower court determined that the statute of limitations has expired with respect to money and valuables received prior to August 9, 2007.

However, the statute of limitations cannot be deemed to have expired inasmuch as the rest of money and valuables in relation to such a single comprehensive crime is found guilty.

2. Ex officio determination

The prosecutor added "Articles 132 and 40 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the law in the case of a party, and received money and other valuables and other entertainment, such as sexual intercourses in the facts charged," and received money and other valuables, and at the same time, received a bribe of 51,60,345 won or more in total from AU with respect to the job, and received a bribe of 51,600,345 won or more from AU with respect to the job, and received a bribe of 51,60,345 won or more in total from AU with respect to the job, and received a bribe of 15,50,500,000 won or more from another public official with respect to the job, and received a bribe of 15,500,000 won or more from the status of the public official and received the same amount with respect to the job, and at the same time, the court accepted a bribe of 15,500,000 won or more from another public official with regard to the job.

However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination on the allegation in the grounds of appeal regarding acceptance of bribe from Y

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) Status of the defendant

Since the defendant was appointed as the J Prosecutors' Office around February 1985, the defendant served as the prosecutor from the K Prosecutors' Office, the N Prosecutors' Office, the chief of P Prosecutors' Office, the chief of Q2 Office, the chief of K Prosecutors' Office from February 20, 2006 to March 4, 2007, the first chief prosecutor of the J Prosecutors' Office from March 5, 2007 to March 10, 2008 (the first chief prosecutor of the J Prosecutors' Office from March 11, 2008 to 3rd Prosecutor's Office from March 11, 2008, from March 11, 2008 to August 11, 2009 to 200, the first chief prosecutor of the J Prosecutors' Office from March 11, 2008 to 10, 201 to 20, respectively, the first prosecutor of the J Prosecutors' Office from March 11, 2009 to 201.

A) Relationship between the Defendant and Y

Since the Defendant came to know about Y around September 2005, he stored Y with Y from time to time, and he stored Y in the process, Y was directly involved in the treatment of the relevant case or a high-ranking prosecutor, and continuously offered Y entertainment, such as money and valuables, sexual intercourse, etc., to the Defendant, with the intention of obtaining various favorable benefits in criminal cases, by exercising influence on other prosecutors in charge of the relevant case, and the Defendant directly received or allowed a third party to provide Y with entertainment, such as money and valuables, sexual entertainment, etc.

B) Acceptance of entertainment, such as entertainment with regard to women1

(1) The backgroundY of the crime refers to that at any time, at the villa located in the Z on 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "AA villa"), women 1 (at any time, 29 years old), an artist's bracker's bracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's fracker's frack with the defendant at any time.

(2) Details of crime

(A) AA around September 2006, the Defendant was provided with a female 1’s drinking alcohol, and thereafter, was provided with a sexual contact from Y by having a sexual intercourse with female 1.

(B) around October 2006, the Defendant was provided with sexual contact from Y by having sexual intercourse with women 1, who were Y’s heading in AB officetels and Y’s heading.

(C) On January 12, 2007, the Defendant was provided with sexual intercourses from Y by setting aside women 1 who were given instructions from Y and sexual intercourses with Y.

(D) On January 13, 199, the following day after the above paragraph (c) above, the Defendant received Y and female 1, from two staff members of the golf club located in Gangwon-do, where Y together with Y, and received from two staff members of the female marina branch where Y was mobilized, and then received from Y entertainment, such as sexual intercourse, by having sexual intercourse with Y.

(E) On March 4, 2007, the Defendant was provided with sexual intercourses with AB officetels, with women 1 and Y mobilized together with Y, one time in two order, each of which was provided by Y.

(F) On November 13, 2007, the Defendant received sexual intercourses from Y by having sexual intercourses and sexual intercourses with AB officetels and Y with women 1 and 2-1.

C) Acceptance of other entertainment, such as sexual intercourses related to women;

The Defendant, as described in the above sub-paragraph (B), continuously received sexual intercourses from Y through Y women1, has been provided with entertainment for 500,000 won to 50,000 won or one million won as entertainment expenses per capita through entertainment establishments, such as 'AC, in which Y is located in Gangnam-gu', or Y has been provided with entertainment, such as sexual intercourse, by enjoying a sexual intercourse with women who were mobilized through their personal connection.

Around December 21, 2007, the Defendant received drinking and food from Y from Y around December 21, 2007, and panty 500,000 won and panty 500,000 won and her name, her panty ties, and her name her panty with 20,000 won mobilized, and her singing back to her panty, and then she received entertainment from Y, such as sexual intercourse, by inserting her panty and inserting her sexual organ into her panty, and by inserting her sexual intercourse, from around 2006 to December 2, 2007.

Acceptance of money, valuables, etc.

(1) Acceptance of cash

On February 28, 2007, the Defendant received cash and check worth KRW 19,00,000 in total five times from January 2007 to February 2008, as indicated below, as shown in the table below, from around the Defendant’s vehicle located in Gangnam-gu Seoul AF Office to a road near the AF Office, and from Y to Y, under the pretext of promotion of the chief prosecutor, the Defendant received cash and check worth KRW 5,00,000 in total from around five times.

(2) Acceptance of the forest

At around January 207, the defendant found the above AF office, the above AF office, found the picture (AK, the author) suffering from the wall, and asked the defendant to put it up in the office room where "this forest is located", while demanding the defendant to put it up at the office room where the forest is located. In other words, one point of the forest equivalent to KRW 10 million in the market price was issued at the seat.

(3) Acceptance of high-priced clothing

피고인은 2006. 11.경 서울 강남구 AB에 있는 'AM식당'에서, Y과 식사를 하고 헤어지는 자리에서 Y이 입은 코트(아쿠아스큐텀, 곤색)를 보고 "코트가 멋있어 보인다."고 말하여 Y이 자신이 입고 있던 코트를 벗어서 피고인에게 입어보게 하자 "딱 맞다."고 하면서 Y에게 위 코트와 같은 코트를 사줄 것을 요구하여, 2006. 12.경 위 AF 사무실에서 Y이 그 무렵 백화점에서 200만원을 주고 구매한 위 코트와 같은 모델의 코트를 Y으로부터 교부받았다.

(e) third party acceptance of bribe from debt exemption for women 1

From October 2006, the Defendant was provided with opportunities to continuously have sexual intercourse or sexual contact with women 1 in an officetel located in Seoul AB from around October 2006, women 1 voluntarily recovered KRW 100 million of the deposit deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of KRW 100 million in his own name, and used it for personal debt repayment, etc. for women 1 who leased the deposit of KRW 100 million in his name.

Y Accordingly, female 1 et al. demanded the return of the above KRW 100 million to female 1, and eventually filed a complaint against female 1 to the Seoul Seocho Police Station as embezzlement on April 11, 2008, and female 1 came to undergo the police investigation on the embezzlement case on April 2008, Y followed the attitude that, when he/she continues to undergo the police investigation, he/she was aware of the matters between the defendant and the defendant during the investigation process.

Around that time, the Defendant, who received such content from Y, said, stated that Y, “I will end well on the line so that the issue of female 1 is safe, but, on September 2008, received re-delivery of the same content from Y, Y demanded Y to exempt Y from the obligation to return KRW 100 million for women 1’s Y, while stating that Y “I will not return KRW 100 million from her female 1,000,000,000,000 won.”

Y Accordingly, around October 10, 2008, at the Seocho Police Station in Seoul Seocho-gu, the defendant requested the purport that "I will help her be punished if it is difficult to do so." At the same time, I would like to say that "I will know that I will be 100 million won and you will be dead at the same time. I will see that I will be dead due to A", and that I would like to say that "I will be exempted from the obligation that I will bear, and immediately call to the defendant to the effect that I will end the case."

As a result, the Defendant received illegal solicitation from Y to the effect that the Defendant’s high-ranking prosecutor was taking advantage of his status as a prosecutor in charge of criminal cases or criminal cases against the neighbors that may arise in the course of operating a construction business in the future, and made Y exempt women 100 million won debt for women 1’s Y, thereby having them gain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, thereby giving a bribe to a third party.

F) Illegal conduct, such as case inquiry against Yzines

The Defendant received money, valuables, entertainment, etc. from the Y and consulted and consulted on various criminal cases with the Y, around April 6, 2012, the Defendant was asked to the effect that “The progress of the case of occupational embezzlement of the suspect AS (hereinafter referred to as “AS case”) under investigation by the AR Prosecutor through the Defendant and the AP Attorney who has a friendly relationship with the Defendant and the Y,” and asked to the effect that “IS case (hereinafter referred to as “AS case”) is being tried.” At the same time, the Defendant conducted the case inquiry into the ATS case with the pro-friendly prosecutor, and examined the progress of the case, and conducted the act by receiving the content from the BT book and informing it to the Y through A Q.

G) Sub-determination

As a result, the Defendant received entertainment equivalent to KRW 31,00,000 with respect to the duties from Y from around the summer to April 2012, and at the same time received bribe equivalent to the same amount with respect to the arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of other public officials by taking advantage of the status of public officials, and made Y exempt Y from the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 100,000 for women 1 who continued to be given an opportunity to sexual intercourse with Y, and made Y grant a bribe to a third party, and made Y, upon receiving Y’s request, inquire about a criminal case against Y, and inform Y of the progress.

B. As to the assertion regarding bribery against a third party arising from the exemption of debt against a female1

1) The judgment of the court below

A) Facts of recognition

The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was provided with an opportunity to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact with Y continuously from October 2006 to February 2007; (b) around January 1, 2007, women 1 leased the store of this case with the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million; (c) around February 24, 2007, women 1 leased the store of this case from February 2007 to February 2008; (d) the lessee was Y with the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million under the contract; and (e) the lessor was paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million with the above store upon the expiration of the lease period from February 2, 2008 to Y; and (e) the Plaintiff did not file a complaint against the Plaintiff on the refund of the former deposit amount of KRW 100 million to 100,000; and (e) the Defendant did not file a complaint against 10,000.

B) Whether Y has exempted obligation equivalent to KRW 100 million

(1) The lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that there was an expression of intent to exempt a woman 1 from a debt to Y, in light of the following circumstances, on the premise that women 1 had an obligation to return Y in an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,00,000, by arbitrarily using and consuming 100,000,000,000,000 won from the deposit.

(A) The letter of withdrawal of a complaint prepared by Y is merely stated as "I, with respect to the case against embezzlement, cancel the complaint because I want to compromise with the defendant at will, and will not want the defendant's punishment as well as to present this letter of withdrawal of the complaint because I do not want to conduct any further investigation." It does not state that I will exempt the defendant from the obligation (3rd right of evidence record).

(B) At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, Y made a consistent statement to the effect that “I see that I am in contact with women 1,00,000 won and am in lots at once,” and that I am in the original court (305 pages of the public trial record) and stated that I am in the original court that there was no such remarks (305 pages of the public trial record). On the other hand, Y I am in the words Y at the time, “I am in governance or die. I am dead,” “I am in governance with public officials on the inside, and I am in punishment,” and “I am in width due to the type A, I am in that I am in my opinion that I am in my opinion would not have been 100 million won or more at the time,” and it is difficult to find that I am in fact that I am in order to prevent the Defendant from continuing to contact with women after this point.

