(b) Property in breach of trust;

2. A. B

3. (a) C.

4. (b) D.

5. (b) E.

6.2 b.F

7.(b) G

Law Firm Law Firm Law, Attorney Kim Shi-hwan (Defendant B)

Law Firm Hanyang, Attorney Ahn Jae-in (for the defendant C)

Attorney Jeong-ho (for the defendant D, F, and G)

Law Firm Dong, Attorney Hong Sung, Gyeong-hee

(for the defendant E)

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for two years shall be suspended for Defendant C, and for Defendant F, for one year.

An order to provide community service to Defendant C for 120 hours is issued. The amount of KRW 84 million from Defendant A, KRW 247 million from Defendant B, and KRW 32,590,275 from Defendant C shall be collected respectively.

Defendant D, E, and G order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fines. Defendant A, B, and C order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

Defendant A entered the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H on March 3, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “I”); from January 1, 201 to August 23, 2016, Defendant A served as the CVAC design deputy head of the chemical plant headquarters from January 201; Defendant B entered the Korea Electric Power Planning and Planning Team from July 1, 2008 to January 1, 2012; Defendant B is the head of the Construction Planning and Planning Team of the Korea Industrial Complex; Defendant B is the representative director of the Korea Construction and Planning Team of the Korea Industrial Complex from January 1, 2012 to August 23, 2016; Defendant B is the representative director of the Korea Construction and Planning Team of the Korea Industrial Complex; Defendant B is the representative director of the Korea Construction and Planning Team of the Korea Industrial Complex from December 1, 2016 to August 23, 2016; and Defendant B is the representative director of the Korea Construction and Planning Headquarters of the Korea Industrial Complex.

[Offense Facts] Defendant A, while working as the deputy head of the SPC Design Team in I, has to take necessary measures to ensure that bidding process is conducted fairly by maintaining the scheduled bid price so that many companies can freely compete with each other when recommending or selecting a designer, according to the internal standards of the company, and there was a duty to fairly conduct the work of review and approval of the cooperative in performing design work with the cooperative. Defendant B had the duty to fairly perform the work of selecting the cooperative and designing work as the head of the electricity planning team of the electricity plant headquarters in I or the head of the headquarters electric engineering design team as above. Defendant C had the duty to fairly perform the work of selecting the cooperative and designing work as above. Defendant C had the execution capacity to select two solar power plant construction sites as the deputy head of the business headquarters in comparison with that of the design ability, estimate amount of performance, etc. for various solar power plant, and to provide information related to the design and design work in comparison with that of the design and construction work subcontract in order to ensure the most favorable condition in terms of the design and construction work amount.

1. Acceptance of property in breach of trust;

A. Defendant A

1) J-related crimes

around July 28, 2012, the Defendant maintained J from D to one cooperation company, notified the scheduled price of the design subcontract offered in I, and changed smoothly with the approval of J’s design. 1) received a request and received KRW 1 million in cash from D in the name of the consideration. From July 28, 2012 to September 1, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 54 million in total on seven occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Table 1, from July 28, 2012 to September 1, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties while handling another's business.

2) K-related crimes

On January 2013, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million in total three times, as shown in the attached Table 2, from the lower police officer on January 2013 to August 30, 2013, for the following reasons: (a) in the mutual influent coffee shop in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, the Defendant maintained K from E as a cooperation company; (b) notified K of the scheduled price of the design subcontract bid bid offered in I; and (c) notified K of the scheduled price of the design subcontract bid offered in I; and (d) received the payment, namely, KRW 10 million,00 from E in cash, in consideration of the consideration.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties while handling another's business.

B. Defendant B

1) L-related crimes

From February 8, 2010 to June 3, 2016, the Defendant notified F of the estimated price of the design subcontract agreement called “L from F with F at the above I Office, notified F at the time of bidding, recommended and changed smoothly with design approval for the subcontract work.” On the request of F, in other words, he received from F to the N Bank account in the name of the Defendant (0) in the name of the Defendant, i.e., from F, in return for the transfer of KRW 3 million from F at the name of the Defendant. From that time to June 3, 2016, the Defendant received delivery of KRW 215 million in total over 25 times, as shown in attached Table 3.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties while handling another's business.

