B. Occupational breach of trust

C. Acceptance of bribe

(d) Offering of bribe;

2.(c) JH

3.(c) JI

4. D. F

Attorney Cho Sun-ok

Han-J Law Firm (Defendant JH)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Law Firm Dogwon (Defendant JI)

Attorney Park Gi-soo, Park Jin-jin, Park Hy-young

Law Firm Identity (for defendant F)

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Kim Jin-chul, and Park

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of one hundred thousand won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 300,000 into one day.

68,271,550 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

[Defendant JH]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months and by a fine not exceeding 2,00,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

1,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

[Defendant JI]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 12,00,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 160 hours.

6,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

[Defendant F]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Defendants’ respective positions and duties

Defendant JG works for the Korea Creative Culture Promotion Agency, which is a public institution affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism established by Article 31 of the Framework Act on the Promotion of Cultural Industries from December 28, 2009 to November 16, 2018.

Defendant JI was appointed as an electrical source to the Suwon District Court on November 20, 1984, and thereafter from July 11, 2015 to July 201, 2015, and Defendant JH was appointed as an electrical assistant to the Judicial Research and Training Institute on September 11, 2012, and then served in the Judicial Research and Training Institute until now.

Defendant F is the representative director of the company BH (hereinafter referred to as “BH”) aimed at the construction business in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BK and fourth floor, the supply and sale of network system, and the installation business.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Defendant JG

The defendant was in charge of purchase of various broadcasting equipment, etc. ordered by the Korea Creative Content Agency, and ordering orders for projects related to maintenance and repair of broadcasting equipment, bidding procedures, and inspection.

On March 2015, the Defendant received KRW 1.5 million in cash from F in return for giving and receiving various conveniences during the process of receiving, proceeding, and examining orders from the representative director of BH, who was awarded orders from the Korea Creative Content Agency, in connection with RR, projects, and JS projects, and received KRW 1.5 million in cash from the said F in relation to the projects of the JT, which was ordered by the Korea Creative Content Agency around July 2015, the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000,000 from the said F under the same name as the said F in relation to the projects of the JT, which was ordered by the Korea Creative Content Agency. From around July 2015, the Defendant received KRW 64 million in total on three occasions, including KRW 2,200,000,000,000,000 from the said F, and KRW 7,578,000,00,000 from the said F in foreign currency; and

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official, received a bribe in relation to his duties.

3. Acceptance of bribe and occupational breach of trust by Defendant JH

A. Acceptance of bribe

JU and JV circles take charge of the management of facilities, remunerations, and services in the office building of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and the Defendant, who is affiliated with the Judicial Research and Training Institute, entered into the contract amount of KRW 53,120,000 on December 11, 2015.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant demanded that JX, the president of the KH, who is in charge of the business operation of BH, should complete construction works related to the said contract and that if the construction cost is deposited in BH, it would change the expenses for meal service. The JX delivered the Defendant’s requirements to F, the representative director of BH, and received the Defendant’s fee from F with F’s approval.

Accordingly, on January 12, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 1 million in cash from F in return for the provision of various convenience related to the above construction work through JX.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Occupational breach of trust

On March 2017, the Defendant was in charge of JY Corporation ordered by the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and the Defendant, as a contracting officer of the above Corporation, calculated reasonable construction cost, and concluded a contract with the company at an amount exceeding the actual payment amount, and received the difference from the company and received it.

The Defendant: (a) requested a written estimate related to the above construction contract to BH; and (b) submitted a written estimate for construction cost of KRW 53,435,580 to BH; (c) however, the Defendant sent a written estimate for the contract amount of KRW 15,064,420 to BH; (d) entered into the contract based on the said estimate; and (e) demanded that the increased amount be returned to the extent of the increased amount when the construction cost is paid; and (e) BH accepted such estimate.

Accordingly, on April 2017, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties, and entered into a construction contract with BH for a contract amount of 68,500,000,000. On April 24, 2017, BH received construction payment under the above contract, the Defendant received 10,500,000 won from the Seoul Northern District Court’s parking lot located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ero on May 12, 2017, after deducting the tax, etc. to be borne by BH out of the above contract amount of 15,064,420 won.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 10,500,000, and suffered property damages equivalent to KRW 15,064,420 in the Republic of Korea of the victim.