(C) Women 1 made a statement to the effect that "I think I would be able to receive the end of Y and receive the full-time deposit from the prosecutor's office and the court below's office." However, in the court below's judgment, I did not have a legally notified notice, but only Y did have to do so. I did not recognize that the case is conclusive." The prosecutor also made a statement to the effect that "I do not know that the case was completed definitely. I do not know that the case was withdrawn. I do not want to receive the letter of withdrawal and receive the letter of withdrawal, and therefore, I continue to make a statement to the effect that I would like to receive the bill of withdrawal and make a statement to the effect that I would like to receive it. However, it is too soon from time to time, and there was a telephone. Therefore, I seem to have not been accepted as a final declaration of intent of exemption from the obligation of women 1 and Y.

(D) Whether or not to demand the return of the deposit is related to the determination on the possibility of recovery, and there is a variety of possibilities such as that it may not be demanded the return because there is little money to be received from the actual female 1 as seen below, and that it may not be demanded due to the change in contact address of female 1. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that Y did not demand the return of the deposit for the extended period after the withdrawal of the complaint and that Y did not demand the return of the deposit for women 1.

(2) Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that at the time female 1 was liable for the repayment of KRW 100 million to Y.

(A) In the above accusation case and the prosecution investigation of this case, Y made a statement on the premise that the entire deposit should be returned from female 1. However, the court below stated that Y did not receive money from fake female 1 when filing a complaint, and that Y did not have a significant meaning as to money because female 1 did an act, such as making a false statement and stopping a personal contact (the trial record 297 pages).

(B) Women 1 stated to the effect that "Y's 10 million won was 10,000 won while drinking and drinking in the above complaint case, and that it did not have an opportunity to pay money upon the expiration of the contract period (Evidence Record 901 pages)," and that "Y's gift was generated from time to time during the operation of the store in this case, and that the value of store articles was 700 to 80 million won, and that money would have been 10 million won at the time of the above investigation (the amount was 10 million won at the time of the investigation) and Y's statement to the effect that "Y's statement was made to the effect that there was no other opportunity to pay 0 billion won or more due to the return of the deposit after Y's statement to the prosecutor's office, and that the remaining amount was 10 billion won or more at the time of the investigation of this case, and that there was no other dispute with the court below's order to use Y0 billion won or more."

(C) Y actually left the UK from February 5, 2008 to April 14, 2008 (Evidence No. 3:529 of the record). Women 1 stated to the effect that she brought too many things such as clothes, bags, etc. to be sold at the police when she conducts a shed's name shop (the store in this case), and that she is aware that she would bring about Y (Evidence No. 10:686 of the record). Y also stated to the effect that she would bring about she's goods in the store in this case (Evidence No. 10:686 of the record), while she stated to the effect that she would dispute the type or amount of goods brought by she in the court of original judgment, she did not deny the fact that she brought the goods in this case.

(D) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that women 1’s pre-paid deposit that should be returned to Y if the amount of goods brought about by Y and the amount of pre-paid deposit are settled or offset by each other at the time of the cancellation of the complaint, and that it is possible for Y to complete the settlement by appropriating the pre-paid deposit to meet the payment of the value of goods that should be received from Y because the contact was attempted to contact Y for the settlement of accounts, but it is difficult for Y to conclude the settlement by appropriating the pre-paid deposit with the payment of the value of goods that should be received from Y because the contact

C) Whether there was an unlawful solicitation

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant exempted the Defendant from liability to women 1, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, from liability for women 1.

(1) Y은 검찰에서 '2008. 4. 하순경 여성1이 피고인에 대해 다 말해버리겠다면서 전세보증금 1억 원을 못 돌려주겠다는 취지로 말하기에 이를 피고인에게 전달하자 피고인이 "Y 회장, 여성1 문제는 말썽 안 나게 Y 회장 선에서 잘 좀 마무리해라"라고 말하였다. 이후 2008. 8. 내지 9.경 AA별장에서도 같은 취지로 말하였는데, 이는 여성 1이 가져간 1억 원을 돌려받지 말고 고소사건을 조용하게 끝내달라는 말이었다. 피고인이 "그 돈을 안 받아야지 해결이 되지 않겠느냐"고도 애기하였다.'는 취지로 진술하였으나(증거기록 3권 872 내지 875쪽), 원심법정에서 '피고인이 여성1로부터 돈을 돌려받지 말라는 취지로 말한 적은 없었고, "네 선에서 알아서 잘 처리 해라"라고 말한 사실은 있으나 그것이 여성1로부터 돈을 돌려받지 말라는 취지였다는 검찰 진술은 잘못 진술한 것이다, 본인과 피고인 모두 여성1의 말을 심각하게 받아들이는 상황이 아니었다, 피고인 때문에 여성 1로부터 돈을 받지 않고 고소를 취소해준 것은 아니다.'라는 취지로 진술하여 검찰에서의 진술을 번복하였다.

(2) It is insufficient to readily conclude that only the abstract expression "Semana well-treated by being identified on the Neline" requires the Defendant to conclude a complaint case against women 1 by exempting her debts to women 1. There is no explicit or implied solicitation among the content of the statement that Y made to the Defendant.

(3) After the prosecutor’s complaint against women 1 was revoked by the prosecution, Y stated that the defendant was flicked by telephone, and that the defendant was flicked, well ended, and that the defendant was flicked, and that the defendant was flicked in the complaint cancellation letter, but the defendant was flicked (3rd 877 pages of the evidence record). However, even based on the above statement, the above flick time is after debt exemption, and the defendant’s statement that the defendant was flick at the court of the court below, as well as immediately after the cancellation of the complaint against women 1, was reversed.

(4) If the expression "Y's economic situation at the time of the occurrence of an difficult situation," the expression "Y's I Do and I am to the effect that "I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that "I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that "I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I am to the effect that I would not have any economic help, and that I would not have any possibility of I am to the effect that I am to the above I am to understand it."

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below along with the above circumstances that the court below properly decided, closely comparing the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was a mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

C. As to the assertion regarding the unjust disposition after the acceptance of the bribery due to the case inquiry against the Yman

1) The judgment of the court below

A) Facts of recognition

원심은, ① AS에 대하여 AR지검의 수사가 진행되던 중, AS가 2012. 4. 5. 내지 같은 달 6.경 Y과 사이에 전화를 주고받은 사실, ② Y이 2012. 4. 5. 17:38경 V고검장실로 전화하여 43초간 통화하고, 같은 날 17:57경 AQ 변호사에게 전화하여 14분가량 통화한 사실, ③ Y의 내연녀인 DX가 2012. 4. 6. 09:41경 Y에게 AS의 사건번호 등을 전송하고, Y이 같은 날 16:55경 AQ 변호사에게 전화한 사실, ④ 같은 날 17:44경부터 17:54경까지 사이에 AT지검 강력부장검사인 EE과 그 담당실무관인 EF 이 AS 사건에 대하여 수차례 사건조회를 한 사실, ⑤ 이후 Y이 2012. 4. 7. 09:08경 AQ 변호사에게 전화하여 5분 19초간 통화한 사실, ⑥ 피고인은 당시 V고검장으로 재직 중이었고, AQ 변호사는 검사로 재직하다가 퇴직하여 사건 당시에는 변호사로 활동 중이던 사람으로서 2008년경 피고인이 S지검장일 당시 S지검 차장검사로 재직하였던 사실, ⑦ Y은 검찰에서 "내가 A 형에게 전화해봤는데 비서실 직원이 안 바꿔주는데, 형이 대신 물어봐줘"라고 말하였고, 이에 AQ이 "알았다"면서 AS 사건의 사건번호, 검사 이름 등을 알려 달라고 말하였다.', '2012. 4. 5. V고검장이던 피고인과 통화를 시도하다가 실패하여 AQ에게 전화해서 본인 대신 피고인에게 AS 사건의 진행상황을 물어봐 달라고 말하였고, 이후 AQ으로부터 "알아보니 아직까지 결정이 안 됐고 검토 중이라고 한다"는 말을 들었다.'고 진술한 사실을 인정한 다음 아래와 같이 판단하였다.

B) Whether the Defendant was informed of the results of the instant inquiry upon request through Q

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was informed of the progress of the AS case through Q after checking the status of the AS case upon request by Q.

(1) Even though it is recognized that Y had contacted Q Q after the contact, there was no evidence that Q Q contacted the Defendant prior to the instant inquiry, that the Defendant contacted the Defendant, or that the Defendant delivered it to A Q after the instant inquiry, and that the investigation was not conducted in addition to the written statement to be seen below.

(2) In light of the monetary content of AS case at the prosecutor’s office, Q made a statement to the effect that it would have been able to inquire about the principal about AS case. However, I do not have memory about the present AS case, contact with the defendant that "Y would have become aware of the progress of the case," and that "I do not have a flick relation to the defendant who was the chief prosecutor at the time of the Prosecutor General, and do not have a Y's flick relation to the progress of the AS case." Even if I asked the Prosecutor General, I would like to find out the possibility that I would not have a flick relation with the defendant when I was the Prosecutor General at the time of his request, even if I asked the prosecutor to inquire about the situation of AS case, I would not have any other situation that I would not have a Y's flick relation to the defendant's work as the prosecutor's request for another situation.

(3) The EE also prepares a written statement to the effect that “it is possible to receive the case from the Defendant’s request for inquiry, but it is not memory that it has actually received the case’s request” (3°657 pages of evidence records). On the other hand, EE enters the same written statement as “it is sufficient to know only the Defendant without knowing all the persons involved in the case, such as “AS,” and it is alleged that there is no other evidence that the prosecutor knows that there is no person who may request the EE, but it is unclear who means the “related parties to the case, such as “AS,” etc., whose meaning the “E is unknown,” and as seen earlier, it is not always limited to the Defendant or Q.

(4) At the police station, DX stated to the effect that “Y directly communicates with the Defendant while resolving AS cases,” “I would like to call a gold customer again,” and that “I would like to talk with the Defendant when the phone calls again, I would not listen to the contents of the OX between the Defendant and Y, and Y would like to read “I would like to help you see, I would like to see.” (Evidence No. 3, No. 1067, No. 1068 of the evidence record). However, Y did not deny the above monetary fact, but it is difficult to believe DX’s above statement as it is because I would not have any other contents of the phone call with the Defendant in the Y monetary record.

Furthermore, even if the statement of the DX is based on the Y's request, the defendant cannot be seen as having been receiving the request.

(5) At the court below, Y made a statement to the effect that the facts in the court below did not memory the AS portion at all, Y’s statement at the prosecutor’s office is a mixture of thoughts and memory, and it should be viewed that it had been mixed with thoughts and memory, and that Y was aware of the progress of the AS case through the defendant (312 pages, 313 pages of the trial record), and Q from the defendant, the previous statement was reversed (351 pages of the trial record).

C) Consideration relationship and whether there was an unlawful act

(1) Even if the defendant informed Y of the progress of the AS case through Q, the last time of the defendant's receipt of money or entertainment from Y was around 2008, and around that time, the relation between the defendant and Y began to be terminated. Since the defendant's appointment as Y's Y, it is difficult to find data that there was an exchange between Y and the defendant for over three years from the time when Y was called to V high-ranking cell, or telephone communications (or from the court of the original judgment, Y was found to the effect that around September 2008, when the defendant found in AA, it was last seen that around September 2008, it was difficult to recognize that there was a quid pro quo relationship between the defendant's act of notifying the progress of the AS case to the purport that Y was not in a currency with the defendant.).