2) M-related crimes

On September 15, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 32 million in total from G to May 23, 2016, upon receipt of a request from G to notify “M of the scheduled price of the design subcontract agreement bid from G at the time of bidding,” and at the request from G to “a smooth change in the design approval for the subcontracted business,” and received KRW 9 million from G to the above N Bank account in the name of the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant received KRW 32 million from around that time to May 23, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties while handling another's business.

C. Defendant C

On October 2010, the Defendant was aware of the fact that Q, a solar power plant design and electricity and civil construction firm, was introduced from P side of solar power plant construction business entity during the business trip in France.

① While the Defendant prepared two design services contracts for the installation of solar power plants to participate in this construction project at the time of the lower 201, the Defendant reported Q Q Q to the effect that Q is adequate as a design business entity on several occasions, unlike other design business entities. On January 28, 2012, Q would be selected as a design business entity. ② On January 1, 2012, other companies than Q would be required to submit a written estimate for tender to select electrical and civil construction business entities. The Defendant, while submitting a written estimate for participation in Q Q Q Q2, was required to submit a written estimate for participation in the construction project at the short time, and the Defendant, despite having been aware of the fact that Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q2’s failure to submit a written estimate for participation in the construction project, submitted a written estimate to the effect that Q Q Q Q2 would not receive a written estimate for participation in the construction project at the end of the construction project from around 21, 201 to the end of the construction project.

On October 18, 2015, the Defendant took care of R during his business trip from the Republic of Korea on or around October 18, 2015. He wanted to give gift. He am 25,500 U.S. (at that time, Han 32,484,705 won) and stated that he would be able to give him a good notice in cash because he is a fine.” In other words, he received KRW 10,000 (at that time, KRW 12,739,100) in return for the above business performance, and received KRW 10,000 in return for the above business performance (at that time, KRW 12,739,100) from the Plaintiff, and received KRW 5,500 in the name of the director of Syria local consulting company at KRW 25,00 (at that time, KRW 700,000 in the name of 50,000) and received KRW 15,5000 in the above account.

As a result, the Defendant acquired property in return for the illegal solicitation of Q as to the receipt of solar energy projects in Q with respect to the duties of others.

2. Property in breach of trust 5);

A. Defendant D

From December 21, 2012 to September 1, 2014, the Defendant maintained the J to A as a cooperative enterprise, notified the scheduled price of the design subcontract to be tendered in I, and made an illegal solicitation to the effect that “the scheduled price of the design subcontract to be tendered in I is easily changed to the approval of J’s design,” and granted KRW 53 million in total six times as shown in [Attachment Table 1 2-7] to A under the pretext of the consideration.

From January 1, 2013 to August 30, 2013, the Defendant maintained K to A as a cooperative enterprise, notified the scheduled price of the design subcontract bid in I, and made an illegal solicitation with the content that “K's design approval would be smooth,” and granted KRW 30 million to A in total three times, as shown in attached Table 2. Defendant F

From January 18, 2013 to June 3, 2016, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation to the effect that between B and B, “B, at the time of a tender, notify B of the scheduled price of the design subcontract which calls for “L,” and give a recommendation at the time of a tender, and facilitate the approval of the design for the subcontract work for which the bid was made,” and granted B, under the pretext of the consideration, KRW 137 million in total over 15 times, as shown in [Attachment Table 3] 11 to 25.

D. Defendant G

From September 15, 2015 to May 23, 2016, the Defendant informed B of the estimated price of the design subcontract to “M”, made an illegal solicitation to the effect that “A makes a recommendation at the time of tender,” and “a smooth request for approval of the design for the subcontract work to which the bid was made,” and granted B KRW 32 million in total on four occasions as shown in the crime list 4.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, D, E and each legal statement of the defendant B, C, F, and G 1. Each legal statement of the witness Y, U (the defendant C), S (the defendant C), S (the defendant C), Z (the defendant C), and witness B (the defendant F, the defendant B, the defendant B, and G), and part of each legal statement of the witness B (the defendant B and the defendant B)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant C;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against Defendant G and F

1. A copy of each written confirmation of Defendant B, F, G, and C (No. 21 to 23, 25, 29), a copy of the Defendant C’s answer (No. 27) and a copy of each written confirmation (No. 28, 30)

1. The summary (C) of the accusation case, the summary of the accusation case, the accusation agent, the written opinion and accompanying documents (148, 149), the defense counsel's opinion and accompanying documents (150 through 204, 205 through 210, 201, 211, 229, 32 through 33, 13, 10, 13, 10, 19, 10, 10, 19, 10, 19, 10, 10, 19, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, , 3, 1, and 1, and 3