4. The Seoul High Court Secretariat of the acceptance of bribe by Defendant JI and the KA fraternity are responsible for contracts, maintenance, and repair related to electricity, machinery, construction, and landscaping facilities, and the Defendant, who is affiliated therewith, was in charge of bid, contract, and management and supervision of the progress of the project.

On July 2015, the defendant requested that the defendant's full-time officer "KB corporation" ordered by the Seoul High Court, contact with the representative director F of the BH who started the above business with the help of the KC et al. who was a full-time officer of the above business, and received the money for the KB corporation.

Accordingly, around September 2015, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in cash from F, etc. in return for giving various conveniences in the process of receiving, proceeding, and examination of the above project from F in return for the receipt of orders, progress, and examination of the project. From that time to August 2018, the Defendant received a total of KRW 6 million in cash from F, etc. three times in total, as shown in attached Table 2, from around August 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

5. Offering of bribe by Defendant F;

The Defendant granted to JG a bribe of 75,271,550 won in total to three persons, including cash, foreign currency, and gift certificates of 68,271,550 won, cash of 6 million won to JG, and cash of 1 million won to JH, in consideration of various kinds of convenience provision in the date and time, place of each statement in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, and in the process of taking orders, progress, and examination of the business of BH, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant JH and F’s respective legal statements

1. Defendant JG’s legal statement (the second trial date);

1. Defendant JI’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and JX;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol and each statement by the prosecution against Defendant F (including JX large part);

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against Defendant JI in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect (including the part in question of F and JX)

1. Each prosecutor's statement of JX, EW, and KC (including the F substitute part);

1. Current status of the designation of public institutions, each personnel record card, copies of bankbooks, each detailed statement of transactions, each tender notice and tender proposal, service standard contract, purchase contract, construction contract, each electronic tax invoice, each written estimate, goods contract information of the public procurement agency, documents related to the KB construction, documents related to KH, and documents related to KF;

1. Each investigation report (attached to the background of commencement of the investigation, current status of the Korea Creative Content Agency, etc., attaching personnel records cards, exchange rate verification, transaction details of passbook B, etc., public announcement of tender and tender proposals for projects conducted by BH, verification of the source of funds from accounts in the name of KR, and attachment of documents by the Seoul High Court related to Defendant JI;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant JG: Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (a comprehensive imposition of fines, and a concurrent imposition of fines);

B. Defendant JH: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the acceptance of bribe, the choice of imprisonment, and the punishment of fines under Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust and the choice of imprisonment)

C. Defendant JI: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (In general, the punishment of imprisonment is concurrently imposed pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Selection of Imprisonment and the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

(d) Defendant F: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (in the case of a person who gives or receives, collectively, imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant JH: The former part of Article 37, and Articles 38(1)2 and 38(1)3, and 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent punishment as provided for in the crime of occupational breach of trust heavier than punishment)

(b) Defendant F: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of offering of bribe to Defendant JG, the most serious criminal fact),

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant JG: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant JG, JH, and II: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of each Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant JH and JI: Article 62(1) and (2) of each Criminal Code

1. Social service order;

Defendant JH and JI: each criminal law Article 62-2

1. Additional collection:

Defendant JG, JH, and JI2): the latter part of Article 134 of each Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant JG, JH, and JI: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant JI and his defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. As to the sequence 1 and 2 in Annex 2 of the List of Offenses

Defendant JI has not received a bribe from F directly (related to No. 1) or through JX (related to No. 2) as shown in the No. 1 and No. 2 of the Schedule of Crimes in the annexed Table 2.

C. As to the sequence 2 attached Table 2, Defendant JI received a white bag with the knowledge of the supplementary documents related to completion from JX at the time.

As a result of confirming the contents and return to the office, 2 million won is included in cash, and thereafter contact to JX and return cash as it is. Therefore, the intention of illegal acquisition of the above money is not recognized.

2. Determination

A. As to the sequence 1 and 2 in Annex 2 of the List of Offenses

1) Relevant legal principles and the issues of the instant case

A) Even in a case where the Defendant, who was considered as a bribe in the crime of bribery, denies the fact of the bribery at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no evidence, such as financial materials to support the fact, if the statement by the receiver is admissible, and not only is its own rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after, but also its human nature, and the existence of interest derived from the statement, etc., and if it is judged that there is credibility that can exclude a reasonable doubt in the contents of the statement, the Defendant can be found guilty only with the statement by the receiver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986, Feb. 10, 201).