(2) Also, according to the prosecutor's statement, "a decision has been made yet since Q was known to him/her," and the content of the case delivered by the defendant through Q is the same. It is difficult to regard the case as an "unlawful act" under Article 131 (1) of the Criminal Act only by simply inquiring about the contents of the case on the computer system and transmitting facts which have not yet been decided after the examination of the case in question. It is true in that it is difficult to view the case as an "unlawful act" under Article 258 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. When a non-prosecution disposition or a non-prosecution disposition is made in accordance with Article 266 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the suspect must be immediately notified, and if a prosecution is instituted in accordance with Article 266 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a copy of the indictment shall be served on the defendant or his/her defense counsel without delay. Thus, if any disposition is made to the person subject to investigation, it cannot be viewed as information that it is particularly worth informing whether the investigation is being conducted without yet being made.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below along with the above circumstances that the court below properly decided, closely comparing the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was a mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

This part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

D. As to the assertion on the part of the grounds for appeal, this part of the argument is premised on the acceptance of the argument as seen earlier b. (c) and thus, difficult to accept. This part of the Prosecutor’s assertion is also without merit. Determination of the grounds for appeal regarding the acceptance of bribe from the 4 and

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) Relationship between the Defendant and AU

After the defendant became aware of the name of the company "AV" (hereinafter referred to as "AV"), the representative director of the AV company and the AU from time to time. In the process, AU has continuously provided money and valuables or various property benefits to the defendant who is directly involved in the case or by exercising influence on other prosecutors in charge of the case as a prosecutor in senior position, and the defendant received money and valuables or various property benefits from AU, and the defendant received money and valuables or various property benefits from AU.

2) Acceptance of credit card payments

In early 2007, the Defendant demanded AV office located in AW to provide AV with "one pollution mony card that can be used by employees for the purpose of meal expenses, etc.", and the Defendant received one copy of the above AX card from AU ("AX card" refers to the above AX card, unless there is any separate indication of AX card No. AY, hereinafter "AX card"), and then paid 1,132,000 won from the AZ golf course located in Yong-si around August 25, 2007, from that time until October 17, 2008, the Defendant paid 25,564,635 won in total with the corporate card as indicated in the daily table as follows, and had AU pay the above credit card price in lieu of the above amount and received economic benefits.

(3) Acceptance of merchandise coupons;

around February 5, 2007, the Defendant demanded at the above AV office and at the above AV office, “T merchandise coupons to be used for life saving. It will be good for CT merchandise coupons” and received from AU an amount equivalent to CT merchandise coupons 1,000,000 won purchased from CTS FM store on February 5, 2007 by the Defendant’s apartment guard room around that time. From February 2007 to January 2010 each year, the Defendant received CT merchandise coupons purchased from AU’s apartment guard room, from the above AV office and Seoul cafeteria department FN store and the FN store around that time, and received from AU the amount equivalent to KRW 7,00,000 in total for seven times in total from the above AV office and the restaurant located at Seoul cafeteria, and received the mobile phone price of KRW 40,00,000 from AU each time.

AV office around August 2003, the Defendant requested AV office, and BU to “the name phone to be used for a private purpose”, and requested AV from AU to May 8, 2008, and used CY only one mobile phone in the name of AV employee CY from August 22, 2003, ② CY from April 30, 2008 to May 4, 2010; ③ CY 1 mobile phone in the name of CY from May 10, 201 to May 18, 201; ② CY 1 mobile phone in the name of CY from April 30, 208 to May 4, 201; ③ CY 1 mobile phone in the name of C (hereinafter referred to as “the first telephone,” “2”, and the above three mobile phone hereinafter collectively referred to as “the three mobile phone”). The amount of money used was provided in sequence, and was paid in excess of the amount of money used.

(v) acceptance of notes;

On February 26, 2009, the Defendant demanded AU to “AU to settle the accounts instead of drinking liquor in the GX restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and had AU pay 900,000 won in total with DB card (DB card, card number DC) in the name of DA (DB card, card number DC) of a company operated by AU, a company operated by AU, around February 26, 2009, and received money from around that time to May 19, 2009 by having the Defendant pay 90,000 won in total, from around three times in the same manner, as described in the following table, from around that time to May 19, 2009, the Defendant paid 2,36,000 won in total, such as the Marin, 200, and received money equivalent to the above amount.

On October 27, 200, the Defendant requested AU to “AV’s transfer of KRW 1,00,000,000 from AU to DGH account under the name of DF (hereinafter “DF DF DG account”), and requested AU to transfer the above accounts used by the Defendant at the location of DB Bank within DB Bank in Suwon-si District DI to transfer the amount of KRW 1,00,000 under the name of DV’s personnel in the name of DB Bank within DB Bank in Suwon-si District (hereinafter “DF DF DF DG account”), and received it from around that time to March 31, 204 by means of the same method from AU to September 31, 2004.

As a result, the Defendant received a bribe of 51,600,345 won or more in total from AU with respect to his duties from October 200, to May 201, and at the same time received a bribe of 51,60,345 won or more in relation to arranging matters belonging to another public official’s duties by taking advantage of his status as a public official.

B. As to the assertion regarding the receipt portion of merchandise coupons

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the charges related to the portion of the gift certificates received cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A) In light of the fact that the AU’s purchase details of merchandise coupons, the AU stated that the AU has consistently issued merchandise coupons from the initial prosecutor’s statement from the prosecution’s initial statement, and that the AU cannot be seen as having tending to make a statement unfavorable to the Defendant to harm the Defendant in light of the content and attitude of the statement, it is clear that the AU has a record of issuing merchandise coupons to the Defendant several times.

B) However, there is no consistency in the AU’s statement related to the time when the issuance of merchandise coupons began, the completion period, and the frequency. The AU made a statement about the fact of the issuance of merchandise coupons from the first prosecutor’s investigation. However, at the time, “I want to be authorized from 2003.” At the time, I would like to see the degree of KRW 100 to KRW 2 million each time when I want to purchase merchandise coupons in low-income company need to carry out a more part at the time of purchase of merchandise coupons. This was not continuous and this would not be about 4 to 5 times.” After confirming the details of credit cards, I would like to make a statement that it had been changed from the Gu administration around 2007 to the time of the third prosecutor’s investigation (Evidence No. 1585, 1585, 201).

C) However, as a result of the fact that memory has been scattered for the long time in the process of making a statement on the preceding case, the difference between 2003 and 2007 is extremely large. Moreover, AU stated that the time of issuing a corporate card to the defendant was around 2006 when the first prosecutorial investigation was conducted, and that the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted on early 2007. According to the first prosecutorial investigation, AU provided a corporate card to the defendant after the issuance of gift certificates 4 through 5 times before and after several years from the time of issuance of the corporate card. On the other hand, the third prosecutorial investigation was made at the time of issuance of the gift certificates, and the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted at the time of delivery of the cards, and the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted at the time of delivery of the cards and the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted at the time of delivery of the cards and the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted at the time of delivery of the cards to the defendant's office before and after the third prosecutorial investigation was conducted at the time of 7 UUU.

D) It is difficult to view that the AU’s statement related to the issuance of gift certificates is fit for objective evidence. From the third prosecutor’s investigation, AU mainly purchased EG department stores and predicted that it was difficult for the Defendant to purchase CT gift certificates from that time. Since the time when CT gift certificates were purchased by a credit card to its employees was around 2007, it would be appropriate for the Defendant to purchase gift certificates from that time, and there was no amount of KRW 1,00,000 to that of KRW 1585,1586, which was less than KRW 1586). Examining the details of purchase of gift certificates from AU’s 200,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000 to KRW 1,000,000,000 to KRW 1,000,000 to KRW 2,00,000,00,000.

E) From the time of the initial statement, AU made a statement to the effect that “AU purchased EG department stores, from that time, the Defendant purchased CT gift certificates from that time.” However, if the details of purchase of gift certificates are confirmed as above as a result of ex post facto verification, it may be deemed that AU’s statement would be reliable. However, AU made a statement to the effect that the said statement was not made at all when a prosecutorial investigation was conducted on the 1 and 2th prosecutorial investigation, and only after verifying the content of the company’s card in its operation at the 3rd prosecutorial investigation. However, IU appears that AU’s FSM points and CT department department store FN points at the time of change of the gift certificates from the EG department stores to the point of time of change of the purchase price of gift certificates, and it is also doubtful whether AU’s statement that changed the purchase price of gift certificates at the request of the Defendant would be correct.

F) The AU’s statement is ambiguous about the place where merchandise coupons are issued. At the first and second prosecutor’s investigation, the AU did not make any statement at all on the place where merchandise coupons are issued to the Defendant, and thereafter, at the third prosecutor’s investigation, it stated that the Defendant either issued merchandise coupons to the Defendant at the same restaurant or at the company’s office operated by him/her, or that the Defendant was entrusted with merchandise coupons to the guard room of the apartment (Evidence Nos. 9 and 1586), and the court below stated for the same purpose in the court of original trial. However, in the process, the AU stated only to outline the number of times of each place or the degree of delivery at the company’s office (the time when the Defendant served in the RR agency), and it did not clearly specify the time when merchandise coupons were issued to the Defendant by leaving the merchandise coupon to the apartment guard room.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as well as the aforementioned circumstances, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges is justified on the ground that although AU appears to have delivered merchandise coupons to the defendant several times, it is difficult to recognize that the date, time, place, quantity, etc. of the delivered merchandise coupons are accurately memoryed, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles or

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

A) At the time of the first prosecutorial investigation, AU stated that “I want to be authorized from around 2003.” At the time of the first prosecutorial investigation, I would like to divide merchandise coupons into KRW 100 to KRW 2 million each time when I purchase merchandise coupons at low-income company need to carry out merchandise coupons. This would have not been continued and will not be more than four to five times each time.” (Evidence Record 7:308 pages) but at the time of the third prosecutorial investigation, AU stated that “I would like to purchase merchandise coupons mainly to EG department store and assign it to employees when I asked for the first prosecutorial investigation. However, I stated that I would like to purchase merchandise coupons from that time when I would purchase CT merchandise coupons with bT merchandise coupons, which was signed by the Defendant, and that I would have never changed the content of CT merchandise coupons to the effect that I would have not stated to the Defendant for five years from that time when I purchased CT merchandise coupons from that time.”

C) At the time, the prosecutor appears to have presented the particulars of purchase of the gift certificates as indicated below to AU (Evidence No. 9, 1701 pages) at the time of time (Evidence No. 1701 pages). The result of confirming the content of purchase of the AU gift certificates is as listed below. (4) The AU stated to the effect that the Defendant began to purchase the CT gift certificates by changing the CT gift certificates. (1) The AU stated to the effect that it was reasonable to have offered the Defendant a 2007 trend, (2) year 2007 trend, (3) year 2008 trend, (4) year 2009 trend, (2) year 2009 trend, (7) year 200,000 won for the gift certificates, (3) year 200,000 won for the gift certificates, (4) year 200,700,000 won for the gift certificates (Evidence No. 986,5) year 200,700,000,000.

(3) As seen earlier, AU stated to the effect that “AU did not grant gift certificates at the time of the third prosecutorial investigation.” Even in light of the credit card content, it did not purchase CT gift certificates to the extent that the Defendant would have reduced.” However, at the time of the 2010 drilling, AU purchased CT gift certificates worth KRW 13 million.