1. A copy of each personnel record sheet, the current status of affiliated companies (five points in the court, etc.), each financial transaction (7 to 14) of Defendant A, certificates of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea against Defendant C, the successful bid status of Defendant C, certificates of out-of-the-door design company, outsourcing performance mail, design service tender documentation, trade secret protection pledges, classification of information assets and management guidelines;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Each of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Criminal Act”) Article 357(1)(main sentence) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016); and each

B. Defendant B: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (including the charge of taking property in breach of trust with respect to L); Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (including the charge of taking property in breach of trust with respect toM); and Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (including the charge of taking property in breach of trust with respect toM). Defendant C: (1) of the former Criminal Act; and (2)

D. Defendant D, E, and G: Article 357(2) and (1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 357(1)) and each fine is selected. Defendant F: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 357(1)) and the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the crime of taking and taking and taking and taking and taking and taking and taking in breach of trust relating to J heavier than the punishment)

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes of L-related Breach of Trust as provided for in the heavier punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant D, E, and G: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant C and F: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act)

1. Social services;

Defendant C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant A and C: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act [in the case of Defendant C, the penalty surcharge shall be calculated as KRW 32,590,275 ($5,500 plus KRW 30,000) by applying the basic exchange exchange rate in the notice of AA Bank at 10:00 a.m. on the date of the decision of this case as to 25,500 U.S. received by Defendant C] (Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act; Article 357(3) of the latter part of the Criminal Act (Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act) (Article 357(3) of the latter part of the former Criminal Act (Article 357(3) of the Korean Criminal Act)

1. Order of provisional payment;

The remaining Defendants except Defendant F: Determination as to the Defendants and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination as to Defendant B, F, and G’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

I ordered an external business entity to calculate the volume of structures using X-cell files, but companies subcontracted L and M with the structure output work were considered. Therefore, Defendant B was difficult to review the design service outcome of L and M, and there was a lot of time to correct errors. Accordingly, Defendant F and G are entrusted with the work of calculating the volume of structures to Defendant B for the efficient performance of their duties, and only paid service costs.

Therefore, Defendant F and G did not make an explicit or implied solicitation related to the recommendation for a bid to Defendant B, and even if an implied solicitation was accepted, Defendant B did not make an illegal solicitation in light of the following: (i) Defendant B received money in the account; and (ii) Defendant B could not exercise any influence over the final award; and (iii) Defendant B received money in return for the calculation of the volume of structure rather than receiving money in return for such solicitation.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In the crime of taking property in breach of trust, "illegal solicitation" refers to solicitation against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith, and in determining this, the contents of the solicitation, the amount and form of the property received or provided in relation thereto, and the integrity of the business administrator, who is the legal interest protected by the law, shall be comprehensively considered. The solicitation does not necessarily have to be explicitly made, but is not implicitly made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do10681, Sept. 9, 2010; 2008; 2006Do3504, Mar. 27, 201).

2) Determination

Considering the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence of this case in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that Defendant F and G constitute “illegal solicitation against social rules and the principle of good faith,” where Defendant F and G paid money to Defendant B several times as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, the estimated price of the design subcontract contract to be tendered at the time of bidding, and the bid recommendation and smooth approval of the design for the subcontract work to be tendered.”

(1) The I’s design service tender was allowed only to participate in the I’s cooperation company. However, Defendant B, while serving as the chief of the electric power planning team or the chief of the headquarters electric power engineering design team, had the authority to recommend the collaborative company and could have known the contract’s budget subject to the tender. In addition, Defendant B was in charge of the review and approval when the successful bidder of the design service contract submitted the final outcome. As such, Defendant B had the duty to fairly perform the work related to the selection of the collaborative company and the design work.

(2) Article 1(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23350, Jul. 17, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20134, Jan. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20134, Jan. 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Jan. 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20134, Jan. 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jan. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jan. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 3, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 3, 2016).

(3) At the time of interrogation of suspect, Defendant B stated, “At the time of interrogation of suspect, two companies have recommended L and M most of them.” (Evidence Nos. 104)

(4) Defendant B, F, and G make a statement in the same manner that they received money with the “price for the calculation of the capacity of a structure”, but it is difficult to believe that it is in light of the following points.