B) In the instant case, Defendant JI asserts that there was no fact that he received a bribe directly from F (related to No. 2 No. 1 of the annexed Table 2) or through JX (related to No. 2 of the annexed Table 2), while Defendant JX, who is the transferor of the money No. 2 of the annexed Table 2, issued a bribe. Thus, the issue of the instant case is the credibility of the above F and JX’s statements, which are money providers, and the credibility of the F and JX’s statements should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following legal principles: (a) the reasonableness or objective reasonableness of the content of the statement itself; (b) the subsequent and subsequent consistency of the statement; (c) whether the statements and objective circumstances of the relevant persons are consistent with; and (d) whether there was an interest obtained from the statement.

2) Determination of the credibility of each of the F and JX statements

A) Whether the F’s statement No. 1 related to the No. 2 of the annexed Table 2 is credibility

(1) From September 2015, Defendant JI and other officials were contacted to Defendant JI and other officials after the completion of the construction work with respect to KB construction ordered by the investigative agency and the Seoul High Court in this law. around September 2015, Defendant JI and other officials were able to contact themselves after the completion of the construction work. At the same time, Defendant JI and other officials were only 50 million won at the Seoul Central District Court, and 300,000 won at the time, were put in a white bag, and the restaurant was stored in the shopping bag, and the restaurant was stored in the same way. At the same time, Defendant JI made a statement to the effect that “The above investigation record 3rd, 201, 202 witness F, 201, 201, 201, 301, 400, 1000, 301, 300,000,000 won at the time of the completion of the examination.”

(2) The F consistently stated most of the contents from the investigative agency to this court consistently. Although the KB had consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the point of time, it is difficult to deny the F’s credibility of the entire statement on the ground of partial changes in the statement (i) the KB at the time when it appears that the other company participating in the tender was directly involved in the bidding, and thus, it is deemed that the F was a negotiated contract at the time, and (ii) the F could have thought that it was actually a negotiated contract, regardless of the time when it was demanded for the initial meal cost, at least three million won was provided to the Defendant JJ around September 2015, regardless of the time when it was demanded to pay the first meal cost after the completion of construction by Defendant JI.

(3) From around 2015, F appears to have made “the details of the use of operating expenses” data while arranging the details of the use of the operating expenses. It appears that the data also includes “Seoul High Court (JI) 3,000,000 won on September 9, 2015” (in the case of investigation records No. 72 pages), and such objective circumstance is consistent with F’s above statement.

(4) On January 21, 2019, after a long-term investigation was conducted on the case related to the offering of a bribe to other public officials. However, on January 14, 2019, F had already been charged with the above-related case and had not been able to assist in the investigation of the above-related case at the time of the statement in this part, it seems that there was little possibility that F had made a false statement while actively cooperating with the investigation of the above-related case. In particular, it is difficult to find any special reason or motive to make a false statement unfavorable to Defendant JI even when he was under the charge of additional punishment for the offering of a bribe in this part. The F could sufficiently obtain the statement about the offering of a bribe in this part later, and in particular, F had presented an attitude that the testimony in this court was considerably reliable in the process of testimony.

(5) In full view of all the above circumstances, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the above F’s statement solely with the investigative agencies of KE (a public official who was at the place of meals at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at that time at the F’s investigative agencies and this court’s statements that correspond to this part of the facts charged (in light of the entire contents of KE’s statement, it seems that KE appears that it is unable to adequately memory the situation when considerable time from the date of the occurrence of the case

B) Whether the JX statements No. 2 related to the No. 2 of the annexed Table 2 are reliable

(1) At the intermediate site of the construction work at the time in the investigative agency and this court, JX, a delivery of this part of the money, made the statement that if the construction work was deposited by Defendant JI, it would be necessary to pay back food expenses. After the payment of the construction work, Defendant JI was transferred from the first floor of Seoul Central District Court to the Kafle, Defendant JI was dried with a white bag containing KRW 1 million in cash of KRW 50,000,000,000 in KRW 1 million. At the time, Dae River was not windowd and there was no window, and there was a few turnings in the process of removing lighting facilities. In fact, at the time, 200,000 won was used by the F at the time of the deposit of the construction work, 1 million won was used by himself, and 1 million won was transferred to Defendant JI as well as 260,000 won at the time of the deposit of the construction work, and 260,000 won was given to Defendant J.