(4) The instant indictment was instituted in 2019, and it appears that the determination of guilty of this part of the facts charged cannot be made without objective evidence that could ensure the accuracy of the AU memory, the donor. In particular, it is more true in the instant case where the final decision on the completion of the statute of limitations varies depending on when or when the time when the bribe was provided comes to fall under the point of time. As to the assertion on the portion of the payment of the cost of using the borrowed cell phone.

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant's "matters expected by AU from October 27, 200 to May 201, 201, when the defendant received benefits from AU, are so vague and abstract that it is impossible to confirm that the defendant's future duties are related to the received benefits, and it was not possible to know whether the defendant can exercise his/her official authority to determine whether he/she is related to the received benefits, and ② in the case of receiving the proceeds from using AU's mobile phone, the "the provision of mobile phone without any consideration" is "the provision of mobile phone without any consideration by the defendant", and the amount cannot be concluded to have been provided merely because it is a relatively small amount of money and thus, it cannot be concluded that the defendant was provided in connection with his/her duties.

A) Before giving and receiving profits, there is no evidence that the AU made a solicitation to the Defendant, that the Defendant was directly involved in the handling of the case against AU or exercised influence on other prosecutors in charge of the case, or that at least offered official convenience.

(1) AU became aware of the Defendant at the meeting of friendship with EAL High School and EK, which is a member of the National Intelligence Service, around 1992 and 193. At the same time, AU complained of the Defendant for his detention in the course of being investigated by the EM branch due to suspicion of violating the Illegal Check Control Act, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Case of EM branch") around 1997 through 1997 through 1998, after hearing the answer to the purport that "the above investigation case is the same as the case of EM branch)" from the Defendant, and started close time with the Defendant, such as golf or meal, etc., with the Defendant. However, AU’s response to a criminal case is not sufficient for the other party to counsel or reply to the above case, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no other party to counsel or evidence from the court below to the other party to the criminal case, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no other party to counsel or reply to the above case.

(2) AU is a Executive Director of EN in around 1998 and is promoted within EN in EO area.

In relation to the approval of apartment business, I stated to the effect that, on the suspicion that I provided money and valuables to EPO housing and EP, the head of EPO, etc. under the pretext of giving a prior notice, I was prosecuted on July 28, 1998 and sentenced to a fine of 20 million won in Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 99-37-1 (Separation) and on August 21, 1999, "The above case was finally decided on August 21, 199," and "PPP inspection". In this regard, AU asked the defendant about how I would be EP at the original trial and asked him about how I would be EP in connection with the PP case. On the other hand, I stated to the effect that I would also be the subject of investigation, and that I would like to say that I would like to say that IU was also the subject of investigation, and that I would like to be aware that I would not have any more objective evidence before and after the amendment of IU's right to memory as above.

B) There is no evidence that the pending issue related to the Defendant’s duties has occurred or is anticipated to occur to AU during the period of receiving the overall benefit (from October 27, 200, to May 18, 201) on the facts charged.

(1) Preliminary case was investigated and tried in relation to EN’s business, which is not a company run by AU itself, and thereafter, AU was directly operated by AV company (Evidence Record 9: 1576, 1577, 1578, 1593, etc.); around October 27, 2000, when AU first transferred money to DFDG account by AU for the first time; after AU was investigated by P land Inspection and EM branch, AU was investigated by P land Inspection and EM branch’s case, 197 to 3 years from 198.3 years from 197 to 198 from 198, when AU provided a mobile phone name to the defendant; further, AU had been investigated by more than half (34,936, 15730, 1593, etc.) of financial profits recorded in the facts charged related to AU, more than one half (34,936, 305, etc.) and one (300) of State shares.

(2) There is no evidence that there was an investigation of the AU or its neighboring human resources or a connection with a criminal case during the benefit-taking period exceeding 10 years. Examining the content of the case search of the AU, the investigation and trial related to the PPP and the EM branch case were all terminated before 2000, and there was no fact that the AU was entered as a suspect during the period from 2013 to 2013 (Evidence 7No. 352 pages of the evidence record), and the AU clearly stated in the original trial that the AU did not have made a solicitation to a specific case against the defendant.

(3) The AU continues to engage in construction business, implementation business, etc. while operating AV, DA, and ER during the above period. However, there is no evidence to deem that the occurrence of the instant case occurred or is anticipated to occur in a criminal case or another prosecutor belonging to the Defendant’s scope of duties due to the illegal operation of the business during the said period. There is no evidence to deem that the instant case occurred within the said period and has occurred after May 18, 201.

(4) During the above period, the address of AU was ES apartment (Evidence Nos. 7, 312, 390, etc.), AV, DA, and ER’s head office were located in ET Gu or EU (Evidence Nos. 7, 311, 9, 164) and the residential and business basis of AU were located within the jurisdiction of the PPP or EM branch office (Evidence No. 7, 311, 9, 164, etc.). However, during the above period, the Defendant was employed as the PP main office for P PP or Q branch office for around 200 (Evidence No. 7, 3499, etc.).

C) The AU’s statement on the details of the provision of specific benefits is more flexible or based on the trend.

(1) On April 8, 2013, AU entered the statement as " without thought" upon request from the National Police Agency (Defendants) in relation to the provision of a borrowed mobile phone (Evidence 7No. 24), and written as "(Evidence 24)." On April 15, 2019, the AU did not make any particular statement about the reason or motive for giving financial benefits to the defendant, which was being investigated by the prosecution first on April 15, 2019, from the second prosecutor's investigation as of April 21, 2019, when he was examined by the National Police Agency special investigation department of the National Police Agency, and upon being asked by the prosecutor, he/she would not be able to get any help in the subsequent criminal case." After that, he/she responded to the first prosecutor's statement from the prosecutor's office to the first prosecutor's investigation as of April 21, 2019."

(2) The AU made a statement in the court below as it is consistent with the statement in the third prosecutor's investigation at the court below, on the other hand, that "the country of conclusion will be helpful to society, and will be the same as in favor of receiving a business help while making a solicitation or social life at low level, and wanting to do so (567 pages of the trial record)." (567 pages of the trial record), in relation to the provision of the next mobile phone, the AU made a statement to the effect that "at the time when the defendant is pro-friendly defendant needs to provide a mobile phone without any consideration, and he did not think that the provision of a mobile phone would be a bribe (580 pages of the trial record)."

(3) The AU did not make a statement concerning the initial remittance of money, and made a statement due to the details of remittance of the DF DG account, which seems to be unsatisfying on the specific details thereof.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Legal principles

As stated in Article 132 of the Criminal Act, accepting a bribe in relation to the referral of matters belonging to the duties of other public officials is an act of accepting a bribe under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of other public officials, and it does not necessarily require that the contents of the duties of other public officials or their duties are specified. However, in order to establish the crime of arranging a bribe, matters to be mediated are matters belonging to the duties of other public officials, which fall under the duties of the other public officials, and the reason for the crime of arranging a bribe must be specified to a certain extent. It is merely limited to the extent that the other public official gives and receives a bribe, which means that the other public official gives and receives a bribe is likely to receive a certain help or incur any loss, and the mere fact that the person accepting a bribe receives a bribe is deemed to have such expectation, it cannot be deemed that the crime of arranging a bribe is established. On the other hand, in order to establish the crime of arranging a bribe, there is no need to resolve any pending issue that must be resolved by the other party at the time of demanding the bribe to be established (see, 2014.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received money and other valuables or property benefits provided from AU from around October 27, 200, to May 18, 201, in the event that a situation occurs, such as where the Defendant is subject to an investigation by the special prosecutor of the prosecution in the course of the AU’s implementation project, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received money and other property benefits in return for the pretext of arrangement by exercising influence on the prosecutor in charge,

This part of the prosecutor's argument is with merit.

(1) Relationship between the Defendant and AU

AU is the applicant of the EI, and seems to have become aware of the EK of the NIS staff member through the High TJ in the GI. AU was present at a friendship meeting with EK, which is the applicant of the EL, in 192 or 1993 (2 pages of the record of the examination of the party in question). From around 197, around 197, there was a dispute between AU and EK, and the AU was investigated into the charge of violating the Act on the Control of Fraud and Illegal Check at the Ptom EM Office. At that time, most people in the above friendship group were the same EK, who was the applicant, but the defendant was placed in the AU, and since that time, the AU thought that the defendant could be a person who was a part of the defendant, and the defendant was the witness of the defendant and the AU became the applicant's record of the examination (60).

(2) AU’s offering of a bribe was entered into a charge of offering a bribe around July 1998, and was charged on July 29, 1998. The court of first instance held the same as the court of first instance.

On December 11, 1998, AU was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for ten months (the 198 Gowon District Court Decision 198Gohap581, the 7rd 389 pages of evidence records). The appeal court reversed the first instance judgment and sentenced a fine of twenty million won (the 20 million won of the Seoul High Court Decision 99Do37-1 (Separation), the 7rd 413 pages of evidence records). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Criminal facts recognized for AU are as follows.

around May 20, 198, DefendantU delivered 20 million won to GN in connection with public official’s duties through GO’s case name on the line of apartment project approval conducted in EO’s EO’s region through GO’s village. However, on the road located in GP, around 1996, DefendantU provided a bribe in connection with public official’s official duties. However, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Defendant to be present at the time of the lower court’s testimony to the effect that, as indicated in the list of crimes, Defendant issued KRW 2 million to EO’s house and EO’s house in its own car located on the GP’s road, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to be present at the time of the lower court’s testimony to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to be present at the time of the above investigation and seizure of the case, as stated in the list of crimes, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to be present at the time of his testimony to the effect that it was in connection with AU’s duty (attached omitted).

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is reliable in the AU’s statement that the defendant informed of the progress of the investigation into the bribe offering case at the time, and the reason why the statement has been changed is sufficient.

(A) At the court below, AU made a statement to the effect that “I would have been subject to the EP housing which is a public official at the time of EO in connection with the offering of bribe,” and that “I would like to talk with the Defendant that “I would have to take this problem”. After that, the EP was detained, and there was a book that the special chief of the Department would have carried out the AP once, and that “I would have been subject to the AP,” and that “I would like to say that I would have been subject to search and seizure at the office on that day” (the trial record 530,531 pages), and the above AU’s statement is very detailed that I would not have any direct experience (the trial record 530,531 pages).

(B) In the trial court in 1998, AU also had been investigated as a bribe suspicion in the Pter in the 1998, and in the EN where the EN was working, the EO-si and the head of the EP, at the time. The EO-si and the head of the EP were low-friendly. The EO-si and the head of the E-si were investigated as the acceptance of bribe, and the head of the E-si and the head of the E-si and the head of the E-si were contacted that the Defendant was subject to the investigation later."

(C) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation on May 1, 2019, the AU made a statement to the effect that “I would not make a solicitation on the handling of the instant case where I would not accurately memory, but I would like to do so.” However, at the time of the three prosecutorial investigation, I would like to say that I would like to read “I would like to do so. I would like to do so.” However, I would like to the effect that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to be involved in the instant case, and that I would like to say that I would like to have stated as above at the time of the three prosecutorial investigation. I would like to say that I would like to have son, and that I would not want to have the damage, I would like to talk about the detailed contents at the time. However, on May 23, 2019, I would like to say that I would like to make a statement because I would not need to cut down the content that I had been involved in the A case.”