① In the process of preparing the first written confirmation prior to the investigation stage, the Defendants did not make any statement on the fact that all the Defendants received money in return for the work to compute the volume of structures, and stated that they received money in the form of a meeting, etc., but began to make such assertion at the same time during the investigation process (Evidence Nos. 21, 22, 23).

② Defendant B received money in return for the calculation of the structure volume, and submitted CDs (Evidence No. 135) containing a part-time file for the calculation of the structure volume. However, the file stored in the CD alone cannot be identified as to whether Defendant B directly worked from the beginning. If Defendant B continued to work for the calculation of the structure volume, the most recent file remains. However, the preparation date of the submitted files is only seven cases from December 6, 2010 to July 16, 2013. < Amended by Act No. 10382, Dec. 6, 2010>

③ Defendant B stated that part of the structure was not the price for calculating the volume of structure, but the value of rice paddy, etc. (Evidence No. 105, 1197 pages).

(5) Even if part of the money Defendant F and G received from Defendant F is the cost for the calculation of the volume of structures, in light of the following facts, the entire amount received by Defendant B is considered as the price for an unlawful solicitation.

① Defendant F and G consistently stated to the purport that, as Defendant B’s demand for so-called “A,” the task of calculating the volume of structure was bound to be entrusted to Defendant B, and that money was paid to Defendant B to prevent disadvantages in the cooperative, recommendation, design approval, etc. or to provide convenience.

The Defendants stated that the amount received in return for the calculation of the structure volume is 20% of the total contract amount. In light of the nature of the work of calculating the structure volume, the Defendants appears to be excessive, and compared with the bid price (Evidence List Nos 135 and 1565) of a specific structure quantity (Evidence Nos. 455 and 457) by Defendant B, the bid price for the AB-related contract is 37 million won, and the amount received by the Defendant is 10 million won, the AC-related contract price is 65 million won, and the amount received by the Defendant is 20 million won, and the AD-related contract price is 24 million won and the amount received by the Defendant is 5 million won, and the amount received by the Defendant is 20%.

③ As to this, Defendant F and G made a statement to the effect that “Defendant B unilaterally set the amount and notified the amount,” and that Defendant B demanded excessive amount compared to when Defendant B entrusted the business of calculating the structure volume to the third service company.”

④ Defendant F and G kept accounts of the money paid to Defendant B as provisional receipts. In such a case, Defendant F and G had no choice but to incur monetary damages compared to the case where a tax invoice, etc. was issued by entrusting another business entity with the task of calculating the volume of structure. Therefore, Defendant F and G did not have any reason to entrust the said task to Defendant B, unless it is intended to promote other convenience and profit.

⑤ Ultimately, even if certain structures were requested to calculate the volume of structures, L and M are bound to be entrusted to Defendant B to receive convenience, such as requesting the correction of design outcomes or not refusing the approval.

6. Defendant B is in charge of reviewing and approving the final result of a design service contract if the successful bidder submitted the final result. The process is omitted and the person in charge of review and approval performs the work of calculating the volume of structures directly. If the review and approval are omitted, the problem arises in terms of fair and appropriate work process.

In a case where the nature of money and valuables provided to a person who deals with another person’s business is indivisiblely combined with the nature of the consideration for illegal solicitation and a case concerning other acts, such money and valuables shall be deemed as having the nature of the consideration for illegal solicitation in its entirety indivisible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3080, Jul. 23, 2015); and 2. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion

A. Determination on the ground that the statute of limitations expired

1) Summary of the assertion

Of the facts charged regarding Defendant B’s breach of trust related to L, the part Nos. 3 to 1 through 5 of the attached list of crimes is subject to the imposition of seven years prior to November 27, 2017, which is the date of the instant indictment, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

In cases where a person who administers another’s business receives money and valuables from the same person several times in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, it shall be deemed a single and continuous crime committed repeatedly for a certain period under the criminal intent, and if such legal interests are the same as that of the same, it shall be deemed a single comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6987, Dec. 11, 2008). The statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime shall run from the time when the last crime was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002).