We seem to think.

(2) The JX consistently stated most of its contents from investigative agencies to this Court.

(3) Around December 2015, F entered into an investigation agency with Seoul High Court and received money. Around December 2015, JX reported that Defendant JI changed the amount of KRW 2 million to JX itself, and that it paid KRW 200,000 to JX as KRW 50,000. The last statement was made to the effect that JX delivered KRW 1 million to JX within the 1st century of Seoul Central District Court, and that the rest of KRW 1 million was written personally (No. 67 pages of investigation records). Moreover, even “disuse of the above” written by F, it seems that there was an entry that it is a negotiated contract (I) for the purpose of use of KRW 200,000,000 on December 30, 2015, and that it conforms to the objective statement of the JX’s right to investigation records and its objective statement of KRW 37,270,000.

(4) Even based on this part of the JX’s statement itself, JX has embezzled not only KRW 1 million but also KRW 1 million on its own. It is difficult for JX to find out any special reason or motive for Defendant JI to accept the above offering of a bribe and the punishment for occupational embezzlement ( Defendant JI’s defense counsel is highly likely that JX would have made a false statement to reduce his own embezzlement amount. However, the above statement of JX’s JX merely reduced the embezzlement amount of KRW 1 million, while JX directly engaged in the offering of a bribe amount of KRW 1 million, it is difficult to accept the above statement of Defendant JX’s defense counsel’s credibility as well as the above statement of Defendant JX’s defense counsel’s testimony that was entirely favorable to X, as it did not appear that the above statement of this part of the JX’s evidence No. 3, a direct statement of KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(5) In full view of all the above circumstances, each of the statements in the JX investigative agency and this court, consistent with this part of the facts charged, would suffice to be reliable.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, according to the statements of each investigation agency of F and JX with sufficient credibility and the statements of this court, Defendant JI can recognize the fact that Defendant JI received a bribe as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 of the annexed crime list No. 2. Thus, Defendant JI’s allegation in this part is rejected.

B. As to the sequence 3 in Annex 2 of the List of Offenses

1) Relevant legal principles

Since accepting a bribe refers to accepting a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, it may not be deemed that accepting a bribe if it is recognized that there was no intention to acquire it, such as accepting it, without knowing that it is a bribe, immediately return it, or temporarily keeping it with the intention to return it in consideration of the future opportunity because the person who received it was aware that it was a bribe, or the person who received it unilaterally takes it. However, once the defendant returned it later with the intention to acquire it, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery even if the defendant returned it later with the intention to acquire it. On the other hand, in determining whether a bribe was received with the intention to acquire it, it shall take into account the circumstances leading up to the receipt of the bribe, whether it was not returned even if there was an opportunity to return it at any time, and the circumstances leading up to returning it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9182, Mar. 29, 2007; 2010Do6504, Aug. 23, 201203).

2) Specific determination

A) In relation to this part of the facts charged by Defendant JI in an investigative agency and in this court, Defendant JI finished the work in relation to the KF business in 2018 and approved the payment. From August 2018, 2018, Defendant JI left his vehicle in PU and moved Defendant JI to the Dong Hall parking lot (which means the parking lot for the civil petitioner in the same direction) and then put Defendant JI in a white bag. At the time, Defendant JI stated that it is in 2,00,000 won as the right of KRW 50,000,000,000 in a white bag. At that time, Defendant JI stated that it is in her son in 207,208.

B) According to the above statement of JX with sufficient credibility, it is recognized that the defendant JI demanded the money of 2 million won under the name of meeting expenses and received the money of her own. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant JI's act was received with the intent of acquiring the whole money received (the defendant JI knew that he was aware of the supplementary document related to completion at the time and received a white bag of 2 million won in cash as it confirmed the return to the office and contents, but the defendant JI did not accept the defendant JI's assertion that there was a document of completion of the KF project, which is already this part of the business at that time, and it did not explain the reasons for the completion of the project at that time (3rd right of investigation record 195, 196). In light of the fact that it is difficult to obtain the above change of the defendant JI's above statement from this court, the defendant JI did not admit the defendant JI's assertion that it was a document of completion of the examination of the witness at that time.