(D) The AU’s arches are confirmed to be GS of the Privacy, and at the time of May 24, 2019, the report was made by the father of the GT News, “in the case of GT News, there is suspicion that the father of the GT News was suspected of offering entertainment to the Defendant who was a L institution X,” and thereafter, it is confirmed that the article of the Privacy Party was posted on the Internet (the trial record 524 pages). This conforms to the piracy’s explanation as seen earlier.

(E) As seen earlier, AU stated to the effect that the special department prosecutor in charge of the offering of a bribe was G Q. However, the Defendant worked in the special department 2 at the time of K branch inspection, and G Q worked in the special department 3 of the case (1036 pages of the trial record), and the Defendant’s statement of AU that he was aware of the progress of the case through G Q Q inspection, in solicitation of the Defendant, is strong persuasive.

(4) Whether money, valuables or property gains have been received under the pretext of good offices

(A) AU’s perception ① AU’s perception ① AU’s origin from EI’s origin attended a group of friendships with EL high origin as a main axis in order to keep people who have been socially helpful in around 1992 through 1993. The Defendant, the EL high origin, was present.

② At around 1997, AU entered the Defendant with respect to a case violating the Fraudulent and Illegal Check Control Act, and around 1998, AU confirmed the progress of the case through the Defendant in relation to the offering of bribe, and became close to the Defendant.

③ The AU has provided various types of benefits, such as delivery of money to the Defendant from around 200, October 10 to May 201. However, AU provided various kinds of benefits to the Defendant before the occurrence of the bribe offering case, while AU provided various kinds of benefits to the Defendant at the request of the Defendant after the judgment of the bribe offering case became final and conclusive on August 199 (7 pages of the trial record). Meanwhile, the Defendant did not provide any benefits except that he donated AU commemorative worship to AU for the above period (57 pages of the trial record). (1) Since AU had many characteristics of its enforcement business in the trial court, IU would like to have been able to find it difficult for the Defendant to receive money or property benefits from 4 times to 201. However, I would like to have been able to know that there were no special circumstances, such as ‘the Defendant' and IU would like to have been able to know that there was no problem in the process of authorization and permission.'

⑤ AU was serving as the EN’s managing director in 196 through 1998 (Evidence 7:394). EN was working for the apartment project (Evidence 527 pages of the trial record). AU was convicted of having granted a bribe to EO market and EO broadcaster in relation to the approval of the apartment project being promoted in EN. Meanwhile, AU was the representative director of AV. Meanwhile, GV apartment sales project promoted by AV was deemed to have been completed in around 2004 and GW housing project was completed in around 201 (5 pages of the trial record). Furthermore, AU established a company of DA in around 2007 and carried out the implementation project in GX only (Evidence 164 pages of the evidence record).

⑥ 2008년 말경부터 진행하였던 프로젝트 분양이 실패하면서 AU의 사업이 어려워지기 시작하였는데(공판기록 567쪽), 이에 대해 AU은 당심법정에서 '분양허가가 지연되어 분양이 실패하였다.'는 취지로 진술하였다(당심 증인신문 녹취서 9쪽). 이와 관련하여 AU은 종전과 마찬가지로 로비를 하여 온 것으로 보이는데, 원심법정에서는 '사업 관계자나 지인들에게 상품권을 건네준 사실이 있다. 누구라고 밝히기는 어려워도 여러 사람 있었다.'는 취지로 진술하였고(공판기록 576쪽), 당심법정에서는 '2010년 추석 무렵 1,300만 원 상당의 상품권을 구입한 이유는 판촉활동이라고 해서 시공사나 이런 데에 적극적으로 로비활동을 해야 손해를 최소화시킬 수 있어 시공사나 그런 쪽에 인사를 하려고 샀다.'는 취지로 진술하였다( 당심 증인신문 녹취서 17쪽).

(1) In full view of the above circumstances, AU is subject to criminal punishment on suspicion of giving a bribe to a public official in charge of the implementation project in relation to which he/she is involved through an investigation of special parts, and has experience with the help of a defendant who is a special part prosecutor in the process, and it is reasonable to deem that the case had an intention to resolve the case through the defendant in the event that a situation where a special part of the implementation project is investigated again by providing various kinds of economic benefits to the

(B) The Defendant’s recognition ① was the Director of the Branch Office from 1997 to 1998, the Prosecutor General from 1998 to 1999, the Prosecutor General from 2001 to 2002, the Director of the Military Prosecutors’ Office from 2002 to 2003, the Director of the Military Prosecutors’ Office from 2003 to 2004, the Prosecutor from 2004 to 2005, the Director of the Military Prosecutors’ Office from 2005 to 2006, the Prosecutor from 201 to 2007 to 2008, and the Prosecutor from 201 to 2001 to 200, the Prosecutor from 201 to 200, the Prosecutor from 2001 to 200, the Prosecutor from 201 to 200, the Prosecutor from 201 to 201 to 200, the Prosecutor from 202 to 2001 to 3.

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant involved in a bribe offering case in AU and is under investigation.

In this process, AU has been aware that it is a person who can be subject to the investigation of the special department while carrying out the AU's implementation project.

③ Even after the completion of the offering of a bribe case, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the AU continues to implement the AU’s implementation project by visiting the model house (the trial record 588,603 pages). In this regard, the Defendant’s wife stated to the effect that “The Defendant’s wife had a fact between her husband and her husband in the model house of an apartment unit sold by the AU in the original court (the trial record 734 pages);

④ During the period in which the AU provides the Defendant with money and other valuables or property benefits, it appears that there was no case in which the AU is required to settle the case by good offices. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been trying to resolve the case by exercising influence over other prosecutors when the AU occurs.

① The Defendant, a business entity developing and selling real estate, received money and valuables from Y, and seems to have actively participated in resolving the issue when Y or his/her consciousness was involved in criminal cases.

Y: Around 2007 to 2008, Y was stated at the court of the court below that she was given cash to the defendant from 2007 to 2008; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 2.00 to 3,00,000 won was paid to the defendant at the time when the defendant promoted to the chief prosecutor; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

HC(가명)는 원심법정에서 '피고인과 Y으로부터 성폭행을 당하고 아침에 눈을 떴는데, Y이 피고인을 엄청 높은 검사님이라고 이야기했다.', 'Y이 피고인을 "앞으로 너가 모셔야 될 분이야"라고 했다.', 'Y과 피고인이 Y의 송사 문제를 이야기하는 것을 들은 적이 있다.', 'Y이 피고인이 승진을 하게 되면 자기 인생이 달라질 것이라고 이야기했다. 피고인이 높은 사람이라고 생각했기 때문에 Y을 많이 도와줄 것이라고 생각했고, 당시 Y이 안 좋은 일이 많이 엮여 있었기 때문에 그런 것을 도와준다고 생각했다.', '당시 Y이 동대문 상가 문제도 있었고, Y 대신 일을 보는 남자가 있었는데, 그 사람이 대신 서울구치소에 들어갔기 때문에 그 사람을 빼내야 한다고 이야기하는 것을 들은 적이 있다.', '당시 Y이 서초경찰서에 가서 조사를 받는 등 굉장히 많이 조사를 받으러 다닌 것으로 알고 있는데, 그 문제를 피고인이 같이 의논하였고 피고인이 "걱정하지 마, 내가 알아서 할 거야"라고 이야기 했던 기억이 난다.', 'Y이 동대문운동장 쪽인가 동대문쪽에 무슨 중국인들을 상대로 하는 쇼핑몰을 만든다고 하였는데 그것을 하면서 사람들에게 투자를 받고 하는 것에 Y이 머리를 아파하곤 하였다. 그 사건 때문에 Y이 직접 연루가 되어 있어 피고인과 자주 상의했다.', 'Y과 같이 다니는 오른팔인가 하는 남자가 있었는데 그 사람이랑 HD 사건 그리고 Y의 송사가 걸린 문제에 대해 Y과 피고인이 의논하는 것을 몇 번 봤다.'는 취지로 진술하였다(공판기록 458, 459, 461, 462, 494쪽)

DS, from the beginning of October 2006 to the middle of February 2008, worked as a driver of Y, had been said to be "Y" in the court of the court below, "Y has been said to be "Y" in the court of the court below, "Y has been asked by the defendant in connection with the criminal case by telephone conversationss," "Y has been consulted with the defendant in relation to the case by telephone conversationss in the Eastern HD, Y has been in the process of counseling with the defendant in relation to HD, and "Y has been seen to be more time until it goes beyond the prosecutor's office", and "Y has been waiting until it goes beyond the prosecutor's office", "Y has been talked about whether it is too time for the defendant to go to the prosecutor's office", "Y has been assaulted by another person in relation to the case by telephone redevelopment," and "Y has made a statement to the effect that it has been made to the effect that it has been made 5 or 65 of this case's statement.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower court should be acquitted since the offering of a bribe is similar to the HE case (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do12346, Dec. 22, 2017). In the case of the HE chief prosecutor, the Supreme Court first HE and HF were friendly from a high school school student’s city in 1985, and continued a friendly relationship for 20 years until 2005, ② Although HF was investigated by the lower court more than 205, it was difficult to establish a crime in itself, and it appears that the Defendant’s first HF or HG’s investigation was conducted with respect to the offering of a bribe was conducted by the lower court to the effect that it was difficult to find out the circumstances where the lower court’s first HF’s business was conducted by the lower court to the effect that there was no concern that the HF would have been an inherent issue in the process of the offering of an apartment, such as unlawful business conducted by HF, and that it could not be known that there existed in the criminal case.

There was a record of investigation into G Q. ④ The Defendant provided money and other property benefits in preparation for the case where a special department’s investigation, etc. was conducted in the course of implementing the AU’s implementation project. In light of the aforementioned overall circumstances, the Defendant was able to anticipate this.

AU appears to have not existed any pending issue that shall be resolved by actual arrangement to AU during the period in which money and valuables or property benefits are provided to the defendant. However, this does not affect whether the crime of good offices and bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Act is established. In the above case of the HE chief prosecutor, the Supreme Court made it clear that there is no need for the pending issue to be resolved by good offices to the other party at the time of accepting the bribe.

Rather, the instant case is similar to the facts of HH prosecutor’s case (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1324, May 29, 2014) other than the chief prosecutor’s case. The facts of HH prosecutor’s case are as follows: ① The operator of H was subject to a notice of summons from the investigation and summons from the GZ KK branch due to the charge of violating the Commercial Act following the disguised payment of capital increase; ② around March 7, 2005, HJ was serving as the first chief prosecutor of the HK branch’s criminal affairs from the Hak branch’s original production at an elementary school, and was introduced to HH branch upon request from the Ha branch to the Ha branch’s chief investigator or the senior public prosecutor, and ③ the Ha branch made a request to the Ha branch to conduct an investigation into the instant case and the Ha branch’s director’s request to the Ha on June 27, 2005.

④ On December 27, 2005, the main prosecutor of the case violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act suspended the prosecution for the instant case. (7) On June 17, 2005, HJ delivered KRW 3 million to HH in relation to the instant case. On January 2006, 2006, it delivered KRW 3 million to HH in relation to the instant case. (8) The HJ delivered KRW 48 million to HJ over ten times from July 6, 2007 to June 12, 201, and during the said period, there was no special criminal case against HJ.