B) Determination

In addition, the facts that Defendant B received money from F in return for an illegal solicitation are as mentioned above, and the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence of this case, namely, ① Defendant B received a large amount of KRW 215 million continuously from F for about six years, ② Defendant B notified all the above money of the scheduled price of a design subcontract contract to be tendered in the electricity construction-related design bid, ② Defendant B received the bid price at the time of bidding, and made the recommendation at the time of tender, and made a smooth request for approval of the design for the subcontract work. ③ Defendant B received all the above money in return for solicitation. ③ Defendant B transferred the above money to N bank or AE account. ④ Defendant B prepared an accounting process as a deposit for L itself, ④ The method of raising the money is also the same. ⑤ Defendant B had influence over recommending cooperation companies and approving and examining the project during the continuous period of breach of trust, and Defendant B had been able to know the fact that the budget continued to be received during the same period of time as Defendant B received the same money.

Therefore, this part of the statute of limitations begins from June 3, 2016, which Defendant B finally received money from F, and thus, it is apparent that the statute of limitations for the prosecution of the instant case was not imposed until November 27, 2017, which was the date of the instant public prosecution. This part of the Defendant B’s assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on Defendant C’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant C received money equivalent to KRW 25,500 from R, the representative of Q. However, Defendant C received money from the last Syria business trip around October 2015 in lieu of gifts, not the money received in return for a solicitation from R. In addition, Defendant C’s selection of Q as a design company through U’s verification, and ② in the bidding of electrical and civil construction companies of U.S. I, in principle, it was the same in the process of French solar work. Since there is an urgent need to complete construction work for obtaining permission of Q 16 on January 201, Defendant C had already received payment for the completed portion of Q as a design and construction company through consultation with U, S, and ③ Defendant C had already received payment for the completed portion of Q, and thus, Defendant C could not be deemed to have received the payment for the completed portion of Q from the construction company and construction company, and Defendant C could not be deemed to have received the payment for the completed portion of Q from the construction company and construction company, in light of the need for prompt treatment of the pertinent work.

B. Determination

In light of the legal principles that examined the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10681, Sept. 9, 2010), it is reasonable to deem that there was a solicitation between Defendant C and R to provide convenience to Q with respect to the receipt of solar energy projects by Defendant C and R, and such solicitation constitutes "illegal solicitation contrary to social rules and the principle of good faith."

1) Amount and method of payment of the money received by Defendant C

A) Defendant C received 30 million won or more from R, which seems to have considerably exceeded the scope of money paid as a private case.

B) not only paid 25,500 tons to Defendant C in three installments, but also paid 15,500 tons to Defendant C via W and X. Defendant C also received the said money from R to his spouse and other other other person’s account. On this matter, Defendant C stated that the said money was paid by the said method (Evidence Nos. 102).

C) U only several times at the time of the solar energy project in this case, and instead dealt with a considerable portion of the work performed by Q. However, R did not have any fact of giving gifts to other employees of U and I, and it seems that there was no fact of giving gifts, etc. to Defendant CER as a response to the said money.

2) Details of the solicitation

A) Details recognized by the initial Defendant

(1) On July 11, 2016, Defendant C prepared a letter of confirmation (Evidence No. 25, 235 pages) stating that “The status of Defendant C received 2.50,000 U.S. dollars introduced funds for the selection of a solar solar construction company, but failed to receive some of them,” and “Saria project has received many help and information from Q when entering the Republic of Korea as a solar project first entering Europe, and has received some parts of the project with an intention to audit and inspect it.”

(2) Defendant C also prepared a confirmation document (Evidence Nos. 29, 242) that provides convenience to enable Q Q to participate in a tender and to receive it at the time of completion of the project, and that in return, Defendant C would receive 25,500 square meters at the time of completion of the project, it is possible to prepare a confirmation document (Evidence No. 29, 242).

(3) Upon the commencement of an investigation based on the accusation by the Defendant C, the employee at the time of the initial investigation was called “Saman si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si si.” The employee at the time of the investigation was written as the employee at the time of the investigation, and denied the content of the confirmation (No. 102, No. 1153 of the evidence list), but it is difficult to deem that the content of the confirmation was specific, while it is difficult to view that the employee at the early stage of the investigation was aware

B) the process of selecting a designer;

(1) As between September 22, 2011 and October 7, 2011, Defendant C responded to a local design firm of Syria (hereinafter “the first business trip”); from October 16, 2011 to November 4, 2011, Defendant C sent a local business trip to the second business entity during the second business trip (hereinafter “the second business trip”); the selection of the answer business entity and the schedule was planned by Defendant C.