C) Although Defendant JI was found to have returned the above KRW 2 million to JX after the acceptance of a bribe, Defendant JI explicitly demanded a reply, and received money and valuables as seen earlier, Defendant JI returned money and valuables to the media for a considerable period of time after the receipt of the bribe through the media, and Defendant JI could not find any objective data that Defendant JI intended to return the said money and valuables for a considerable period of time, in consideration of the circumstances where the bribe was received, even though there was no opportunity to return the bribe at any time, and the circumstances where the said bribe was returned, the intention of Defendant JI’s unlawful acquisition at the time of the receipt of the bribe cannot be denied.

D) Accordingly, Defendant JI’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

[Defendant JG]

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for three years and six months to fifteen years, fine for negligence of 68,271,50 won 8), 170,678,875 won 9);

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria: Six years of imprisonment with prison labor - eight years (in the case of a fine, the sentencing criteria are not set).

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery crime: Acceptance of bribe (Type 4) 50 million won or more, and less than KRW 100 million;

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: positive requirements

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Area of aggravation, 6 years of imprisonment - 8 years

3. Determination of sentence: The same type shall be determined as the order to lower the lower limit of the sentencing criteria, taking into account the following circumstances, taking into account the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, growth process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as the order to lower the sentencing criteria, taking into account various sentencing factors specified in the arguments in this case, such as the age, character and conduct, developments, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime.

○ Unfavorable Conditions

The Defendant received a large amount of bribe exceeding 68 million won repeatedly over seven occasions from the person in charge of the business related to the purchase of various broadcasting equipment, etc., the order, progress, and inspection of the business related to the maintenance and repair of broadcasting equipment, which is an employee of the Korea Creative Content and Culture Agency, who is a public institution deemed a public official, from March 2015 to April 2017.

The Defendant, while taking charge of the order and inspection of a project that requires fairness even in the course of performing duties by an employee of a public institution who is deemed a public official, has received a bribe exceeding 68 million won repeatedly for two years in connection with his/her duties, solely based on the fact that he/she received a bribe exceeding the amount of 68 million won in connection with his/her duties, is a serious crime that clearly undermines the general public’s trust in terms of fairness and uncertainty in performing duties of a public institution. Therefore, the Defendant requires strict punishment.

In particular, in light of the fact that the Defendant actively demanded a bribe to F in the course of committing the crime of acceptance of bribe in this case, the possibility of criticism against the Defendant is very large.

○ favorable circumstances

The Defendant confessions the instant crime and objects to the Defendant. The Defendant is merely a person who is deemed a public official pursuant to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, not a public official, and did not actively proceed to an illegal act after the commission of the bribery. The Defendant has no record of punishment other than the punishment of fines twice for the instant crime.

[Defendant JH]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month: 15 years; fine of 2,00,000 won; 5,000,000 won 12);

2. The scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months - two years and eight months (in cases of fines, the sentencing criteria are not set, and therefore, the court shall explain only the punishment of imprisonment).

(a) A primary crime;

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery crime: Acceptance of bribe (type 1) less than 10 million won

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: positive requirements

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Area of increase, 8 months of imprisonment - 2 years

(b) Second offense;

【Determination of Punishment】

Embezzlement and Breach of Trust / Misappropriation / [Type 1] less than KRW 100 million

【Special Convicted Persons】

- The factors of mitigation have been considerably damaged;

- Aggravations: Where the method of commission is very poor;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Basic Area, Imprisonment, April - One year and four months;

(c) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: 8 months of imprisonment; - Two years and 8 months (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime);

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months, suspension of execution two years, community service, fine not exceeding 120 hours, community service, fine not exceeding 2,00,00 won shall be taken into account, and the above defendant's age, character and behavior, development process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the range of recommended sentences specified in the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as the same as the order, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing factors specified in the arguments of this case, such as

○ Unfavorable Conditions

Bribery not only constitutes a serious crime that seriously undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of the public service society, the fairness in the performance of duties handled by public officials, and the credibility and expectation of the public. In particular, in light of the public trust and expectation of the judicial branch, the acceptance of a bribe as a public official of a court who is required to be cleaner than any other person in relation to his/her duties is a serious crime that prevents the specific details and reasons therefor, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount of the bribe received by the defendant is small, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime cannot be denied.