Based on the foregoing factual basis, the Seoul High Court: (a) stated to the effect that “the money and valuables were provided in the future,” (i) the influence of H and HJ, (ii) the amount of money and valuables provided by HJ, and (iii) the relationship between H and HJ was sufficient to be deemed to have reached the point where the fairness in performing their duties is doubtful from the general society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20132400, Jan. 10, 2014); (b) the Seoul High Court was given and received KRW 48 million under the pretext of good offices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2400, Jan. 10, 2014) on the above judgment of the Seoul High Court; (c) the reason why the money and valuables were delivered, and (d) the reason why HJ was handed down in the future; (d) the Supreme Court presented the legal principles identical to the legal principles that the chief prosecutor fully applied the case; and (e.g., (d) the lower court’s decision 201214.

Although the Supreme Court deemed that the crime of referral acceptance in the case of HE chief prosecutor was not established, the case of HH prosecutor is established on the ground that ① in the case of HE chief prosecutor, there was no opportunity for the prosecutor to form a "a simple expectation to the extent that the prosecutor would be able to get any assistance or would not incur any damage," and there was no specific expectation for the prosecutor to form a "8). On the other hand, in the case of HH prosecutor, during the process of participating in the case of violation of the Commercial Act and violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, HH prosecutor requested the public prosecutor, etc. in charge to take charge of the case to ensure that the case would be handled well."

The attitude of such precedents is also confirmed through HN case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18070, Feb. 18, 2016). HN’s factual basis is as follows. ① HN’s company was prosecuted on charges of public conflict, etc. with the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch on June 3, 2008 (hereinafter “public conflict case”), and around that time, it was investigated as a suspect of reporting to the police (hereinafter “narcotics case”). ② HN received 10 billion won from 00,000 to 10,000,000 won from 10,000,0000 won from 10,000,000 won from 20,000 won from 10,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 20,000).

With regard to the above KRW 100 million, the appellate court rendered a judgment not guilty by presenting the legal principle that "the mere fact that the provider received money and valuables is not a crime of acceptance of good offices is not a crime of acceptance of good offices merely because the provider received money and valuables, etc., although the provider appears well to have received money and valuables, etc. from the recipient of the money and valuables, etc., and the recipient of the money and valuables also delivered the money and valuables, etc. with such expectation."

In this regard, the Supreme Court was aware that HN worked as a prosecutor and was employed as a judge at the time of delivery of the above KRW 100 million, and that there was a possibility of another criminal case to occur to HO because HN knew of the contents of the business of HO and the past criminal investigation and trial in the process of receiving money corresponding to the consideration in response to a solicitation from HO regarding mediation of a specific case. Since HN knew of the contents of the petition case such as HR, it is possible for HO to bring about another criminal case against fraud in connection with the future petition case, HN judge was aware of the possibility that HN might bring about a criminal case against fraud in the future. Thus, it appears that HN was aware that HN was aware of the circumstances that HO provided money and valuables in the above petition case or other criminal cases as before and after delivery of KRW 100 million, and that it was difficult to conclude that HO was a genuine or indirect criminal case against HO's failure to make a solicitation or to prosecute it for reasons other than the specific solicitation of the case.

The standard is whether or not the pending issue has been actually established, whether or not the provider has been aware of the provider's specific expectations, or whether or not the provider has been aware of the provider's specific expectations). (5) Whether or not the provider's mobile phone has received as a consideration for mediation of the mobile phone.

In light of the fact that the AU provided the Defendant with the name phone, but the AU stated to the effect that the AU provided it without any particular consideration in relation to the AU’s name phone, and that the amount of profit from property related to the BU’s name mobile phone is a relatively small amount, it cannot be readily concluded that the BU’s name mobile phone was provided in connection with the Defendant’s duties. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the BU’s name mobile phone was provided as the pretext of the AU’s criminal mediation.

(A) Unlike the provision of other money or property benefits in a trial court, the AU stated to the effect that “I would not purely help a defendant to use a borrowed mobile phone or simply lend a mobile phone” (the 10th page of the examination of witness in the trial court).

(B) On April 8, 2013, at the time of the police investigation, AU respondeded to the purport that "at the time of the police investigation, AU created without consideration by requesting that it was when used for a private purpose." However, at the time, it is unreasonable to determine that AU did not have been suspected that AU offered a bribe to the defendant, and that AU was provided for a separate reason that the BU was different from other property interests based on the above statement.

(C) On April 15, 2019, at the time of the first prosecutor’s investigation, the AU did not make any statement about the reason or motive for which the AU provided a bribe to the defendant. However, as seen earlier, it is unreasonable to determine that the AU, as at the time of the investigation, was provided for a separate reason from other property interests, in view of the fact that, if it became known that it provided a bribe to the defendant, it would have negative impact on the images of the children working as an artist, and that it was unlikely to make the speech to the greatest extent possible.

(D) Although paying the fee for the use of the borrowed-name mobile phone on behalf of the donor, it is difficult to understand that there is no quid pro quo because the amount is relatively small. In a case where a business operator operating a speculative game-related business provides a police officer with various financial benefits and pays the fee for the use of a mobile phone on behalf of the donor for six months, the Supreme Court recognized that all the financial benefits and the fee for the use of the mobile phone that the donor provided are bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10884, Mar. 14, 2008). Many lower courts precedents also take the same position. 9)

(E) As seen thereafter, AU has delivered cash each year to the Defendant from 200 to 2004, provided a corporate card in 2007 and 2008, and paid it on behalf of the State during the year 2009. It cannot be denied that only the amount of payment for the use of the borrowed mobile phone between August 200 and May 201 is separate.

D. As to the assertion on the part of the grounds for appeal

The lower court determined that the statute of limitations has expired for the remainder of the facts charged related to AU as long as the part of receiving merchandise coupons and receiving the cost of using the borrowed mobile phone is not found guilty. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant found the part receiving the cost of using the borrowed mobile phone from October 200 to May 201, and received money and valuables or pecuniary benefits equivalent to the sum of KRW 43,020,345 from AU during the period from around October 200 to May 201, and the Defendant received money and valuables or pecuniary benefits. This constitutes a crime falling under Article 2 (1) 3 of the Act on the AU of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act”), and the statute of limitations has been ten years pursuant to Article 249 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the indictment of this case was clearly filed on June 4, 2019 before the expiration of 10 years from May 2011.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is with merit.

However, as stated in the facts charged, a separate judgment should be made on whether the Defendant received the money, ① credit card use price, ② merchandise coupon, ③ mobile phone use price, ④ mobile phone use price, ④ mobile phone, ⑤ as to whether the Defendant received the money, and thus, it should be examined.

1) Part concerning receipt of credit card payments

AU offered one copy of the corporate card in the name of AV to the defendant around May 2007, and the defendant asserted that he used it from August 25, 2007, and suggested the following as the grounds: (i) the active data he prepared and submitted by the defendant and the parts that coincide with each other in the use of the above corporate card are confirmed; and (ii) the fact that the defendant was using the above corporate card in the Switter after he was appointed to the chief prosecutor.

The defendant asserts that some of the particulars presented by the prosecutor are consistent with the contents that he used, but the legal card itself is not delivered from AU, and that each AU needs to find and pay.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to deem that the above corporate card was possessed by a defendant who is not a AU since May 2007. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant was provided with property benefits equivalent to the sum of KRW 25,564,635 from August 25, 2007 to October 17, 2008.

A) At the court below's decision, AU stated that "the defendant would have been given a card to the effect that it would be good for the defendant to make a statement in the manner of meeting or activity activities as a public official," "no card was returned from the defendant between May 2007 and October 2008," and "no card was issued to another person" (573 through 575 pages of the trial record). (B) According to the criminal records submitted by the defendant, the defendant was a RR engine movement group in BA on August 25, 2007 (Evidence 9: 1382, 2138 of the evidence record), and the use of the above corporate card as stated below is consistent with this.

C) The Defendant appears to have used the “BM” restaurant in Pyeongtaek-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Evidence Record 9: 1385 pages), and the “BM” on September 15, 2007, appears to have used the said corporate card. (D) The Defendant appears to have used the restaurant “BR in Gangnam-gu” (including the details of settlement of KRW 200,000 with the Defendant’s DG card (HU) in his name on August 27, 2005), and the said corporate card was used on November 3, 2007.

E) According to the criminal records submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant was engaged in a campaign in HV M’s Secretariat and BA on December 23, 2007 (Evidence Nos. 99 and 1389). The use of the corporate card as indicated below is consistent with this.

F) According to the criminal records submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant was a head of the S branch prosecutor on March 11, 2008. However, the Defendant was a head of the S branch prosecutor on May 17, 2008, at the CL located in Chuncheon on June 30, 2008, at the COL entertainment tavern located in Chuncheon on June 30, 2008, at the CL located in Chuncheon on August 22, 2008, and at the CG located in Chuncheon on August 2, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20613, May 17, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20683, Aug. 2, 2008>

H) As seen earlier, the Defendant alleged that he did not own a corporate card but did so each time when AU needs to be found and paid. However, the Defendant’s assertion seems to be persuasive in light of the following circumstances.

(1) The AU appears to have resided in the ES from 1998 to 2011 (Evidence No. 7 rights 312 pages, 390 pages)

(2) However, in analyzing the details of the use of the above corporation card, between February 17, 2004 and May 5, 2007, the store address appeared 95 times as between May 6, 2007 to October 17, 2008, while the store address does not appear at all during the period from May 6, 2007 to October 17, 2008 (see, e.g., attached Table).

2) Delivery part of merchandise coupons

As seen earlier, although AU appears to have delivered merchandise coupons to the defendant several times, it is difficult to recognize that the date, time, place, quantity, etc. of the delivered merchandise coupons are accurately memoryd. As such, this part of the facts charged cannot be recognized as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, it is inevitable to determine the innocence.

3) Part concerning the receipt of payment for the use of the borrowed mobile phone

In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant was provided with the first, second, and third telephones from AU in sequence and used not less than 4,569,710 won in total, and that he was provided with property benefits equivalent to the above amount by having AU pay the above amount in substitute.

A) The AU consistently made a statement from the date of the first investigation into the prosecution to the trial court. CW, the name of the mobile phone, appears to be somewhat consistent with the attitude of memory in the process of making a statement on several preceding years, but at least CW, through the direction of AU, has consistently made a statement on the fact that the fee of the relevant mobile phone was paid by the AU, and (2) in the original court, CW has consistently made a statement on the fact that the Defendant was paid by the AU’s company operating the AU, and (3) in the original court, CW has consistently made a statement on the 3rd mobile phone number of the AU bank (the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 3rd mobile phone number of the 2013rd.

B) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, although he was temporarily provided with a heavy cell phone from AU, he did not receive any fact that he was provided with Nos. 1, 2, and 3 telephones. However, AU consistently states that “Defendant demanded to create a borrowed cell phone and opened a mobile phone in the name of AV staff CW” (549, 580 pages of the trial record), it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s above assertion.

C) The Defendant alleged that he did not receive the third telephone, and pointed out that CW first made a statement only for the first and second telephone, but CW made a statement to the effect that “AW was 2 only memorys in the court of original trial,” and that CW made a statement to the effect that “The fact that the criminal defendant correctly stated the cell phone numbers that he/she opened and opened 3 parts of the case (640 pages of the trial record).”

D) Examining the date of subscription and the date of termination for the first, second, and third telephone calls, the first telephone calls are opened on August 22, 2003, and the date of termination is May 8, 2008, and the second telephone is opened on April 30, 2008, and the date of termination is May 4, 2010. Furthermore, the third telephone is opened on May 10, 2010, and the third telephone is opened on May 18, 201, and the third telephone is opened on May 18, 201. In light of the fact that the date of termination is subscribed and terminated in the order above, the statement by AU that all the third telephone was offered to the defendant is persuasive (Evidence evidence record 7 rights 292, 293, 295 pages).