(2) At the first business trip, Defendant C and U met only T, AF, AG, Q, AH. According to the first business trip report (Evidence Nos. 151, 2263, etc.), with respect to T, “Isia headquarters has much experience in construction work in the relevant field, but the branch office has U.S. experience in the relevant field,” “Isia headquarters head office directly visit and cooperate with us,” and “Isia headquarters head office request us to provide active support (main business activities of September 29),” and “Is strong desire to participate with the party headquarters and joint participation (for the main business activities of September 30, 30),” and T had a strong intention to participate in solar power development projects at the time, and thus, I could have the ability to design and work as well as to receive active support from the head office with extensive experience in relevant construction works.

(3) However, Defendant C did not meet T at all during the second business trip with U.S., and only Q and AI, AJ, AK, AK, AJ, and AL (No. 152,267 pages of the evidence list of the business trip report), and most of the companies other than Q have been formally introduced (Evidence No. 129), AI, AL, etc. were introduced by most of the companies (Evidence No. 129), and Q and Q were frequently introduced by Q and Q. The cost was borne by Q and Q subcontractors (U’s legal statement).

(4) Defendant C asserted to the effect that, through consultation with U, the need for integrated design was recognized on or around 23 days. At the time, Qman’s quotation was submitted to other companies, and the time was anticipated to make an estimate of integrated design, and thus, concluded a negotiated contract with Q. As the need for integrated design arose, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C requested an estimate of integrated design to Q. based on October 23, 201 and concentrated contact was inevitable. On October 26, 2011, Z was sent to U, and sent it to the company for confirmation. The rest of the company was to prepare and report the clarset with reference to this case, and to the effect that it was inevitable to request an estimate of integrated design and that it was inevitable to contact Q. based on Q. as of October 23, 2011, the e-mail (Evidence No. 164, No. 2370) to which Q. 16 of the e-mail (Evidence No. 1614) was submitted.215, Mar. 16, 2015.

(5) After the two business trips, U stated that "the defendant C submitted a positive opinion to Q without any special ground to the company" (Evidence No. 129). As to the advantages of Q, U stated in the relevant evaluation report only as "the first solar project among the French companies is high, and there is a successful performance experience in performing the project in the process of performing the project in France in cooperation with AI, after the development of the project in French and then EPC, and the understanding level of solar project among the French companies is high, and there is a influence on the approval area in the Yamol, Ploydiv, Stilv area," and only as "the need for cooperation in part of the structure" is stated.

However, Q was a company with two persons including R, and most of U performed their duties due to lack of capacity in the course of designing and performing their work. Defendant C voluntarily stated, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, that “ Q was a company which has no own design ability as a subcontractor and submitted design drawings in Q Q as a subcontractor.” (Evidence No. 225) or that “the direct design of Q in Q as a real system has no capacity to design and execute construction works” (Evidence No. 130, 1420). In light of this, the said evaluation report should have stated that Q is insufficient to design and construction capacity, but the said evaluation report should state that such contents are omitted and that “the understanding of solar project is high” is stated in the advantages. On the other hand, the part of the evaluation report on other companies in the same evaluation report includes “the need to verify construction and design ability.”

(6) Defendant C acknowledged that the design company tender process at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation was not fair (Evidence No. 225). Defendant C asserted that the design company had been examined by U during the process of selecting the design company. However, even if Defendant C had gone through the process of consultation with U, it appears that Defendant C was a business trip, proposal, and report in order to select Q as a design company.

B) the process of selecting the contractor;

(1) In Syria, calculating the estimated price by the “Wp” method is general (Evidence List Nos. 130, 1422), and Defendant C did not receive the quotation for reference at the time of the first answer (Evidence List Nos. 226,286), and Defendant C was also aware of the fact that it is difficult to calculate the estimated price by the BO Q method. Meanwhile, in the case of construction works with the same contents as the instant solar project, Defendant C testified to the same effect as Z, who is an electrical design manager (Evidence No. 129).

(2) Nevertheless, as Q Q Q 1 does not meet the bidding requirement, other companies Q Q 2 were unable to comply with the bidding requirement. Q Q 1 did not have the ability to prepare a detailed statement (see, e.g., U’s legal statement). T expressed an intention that it is difficult to participate in the bidding on the ground that the “BOM method differs from their ordinary business methods” is different from that of the On-site Director S. On January 20, 2012, S sent a written estimate to the effect that it submitted a written estimate to the effect that “T is sent to the head office on January 1, 2012, 205,” and that Q 1 submitted a written estimate to the effect that it was submitted to the effect that it was not sufficient to submit a written estimate to meet the bidding requirement on January 28, 2012, and that Q 200 (3) reported to the above written estimate to the effect that Q 2, as the result of the agreement with the Defendant C and the Defendant C 2, submitted a written estimate to the two.