The Defendant, as a public official in charge of JW projects, accepted a bribe from the person in charge of the business, and further entered into a contract with an enterprise in charge of JY projects and actively demand the Corporation to pay the amount in excess of the actual amount of money to be paid, and subsequently, received a refund of KRW 10.5 million equivalent to the difference in the price of unlawful duties and committed a crime of occupational breach of trust by causing damage equivalent to KRW 15 million to the State. Therefore, in light of the content of the crime and the law on the number of crimes, the crime is not good and there is no possibility of criticism.

○ favorable circumstances

All of the crimes in this case are led to confessions and reflects. The amount of the bribe received by the Defendant is limited to one million won, and did not actively proceed to illegal acts in relation to the crime of acceptance of the bribe. The full amount of the damage was deposited for the victim of occupational breach of trust, and the damage was fully recovered. The Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment as the first offender.

[Defendant JIN]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month; five years; fine of 12,00,000 won); - KRW 30,000,000);

2. The scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for 8 months and 2 years (in the case of fines, the sentencing criteria are not set, and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment shall be explained only); and

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery crime: Acceptance of bribe (type 1) less than 10 million won

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: positive requirements

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Area of increase, 8 months of imprisonment - 2 years

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months, suspension of execution two years, community service work hours, fines of 12,00,000 won shall be taken into account and the following circumstances shall be determined as follows. The above defendant's age, character and behavior, development process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences specified in the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as the same as the disposition.

○ Unfavorable Conditions

As seen earlier, bribery constitutes a serious crime that seriously undermines the public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of a public official’s duty to be handled by a public official. In particular, in light of the public trust and expectation of the judiciary, accepting a bribe in relation to his/her duty as a public official of a court who is required to be honester than anyone in light of the public trust and expectation of the judiciary itself is a serious crime that prevents the specific details and reasons therefor, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount of bribe received by the defendant is small, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime cannot be readily concluded.

The Defendant, as a court official, actively demanded a person in charge of a business entity that carries out a business to pay money under the name of a meeting and received a bribe of KRW 6 million over three occasions. As such, in light of the content of the crime, the nature of the crime is not good and the possibility of criticism is not small.

In the course of investigation, the defendant denied his criminal act by a vindication that is difficult to obtain continued payment of his criminal act, and there is no change in the attitude to deny his criminal act continuously even after it reaches this court.

○ favorable circumstances

It is difficult to see that the amount of the bribe received by the Defendant is very large, and the Defendant did not actively engage in illegal acts in relation to the crime of the bribery. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment as the first offender. The Defendant returned KRW 2 million out of the money and valuables received as the bribe before the commencement of investigation into the Defendant.15)

[Defendant F]

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month; seven years and six months;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year - two years; and

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery of Bribery (Type 3), 50 million won or more, and less than KRW 100 million (in case of a concurrent and concurrent crime, the type shall be determined on the basis of the sum of the amounts of the bribe)

【Special Convicted Persons】

Reduction element: If the consignee complies with the affirmative demand of the consignee;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Areas of mitigation, 1 year of imprisonment - 2 years

3. Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment; and

The sentence imposed on the above defendant in the following circumstances and related cases (2018 Gohap1259, 2019Gohap36, 63, and 110 (combined)) shall be taken into account. Other factors of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the age, character, conduct, growth process, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, etc. of the above defendant, shall be determined in the same manner as the order to lower the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines, taking into account various factors of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

○ Unfavorable Conditions

The Defendant provided large-amount bribe repeatedly to a public official of the court or public institution in charge of the business in order to continue the business of the court or public institution for a long time.

The amount of a bribe granted by the defendant to one public official is 68 million won or more, and the total amount of a bribe granted to two court officials is 7 million won or more.

○ favorable circumstances

From the investigation stage, the Defendant led to the confession of each of the instant crimes and actively cooperate in the investigation. The Defendant appears to have offered a bribe in response to the affirmative demand of the consignee at the time. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the Defendant’s one-time suspension of indictment in the past.