E) The Defendant also asserts to the effect that the first and second telephone numbers stored in the Y and DDR phone numbers were stored later. The record is not verified as to when the first and second telephone numbers were stored in the Y phone number book (3rd 761 pages of evidence records). Meanwhile, the two telephone numbers were stored in the DDR phone number book and the date of storage was set on June 13, 2012 (2nd 485 pages of evidence records). However, DDR changed the cell phone number from the original court to the mobile phone in the year 2012 and transferred data, and the date of storage was recorded on June 13, 2012, and it was difficult to accept the Defendant’s mobile phone number on October 14, 208 (41 and 412 of the trial record).

4) Part on acceptance of note

A) A prosecutor asserts that AU made a substitute for the State that the Defendant is obliged to pay as indicated in the table below. A) BX part BX is a single house that was used by both the Defendant and AU (581 pages of trial record). AU made a statement to the effect that 90,000 won that was settled at BX on February 26, 2009, and 680,000 won that was settled at BX on March 25, 2009, and that 600,000 won that was settled at BX was the form that the Defendant is obligated to pay." Based on this, the prosecutor presented that 's statement to the effect that 'I did not have a cross-border with the exception of the gathering at the SX at the Gotona Conference in 2009 (Evidence No. 9965 pages of evidence record). In examining the details settled in BX in 209, I would not make a settlement with the first EU related explanations.

In addition, AU only stated in the court below that the amount or various types of confirmation is "one in its own name" as to how the food table paid on behalf of the defendant among the settlement details in BX is distinguished (583 pages of the trial record), and it cannot be readily concluded that the AU memory is correct in relation to this part.

In light of the fact that the AU settleds KRW 36,30,00 from HY hotel on March 25, 2009 and 18:08 on the same day, a prosecutor asserts that 6.80,000 won settled in BX on behalf of the Defendant was repaid to BX on the same day (AU appears to have no reason to provide meals again in BX because it already provided meals at the above hotel), but it cannot be readily concluded that 36,300 won settled in HY hotel was a food substitute as indicated below, and HY hotel was used in BX, and since the card was used in the name of DA, it cannot be readily concluded that all the above cards were used by AU1.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B) The CG partial AU presented that KRW 786,00, which was settled by CG on May 19, 2009, was a 786,000, which was paid by the Defendant, and based on that assertion, “AB CG is a cafeteria that it does not have any of its own jurisdiction (Evidence Nos. 9, 1665). In light of the whole analysis of the details settled by the credit card in the name of AU, such as a credit card, AV, DA, and ER, from 2001 to 2015, the details settled in AB CG are deemed to be the only 786,00 won, and the memory of AB CG related to ABG can be recognized as guaranteeing its accuracy even after the lapse of the long time.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is with merit.

5) The AU asserts that the Defendant’s wife transferred KRW 12.1 million to the Defendant’s wife’s DF DG account as indicated in the following table. On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the Defendant was to receive money from DF DG account, while the Defendant acquired and reselled the right to sell an apartment unit sold by DF, and during that process, AU supported part of the intermediate payment to be borne by DF.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the KRW 12.1 million remitted by AU was the Defendant, not DF.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is with merit.

A) The AU made a statement to the effect that it is not related to apartment sale, but to the defendant's talks with it." The defendant's wife was responsible for the share of his own shares during the intermediate payment and the defendant's wife was asked to the witness for the question of whether he did not assist the witness." (The trial record 589, 590 pages).

B) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, the AU did not state the fact that it was sent money to DF DG account at the first time, and the prosecutor presented the details of remittance and sent money to the DF DG account. However, as seen earlier, considering the fact that the AU was aware of the provision of money and valuables to the Defendant, it is unreasonable to deem that the AU’s statement is not reliable solely on such circumstance. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the AU’s statement is not reliable. Although the AU might have a good image for the son in the original trial court, there was a concern that the AU might not deny evidence, and thus, the AU made a statement to the effect that “(571, 572 pages of the trial record).”

C) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant seems to have frequently used bank accounts in the name of DF, including DF DG accounts.

(1) It appears that when the defendant was sent from the official residence upon the issuance of a local order, the person FD intended the defendant (the court records 684 pages). However, on September 3, 2008, the details of remitting KRW 1.6 million from the DF DG account to FD were discovered (Evidence No. 12 pages 50 pages).

(2) On July 10, 2009, the ATM withdrawal was made from the DF DG account, and the ATM was located in II (Evidence Nos. 12 and 53). However, at the time, the Defendant was working as the chief prosecutor of the TF District Prosecutors' Office, and the DF was residing in Japan (No. 698 pages of the trial record), and the said withdrawal was made by the Defendant.

(3) The Defendant’s wife has used a check that is linked to the AX bank account in the name of DF.

(684, 685 pages)

(4) The AX bank account in the name of DF was opened at FC branches, and the FC branches are located immediately adjacent to IJ apartment IK, the Defendant’s residence. On the other hand, DF did not have resided in the IMF as it was smaller than distributed, distributed, and distributed in the first place (the trial record 697, 698 pages).

(5) On August 8, 2008, IMF remitted KRW 100 million to the AX bank account under the name of DF (Evidence No. 12 & 95 pages). At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant was given a refund of the money that the wife lent to IMF” (Evidence No. 5, 1933 pages).

(6) On February 25, 2011, IO remitted KRW 500,00 to the KIN bank account under the name of DF, and the IO is the wife of the defendant, and is not aware of DF (the trial record 769 pages).

(7) AX Bank loan amounting to KRW 150 million established in the name of DF was discovered (Evidence Nos. 58, 1828, 1829). The Defendant’s wife was registered as his agent using the above loan loan (No. 715 pages). The Defendant’s wife made a statement to the effect that, with respect to the money kept in his/her loan, “DF’s IP at the original trial,” the Plaintiff was able to complete the loan and keep the remaining money in his/her possession of his/her house and house, and that, with many damages, DF was able to do so. However, considering that the remaining money would have been entrusted to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not use the money after his/her house while carrying out the business, and that the Defendant’s wife did not keep the money in his/her own account (Evidence No. 749, 750 of the trial record). However, the Defendant’s wife’s statement to the effect that it was inconsistent with the Defendant’s right of evidence No. 184 of the loan.

D) Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that the wife sold an apartment from AU and reselled it, the Defendant did not present all supporting materials to support the claim.

6) Whether an inclusive crime constitutes a single crime

In a case where a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period and the legal benefits of the same are the same, each crime shall be deemed to be a single comprehensive crime. If a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period in the bribery charge and the legal benefits of the same are the same, the day on which the money was received is extended for a considerable period of time, and the money was received.

Even if there exists a considerable period of time, each crime shall be deemed a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4940, Jan. 21, 2000).

As seen earlier, AU, after the judgment on the offering of a bribe became final and conclusive on August 199, remitted KRW 12,100,000 to the Defendant on nine occasions from October 10 to March 2004, ② paid 4,569,710 or more mobile phone usage costs during the period from August 2003 to May 201, and ③ from August 2007 to October 2008, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of receiving the corporate card worth KRW 25,564,635 from around 50 to around 400, as well as that of paying KRW 786,00 from May 209 to around 204, and that the Defendant’s act of receiving KRW 14,50 or more of the financial benefits during the period from around 400 to May 209, as stated in the ground of appeal, had continued to be implemented with respect to the above one’s comprehensive act of receiving money and valuables from the Defendant.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

DN provided money and valuables continuously to the defendant with a view to obtaining various criminal benefits by exercising influence on other prosecutors in charge of the relevant case as a direct handling of the case or a high-ranking prosecutor, and the defendant received money and valuables from DNA as follows, and during this process, at the prosecutor's office where the defendant actually worked as the head of the agency, the DNA-related cases were not prosecuted.

On June 22, 200, the Defendant received 10 million won from DN to DG bank accounts in the above DF DF DG account used when the Defendant received unjust money from other persons, such as AU, and received a bribe in an amount equivalent to the same amount as to the referral of matters falling under the duties of other public officials by taking advantage of the status of the public official, and at the same time received a bribe in the same amount as to the duties by taking over a total of KRW 155 million through DG bank accounts in the above DF DF DG account from around that time to December 23, 2009, as described in the table below, from around 200 to December 23, 2009.

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the parts 33 to 43 of the sight table as being remitted in consideration of the Defendant’s duties, and determined that the statute of limitations has expired for the parts 1 to 32 of the sight table.

1) The remitter died on January 12, 2012, 2012 and 12. Prior to the death of the remitter, the reason why the transfer was made under any circumstance and pretext, and the reason why the last transfer was suspended on December 23, 2009 cannot be revealed at all. NN’s surrounding figures are merely a statement that they cannot be aware of or memory the relevant remittance details or cause.

2) Although there was a number of criminal cases prior to the transfer by DNA, all of them were subject to a disposition that was executed or suspected for minor matters, there is no evidence to prove that at the time the Defendant was aware of the said case or that there was any relation with the Defendant.

3) The above remittance period (from June 22, 200 to December 23, 2009) case where DNA was entered as a suspect was two cases resulting from the charge of violating the Act on the ADRA, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in 2005, and the prosecutor of the competent public prosecutor's office issued a disposition of suspicion against the pertinent case.

At the time of 2005, the Defendant, as a public security planning officer, was in charge of the investigation and guidance of the public security case, or the investigation and planning of the case related to inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, while the above cases were cases under the jurisdiction of the ADR and general criminal cases, not related to public security or inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. As such, if the Defendant did not take charge of the above cases or perform duties that could be involved in the above cases at the time of the progress of the above cases, and if it is deemed that the Defendant received benefits from DN in consideration of duties in relation to the above cases, the minimum circumstance is that the Defendant could have exercised the authority to exercise the authority to investigate whether it was related to the interests received from DN in relation to the above cases in the future. For example, for instance, the circumstance that the Defendant participated in the treatment of the above cases by exercising the status or influence of the public prosecutor as a public security planning officer under the laws and regulations, without confirming the facts of the above suspicion and the investigation circumstances, etc., and the Defendant could not be seen as having been in charge with the investigation or mediation for the above N.

4) Meanwhile, if the DNA was the shareholder and the president of the DNA bank located in Incheon, involved in its operation as the shareholder and the president of the DNA bank. From February 20, 2006 to March 4, 2007, the defendant was working as the First Deputy Prosecutor General of J branch Office having jurisdiction over the location of the bank. However, there is no evidence that there was a criminal case where DNA was involved in the above period. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted around September 201 on suspicion, such as illegal loan of the DNA bank, and the occurrence of the situation where the officers and employees of the DNA bank were detained, and DNA suicide was committed. From June 2, 2005 to August 30, 201, the fact that the defendant was not convicted of the defendant's breach of trust on the part of the DNA bank, such as the defendant's cell phone transfer-related illegal loan. However, the defendant did not appear to have been aware of the fact that there was no objective investigation or no evidence for a considerable period after the aforementioned investigation.