(4) In comparison of the estimate of the unit price per sheet submitted by T as above, T was lower than Q’s estimated price (T was omitted in Q’s estimate, and if included, it would include Q’s assertion to the effect that Q’s estimated price is higher than Q’s estimated price. However, there is no evidence to deem that Q’s estimated price is higher than Q’s estimated price. If the other companies make a false report with regard to T by supplementing the detailed content, there is no reason to omit it.) Ultimately, the competitive appearance is required in relation to the head office, and there is a company that has submitted a estimate of the amount lower than Q’s estimated price. In addition, it appears that the above business process was conducted in order to avoid concealment.

(5) Defendant C asserts to the effect that it is unfair that his business has been properly carried out or is responsible only for himself, because the business has been continuously carried out through consultation with U or S. However, as seen earlier, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established by receiving money and other valuables in return for an illegal solicitation. As such, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established by receiving money and other valuables in return for an illegal solicitation. Thus, the Defendant C’s acceptance of money and other valuables is not exempt from liability on the ground that there is some annoying points in the business process of S, etc., and the fact of giving and receiving money and other valuables does not require that

C) Payment process for progress payment

(1) Since the work, such as the preparation of professional engineer assistance form, purchase assistance form, completion drawings, and design drawings, falls under the service of Q Q to be performed under the design service contract with I, where Q did not perform the above work, I did not have an obligation to pay the progress payment for the corresponding portion. Meanwhile, Defendant C was in charge of the duty to pay the progress payment as the chief of the public service in relation to the solar solar project, and was obligated to take measures to prevent the payment of the progress payment in relation to the service not performed by the subcontractor.

(2) After being selected as a design and construction company, Q did not properly perform the work, including the preparation of professional engineer pattern, purchase specifications, completion drawings, and design drawings. U sent the e-mail demanding Q to complete the work within a normal time period. U sent the e-mail with continuing to urge Q, and sent the e-mail with the content of demanding Q from time to time (see, e-mail No. 149,2024). Defendant C was well aware of this fact (see, e-mail was sent to Defendant C). Despite the repeated compliance with U.S., Defendant C responded only responded to U while continuing to provide “I,” and Defendant C did not report to the head office or head office to the effect that Q would reduce the progress payment for Q with respect to the work performed by Q. Meanwhile, Defendant C did not have any obligation to make payment for the completion payment for Q in full to Defendant C in accordance with the above contract. However, Defendant C did not have any obligation to make payment for the completion payment for Q.

(4) [4] Since it is difficult to view that there was a need to maintain a smooth relationship with Q even at the time of the completion of the authorization and permission related to solar energy at the time of paying the progress payment for Q, and it is also difficult to deem that there was a need to pay the full progress payment solely on the sole basis of the completion of the project. Even though there was a need to pay the full progress payment for Q, it does not seem that Defendant C had a decision-making authority on the payment of the progress payment for Q. Accordingly, Defendant C had a duty to provide objective information so that the domestic headquarters was able to make a decision thereon. Accordingly, concealing Defendant C’s arbitrary concealment of the points that Q did not perform its duties cannot be deemed as a performance of duties under good faith.

In addition to the grounds for individual sentencing under the grounds for individual sentencing, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, character and conduct, career, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won) (Special Aggravations): In the case of conducting illegal business operations in relation to Acceptance of Property, aggressive demand

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Special Priority Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Two to Five years

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant A, at the time of recommendation or selection of a designer, has the duty to keep the scheduled bid price in secret so that many companies can freely compete, and even if there was a duty to fairly conduct the affairs of review and approval of the cooperative's books in the course of carrying out design business with the partner, he actively demanded the price of the design subcontract and received the money and valuables at the request of the cooperative, and the approval of the design was changed smoothly, and notified the company of the scheduled bid price. The money and valuables received from the two enterprises are KRW 84 million, and the money and valuables were received from one of the two enterprises in excess of KRW 50 million for more than two years.