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Kim Gon Line

2) Defendant JI argued that it returned money No. 3 of the annexed Table 2 to the annexed Table 2. However, Defendant JX’s statement [JX met in PU by contact with investigative agencies and investigative agencies and media around November 2018 (or after the outbreak of this case through the media) and met with Defendant JI, who left the vehicle and talked about an electronic legal-related article, and sent an envelope to the effect that “I would return it. I would like to do so.” (No. 3 rights of investigation records, No. 209, witness JX-X witness witness’s record page 5), and Defendant M’s statement [It is difficult for Defendant JI to memory the envelope received at the time of her consideration by an investigative agency, as it is, see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6810, Nov. 28, 200).”

3) EW’s protocol of statement (3:393,394 of investigation record) by the prosecution, and prosecutor’s protocol by the prosecution against KC (3: 460 pages of investigation record)

4) The F has been under investigation by an investigative agency, and the method of this work is against the bones of being illegal. The F stated to the effect that the Defendant JI does not have any appraisal, but rather talks with it that it would be disadvantageous to himself, and that it would talk with the mind that I would like to correct the mistake so far, and that it would talk with the mind that I would like to correct it (No. 210 pages of investigation record 3).

5) Rather, F stated to the effect that “I would not separately deal with the arbitrarily used parts of JX at the time of an investigation of the comparison with JX” (No. 166 pages of investigation records).

6) As seen earlier, the JX stated to the effect that Defendant I returned to the effect that it was “after the arrival of the instant case through the press after November 2018 at an investigative agency and this court (or around one month after the outbreak of this case)” (as seen earlier, Defendant JX stated to the effect that “after the delivery of KRW 200,000,000 from this Court of Korea to the Internet, since the article continued to run on the Internet after the lapse of two millions from this Court, it is known that Defendant JI returned money by communicating. This is the same as the case was returned after the lapse of two months.” According to each of the statements of this JX and F, Defendant JF, through the media, after the lapse of a considerable period of time after Defendant JI received a bribe (the F witness’s witness’s witness’s witness examination page 6 pages), Defendant JX’s receipt of the bribe, Defendant JX’s return of this case from the media.

7) Rather, Defendant JI knew at the investigative agency that it was cash in the office because it had known of the contents of the excessive work at the time of “the investigation agency,” but I did not contact with JX at the time of “TX”. Defendant JI stated to the effect that “I did not talk about money, even though I entered the office once in the JX currency,” it did not talk about money (Article 197 page 3 of the Investigation Records).

8) 68,271,550 won x 2 times X 1/2 (Discretionary mitigation)

9) 68,271,550 won x 5 times X 1/2 (Discretionary mitigation)

10) At the investigation agency, the Defendant JG first demanded that the Defendant JG would request KRW 30 million to be paid at the first time. Afterwards of the new project, the Defendant JG would issue the tax invoice to the Defendant JG in the name of the Defendant JG in the name of the Defendant JG in the form of investment, and proposed that the new project would have no problem in the form of investment, and that the new project would have been ordered. The Defendant JG would have expressed to the effect that it would have no problem if it would raise money through the legal entity (Article 174, No. 174, No. 2, No. 978 of the Investigation Record), and the above statement by the F, that the Defendant JG would not accept the sentence of the Defendant JG’s defense counsel, since it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant JG actively demanded a bribe at the time.

11) 1,00,000 won x 2 times the amount of acceptance of bribe

12) Amount of acceptance of bribe 1,000,000 X 5 times

13) 6,00,000 X 2 times the amount of acceptance of bribe

14) Amount of acceptance of bribe 6,000,000 X 5 times

15) However, the "return of a bribe before the commencement of an investigation", which is a special element of mitigation of the crime of bribery, means the case where an investigation agency voluntarily returns a bribe to a receiver before the commencement of an investigation, and does not include the case where the investigation agency has made efforts to conceal the crime after returning the bribe. As such, Defendant I appears to have returned the crime of this case to conceal the crime after the commencement of an investigation, it does not constitute the "return of a bribe before the commencement of an investigation, which is a special element of the crime of bribery bribery."

A person shall be appointed.