5) Around June 2008, FI, Inc., Ltd., Ltd. acquired the site located in Incheon Spojin-gun, Incheon, for a public sale. DN received an investigation from September 29, 2010, on suspicion of having ordered its employees to remove other's ground water on the above site to cause damage to other's property. At the time, the Defendant was in office as J branch chief prosecutor, and the Defendant was in office as J branch chief prosecutor, and on February 11, 2011, issued a false disposition of suspicion against the Defendant in relation to the above case. Furthermore, DN was investigated by J branch from around July 20, 201 to October 31, 201, on the ground that the Defendant was subject to a suspension of witness from around the above site to the FK's location at the time of delivery, and that the instant investigation was conducted by the FK chief inspector at the time of delivery, and that the Defendant was transferred to another prosecutor's office around December 30, 2012.

However, in light of the details of transfer of DN, transfer was made in 208 to 3 months, and 5 to 6 months in 2009. On July 15, 2010, the time when the defendant was assigned to the chief prosecutor of the J District Prosecutors' Office, and the time when the investigation was conducted and the order of the above-mentioned transfer was issued, such as suppression, supposement, transfer, etc., was conducted, and there was no circumstance that the defendant could have been aware of the criminal dispute related to the site of the posspo in the pertinent remittance period. Rather, the above-mentioned disposition without suspicion was stated as being processed by the JJ chief prosecutor's decision without the consent of the defendant, and it was difficult to find that the above disposition was already made by the defendant during the investigation and delivery of the above order, and it was hard to find that the defendant had been involved in the above disposition prior to the completion of the investigation or transfer of the above order.

C. Judgment of the court below

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below along with the above circumstances that the court below properly admitted and examined, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (it is unclear whether money was received under the pretext of good offices). The prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen above, and there is a ground for misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor about the acquittal portion

another judgment)

Criminal facts

Since the Defendant was appointed as J Branch of February 1985, the Defendant served as a prosecutor at K Branch of 2, K Branch of 2, N Branch 2, P branch 2, Q branch of L branch 2, Q branch 2, M organization 2, and J branch 1 Deputy Prosecutor, from March 5, 2007 to March 10, 208, from 3.10 to 10.3, from 2, 2008 to 10.2, from 2, 2009 to 10.18, from 2, 2009 to 10.2, from 3, 201 to 2, 100 to 2,000 to 10.3, 2,000 to 2,00, from 2,000 to 10,000 to 2,00,000 to 10,000 to 2,00,01.

After having become aware of the AV representative director AU and the AV representative director at any time, the Defendant accumulated friendship with the AU in the process, and in the process, the AU has continuously provided money and valuables or various property benefits in a way that the Defendant, as a high-ranking prosecutor, has exercised influence over other prosecutors in charge of the relevant case, and has continuously provided money and valuables or various property benefits in a way that he/she would obtain criminal benefits from other prosecutors in charge of the relevant case. The Defendant received money and valuables or various property benefits from the AU.

① The Defendant, as described in paragraph 4-A. 2, from August 25, 2007 to October 17, 2008, had AU pay the credit card bills equivalent to KRW 25,564,635, and received economic benefits equivalent to the said amount. ② As described in paragraph 4-A. 4, as indicated in paragraph 2, from August 22, 2003 to May 18, 201, the Defendant used the borrowed phone name from KRW 4,569,710 in total, and had AU pay the above amount to KRW 30,00,000 to KRW 130,00,000 from KRW 40,00,000, KRW 130,000 from KRW 130,00,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 410,07,00,00 from KRW 20,30,00,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Prosecution's protocol of examination of the accused (No. 17) 188);

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (second time) (second time) (192);

1. The original judgment of the witness AU and the legal statement of the party trial;

1. The legal statement of the original court rendered by the HC (title), DS, and R;

1. Legal statements made by witnesses Y and HB in the original judgment;

1. AU’s protocol of statement (No. 4 times) (No. 334) to the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning IP (No. 312 in order);

1. Each written statement prepared in CW (No. 262-2, 266);

1. A search report (the attachment of search data (the order No. 282) by the legal assistant officer;

1. One copy (No. 285), one copy (No. 288), one copy (No. 288), the Suwon District Court, the Seoul High Court, 937-1 (Separate Decision) and one copy (No. 289) of the search records of AU integrated cases;

1. One copy of the submission of evidence A (No. 316 No. 1) from October 10, 2013;

1. A CD (No. 436)

1. Partial certificate of the registration matters AV (number 280, No. 280);

1. Book of the mobile phone number (number 65-1), Y-HW-910 telephone number and telephone record (number 80);

1. A copy of a receipt (No. 265-1), a copy of a statement of transactions of financial accounts in the name of AU, DB bank account in the name of DB bank (No. 360) 1. A copy of a copy of data of telephone subscription (No. 276);

1. Details of transactions in DF DG bank DH account (Evidence Nos. 2019Gohap745) and the AX bank account transactions in DF name (Evidence No. 16)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

inclusive, Article 2(1)3 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 132 of the Criminal Act

1. Article 2(2) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 132 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the provisions of the above fines concurrently imposed on the company's fine were in force on December 26, 2008, and thus, a bribe executed before the fine was imposed.

A fine may not be imposed concurrently on the crime of acceptance and payment, and even in a case where the crime of acceptance and payment, which is a single comprehensive crime, was committed throughout the period before and after the enforcement of the above provision, the amount of acceptance and payment, which is the basis of fine, shall be limited to the amount received after the enforcement of the above provision, and thus, the amount of the acceptance and payment (=2,828,050 won, which is the basis of fine, from January 2009 to May 2010 + the fee of 1,106,780 won for the third telephone call from May 201 to May 19, 201 + the fee of 1,106,780 won for the third telephone call from May 201 to May 19, 2009).

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 and 55(1)6);

Articles 70 and 69(2)1 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

The fact that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant for the reason of sentencing, and the fact that the situation of involvement in AU or its branch after the defendant received a bribe is not confirmed is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant, as the core executive officer of the Prosecution’s Office, should perform his duties fairly with good morality and integrity, and even if he was in a position to set a good example to other prosecutors, it is not very good to receive large economic benefits exceeding KRW 40 million under the pretext of good offices for a long time. Furthermore, due to the instant crime, the fairness and uncertainty of the prosecutor’s execution of duties, such as criminal investigation, prosecution and maintenance as a representative of the public interest, and the trust of the people, which are considerably damaged. This is the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of 3-A(2)(e), (f), 5-1(e)(excluding 1-32 parts of sight table), and 3-b. (c) and 5-2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as seen in the above paragraph, the judgment of innocence is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is announced in accordance with the main sentence of Article 58(2)

The acquittal of Reasons

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of paragraphs 4-A, 3) and 5 (excluding the CG part), and as seen in Articles 4-2(b) and 4-4-4(d) and 4-4(d)(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Bribery) in the judgment that is related to this part of the facts charged, the judgment of innocence should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Part of the Grounds for Appeal

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as 3-A(2), (3), (d), 5-A(excluding 33 through 43 parts of sight table), and this part of the facts charged is the case where the statute of limitations has expired, and thus, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the facts charged in a single comprehensive crime are acquitted, a separate judgment of acquittal shall not be made.

Judges Song-young

Judges Gangseo-Appellee

2) The parts treated as sound recording are deemed to be overlapping.

3) The name of CT department stores was changed to FN points in CT department stores.

4) Revoking the 'AV AX card transaction statement' files from among the files contained in CDs attached to 9No. 2125 pages of evidence records.

Next, the following items are extracted from the words "member's name" or "business category" containing the words "member's gift rights"; 1.

(2) Any further extraction of only the details of purchase at CTS department stores, (3) the details of purchase at CTS department stores, which can be purchased as 'EG (FO)' and CT gift certificates.

It is true

5) At the time of the third prosecutorial investigation, 100,000 won was the first time and the second prosecutorial investigation was required to change more twice.

Although it is less than 2 million won, there is no associate memory exceeding 2 million won. There is no 1 million won, and there is no low-level project.

The statement was made to the effect that "I will take a bath while I will take a bath in an up to one million won."

6) In a case of fraud and a case of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, a disposition was made to the effect that a person was suspected of having been accused on or around May 1998 (Evidence Record 7: 352 pages).

7) As to KRW 3 million delivered on June 17, 2005, and KRW 3 million delivered on January 17, 2006, the statute of limitations has expired.

held that such act was

8) In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Supreme Court "specific expectations" of the donor.

We affirm the judgment of the court below that recognized it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7307, Nov. 16, 2007).

9) Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2002Ma781, 852 (Consolidated) decided July 2, 2003, Daegu District Court Decision 2002Ma781, 852 (Consolidated) decided November 2, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da1178 Decided January 15, 2008, Incheon District Court Decision 2005Da529, 539 (Consolidated)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Gohap596, 642 decided January 8, 2009, Seoul High Court Decision 200931 decided April 24, 2009, Incheon Incheon

District Court Decision 2010Gohap68 Decided April 29, 2010, Incheon District Court Decision 2011Gohap350, 386 (Consolidated) Decided October 20, 201;

500 (Consolidated) Judgment; Changwon District Court 201Gohap64 decided February 20, 2012; Seoul Northern District Court 2016

8. 25.see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1828, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da344, 475, Sept. 1, 2017

10) Even if the amount received by a public official, or the expenses for meals and alcoholic beverages received by a public official are relatively small, such expenses are the same.

The mere fact that such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to be merely an entertainment belonging to the scope of simple private and educational precedents.

Korean Judicial Administration Association, tin Criminal Code (2017), 404 see Rule 1, 404

11) A series of actions constituting the name of the same crime continues to be conducted with a single and continuous criminal intent for a certain period of time, and the damage

Where legal interests are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime, and in such case, the statute of limitations shall be final.

Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1077 Decided April 26, 2017 with respect to the progress from closure of a criminal act

12) The certified copy of the corporate register of DA shall be recorded as the address of AU, which was changed to HW on June 2, 201, the address of DU, Young-gu HW.

(2).

13) Although the fact that gift certificates or corporate cards were provided was already made, if the fact that the money was paid became known, she would have known.

In the process of being an artist, it seems that there was a possibility of misunderstanding the payment of money.

14)IPs are employees performing the defendant (the trial records 692 pages).

15) ① Receipt of money and valuables equivalent to KRW 84,676,000 from December 199 to June 2004 on five occasions, and receipt time.

Supreme Court Decision 2007. 2007. 2007.

4. See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2710 Decided August 13, 200, 123,000,000 won around twenty times from August 200 to May 2007

Recognizing that there was a maximum of one year interval between the time of receiving money or valuables, and that there was an inclusive crime.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069 Decided October 29, 2009, see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, c. 2006, 12 from around December 2012

Until 12 times, money and valuables equivalent to KRW 80,500,000 have been given and received over a maximum of one year between the time of receipt and the time of receipt.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7997 Decided September 10, 2015 with respect to any matter recognized as an inclusive crime even if the distance had existed.

16) A prosecutor shall accept a bribe in connection with his duties, and at the same time perform the duties of a public official of other countries.

AU’s state is only between around 1999 and around 2001, on which a bribe was accepted as to good offices.

AU served on the PPP having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business, and the AU is related to the implementation project he/she is operating.

The defendant seems to have provided money or property benefits, taking into account the receipt of a special panel investigation;

The defendant served as a public prosecutor of the Ministry of Security and Security at the Preliminary prosecutor, and the bribe offered to the defendant was delivered to him in connection with his duties.

It is reasonable to see that the delivery was made under the pretext of good offices.

17) In the absence of a separate entry, the sequences listed in the evidence list of 2019 high-priced468 cases are the same.