The favorable circumstances for ○○: Defendant A confessions all of his own crimes from the beginning of the commission of the crime and reflects them. The J and K have experience and capabilities in relation to the design of the air-conditioning system, and all of the tasks bided by Defendant A are deemed to have been faithfully performed, and there is no data that Defendant A had conducted unlawful operations in relation to the review and approval of design documents. The Defendant has no criminal records of the same kind and suspension of execution.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (at least KRW 100,00)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd : positive requirements

[Determination of Recommendation Area] Aggravation

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Five years

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant B, upon recommendation or selection of a designer, must take necessary measures to ensure that a fair opportunity is given to a business entity responding to a tender, and if there was a duty to fairly conduct the review and approval of the cooperative's books at the time of carrying out design work, he actively demanded and receive money and valuables upon request by the cooperative, "inform the estimated price of the contract for the design and the approval of the design". He also recommended that he actively demanded and received the money and valuables. He was informed of the budget to the business entity, and recommended only the business entity that received money and valuables. The amount received from the two businesses reaches KRW 2.5 million, and received KRW 25 million from one of them for more than six years. Nevertheless, Defendant B did not reflect the crime by consistently speaking and acting in favor of the business entity that cannot be understood.

The favorable circumstances: there are no criminal records of the same kind and suspension of execution or more. L, M has experience and ability in the construction design related to plants, and it seems that the work offered by I is faithfully performed.

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] The Second Class (30 million won to less than 50 million won) of the Property in Breach of Trust (the Property in Breach of Trust) (the Property in Breach of Trust) (the Property in Breach of Trust) (the Property in Breach of Trust (the Property in Breach of Trust)) (the Property in Breach of Trust: the Property in Violation of Trust Act

[Determination of Recommendation Area] Aggravation

[Scope of Recommendation] One to two years

C. Circumstances disadvantageous to the decision of sentence: Defendant C, at the time of the French solar energy project, was obligated to perform duties fairly and faithfully in relation to the design, the selection of a contractor, and the payment for progress payment. The acquisition was made by means of secret methods, such as passing through several accounts of others in order to conceal the recovered money and valuables. Defendant C does not reflect the crime by urgencying to the vindication.

The circumstances favorable to ○: Q appears to have a strong point about the authorization and permission, and I completed the French solar-powered project. During this process, Defendant C was entering a foreign country several times, endeavored for the success of solar-powered projects, and continued to work in good faith for a long period of time by entering in 1996. The money received by Defendant C is at the level of 30 million won. There is no criminal history.

4. Defendant D, E, and G

(a) The scope of punishment by law: A fine not exceeding 10 million won;

(b) The range of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply as they have been selected by a fine.

Defendant D, E, and G provided money and valuables on the I’s design bid. The above Defendants provided money and valuables to Defendant A or B several times, and the amount reaches KRW 0,000.

Defendant D, E, and G consistently responded to the affirmative demand of Defendant D or B. Defendant D and E consent to and reflects on a criminal act. Defendant G denies a criminal act, but it has been recognized that the investigation process denied convenience from B to this court, and that money was paid to avoid disadvantage. Defendant E has no record of criminal punishment, and Defendant D and G have no record of criminal punishment or any criminal record of suspended execution.

5. Defendant F

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than two years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least KRW 100,00)

【Special Convicted Contributors : Where a person complies with the affirmative needs of the person who has suffered a loss;

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Six months to one year

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant F made an illegal solicitation to B and provided money exceeding KRW 200,000 for several years, and the amount prosecuted exceeds KRW 100,000.

Defendant F has consistently recognized that Defendant F complies with the affirmative demand of B, and that he provided money in order to be convenient from B to this court or to avoid disadvantage during the investigation process. There has been no history of criminal punishment.

Judges Kang Jin-han

Judges Do Residents-ho

for the purposes of this section.

2) Qantity or BOM: a method of calculating the design dog on the basis of the detailed quantities of the materials necessary for construction.

A reasonable time is required in preparation, and favorable to an enterprise with experience in designing the same kind of design immediately before the contract for the subject of the tender.

3) Since the date when the crime was committed was committed, it was added to the extent that it does not interfere with Defendant C’s exercise of defense right.

4) Although the facts charged did not clearly state the contents of the solicitation, it stated specific acts following the solicitation, and the purport that there was such solicitation.

In light of the fact that the evidence was submitted and the evidence was examined, and that there was an objection against the defendant C, the exercise of the right to defense is hindered.

Recognizing that there is no reason, this is specified.

5) In order to clarify the date and time of the crime listed in the annexed list of crimes, part of the facts charged was corrected.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.