[2] In a case where money and valuables are collected without relation to the duties under Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (negative)

[2] The representative, executive officers, and employees of a management entity specialized in improvement projects are deemed public officials in the application of bribery in the light of the nature of the duties to be handled, but they may act as private economic agents with respect to business other than the duties under Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Thus, punishment for receiving money and valuables, etc. without relation to the duties under Article 69 of the above Act is against the principle of excessive

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and by a fine of KRW 5,00,000,000.

205 days of detention before a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 120 hours.

47,410,00 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant AFC Co., Ltd. shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Defendants’ acceptance of a bribe related to the Coul Construction Company and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

At the time of borrowing KRW 400 million from the Coul Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Coul Construction”), Defendant AFC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant AFC”) was not in charge of the specific duties as a specialized management businessman for the improvement project in the Daejeon-dong II because it did not have entered into a contract with the promotion committee for the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in the Daejeon-dong Two District, Daejeon-dong, and there was no specific task as the specialized management businessman for the improvement project in the Daejeon-dong area. Therefore, the Defendants borrowed KRW 400 million on the condition that the redevelopment and reconstruction information in the Daejeon-dong area would be provided for Coul Construction on the condition that the redevelopment and reconstruction information may be provided for the construction of Coulul., Ltd. in the Seoul-dong II area as the specialized management businessman for the improvement project in the U.S., not on the receipt of the above money by illegal solicitation.

(B) Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Specific Crimes

Defendant 1: (a) established Hocom for the purpose of promoting a complex development project for the Jungcheon-dong and Sungdong-dong area in Daejeon (hereinafter “Seongcheon-dong”) and requested a corporation, the partner company of the above project, to place an order for the service to implement the project; (b) accordingly, Defendant 1 entered into a L&C service contract with Dong Yang-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si (hereinafter “Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-dong-si-si-dong-si-si-si-si-dong-si-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-dong-dong-dong-

(2) Sentencing (Defendant 1)

The imprisonment sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant 1 is too unreasonable for five years.

B. The prosecutor (the defendant's acceptance of a bribe in relation to the Coul Construction and the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(1) Not guilty part of the grounds

The defendants should be seen as a bribe or property profit in the amount of KRW 400,000,00 which the defendants received from the Kono Construction.

(2) Additional collection

Even if Defendant 1’s receipt of KRW 400 million from Coul Construction is considered as a bribe, the amount equivalent to the interest calculated at the rate of 9% per annum should be additionally collected.

2. Ex officio determination

The first instance court found Defendant 1 guilty of the crime that Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant 1, acquired property by illegal solicitation at the same time as a bribe, and Defendant 3, the representative of Defendant 1, acquired property by illegal solicitation in connection with the corporation’s business. Defendant 1, without following the modification of an indictment, received a bribe equivalent to the financial profit arising from the borrowing of money, at the same time, acquired property profit by illegal solicitation, and Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant 3, acquired property profit by illegal solicitation. Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant 1, acquired property profit by illegal solicitation in connection with the corporation’s business.

However, in order for the court to recognize facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment, it should be within the scope that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, and there should be no concern about causing substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do913, Apr. 14, 2005, etc.).

In this case, it is difficult to view that the facts charged that the money was received and received as a bribe, while the money was acquired by an illegal solicitation, and at the same time, the money was received as a bribe and the acquisition of pecuniary benefits by an illegal solicitation was also included in the facts charged that the act of accepting money and valuables, the act of acquiring money and valuables, and the act of acquiring money and valuables and the act of acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the financial benefits recognized by the first instance court has different contents and form of the crime, and there is no choice but to change the defense of the defendant to respond thereto. Thus, it can be deemed that the acceptance of bribe equivalent to the financial benefits without any changes in the indictment and the recognition of the acquisition of pecuniary benefits

Therefore, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the acceptance of bribe equivalent to the financial interest without going through the modification of the indictment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of the indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment with the permission to add the acceptance of bribe equivalent to the financial interest as the preliminary charge while maintaining the fact of the acceptance of bribe in itself as the primary charge, and the trial allowed it)

In addition, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment to add the facts charged that Defendant 1 received the full amount of the money received as a bribe from Dong-A&C as a bribe, while maintaining the facts charged that Defendant 1 received the difference between the service price and the actual service value as a bribe. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the above facts charged cannot be maintained as it is because the object of the trial is changed.

Meanwhile, among the above revised facts charged and the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant 1’s criminal facts in violation of the Labor Standards Act should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part concerning the above facts charged in the judgment of the court of first instance

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will review below.

3. Judgment on the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendants and prosecutor

A. As to the defendants' acceptance of a bribe related to the joint venture construction and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(1) Whether to recognize business relationship and illegal solicitation

(A) First, in relation to the total amount of KRW 400 million received by Defendant 1 from amul construction on April 5, 2006 and July 3, 2006, it is examined whether the existence of business relationship and illegal solicitation can be recognized as an executive officer of a rearrangement project management contractor.

(B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the trial court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On April 5, 2006, and July 3, 2006, the committee for promotion of the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association in the Zone Two of Mountaindong-dong was established, Defendant CM was not able to enter into a contract with the said committee for business agreements or maintenance and improvement projects with the said committee.

② However, before Defendant 1 was registered as a specialized management businessman for rearrangement projects (registration date June 1, 2005), Defendant 1 had examined feasibility and market feasibility of improvement projects in the mountain dong area from February 2, 2005. From July 2005, Defendant 1 had partially obtained consent to the establishment and operation rules of the committee for the establishment of the housing reconstruction association against local residents. around October 2005, Defendant 1 had already performed the rearrangement projects since around 2005, by organizing the “the committee for the establishment of the housing reconstruction association in the mountain 2-dong Housing Reconstruction Association in the mountain 2-dong zone” to obtain the office of the committee for the promotion and bear operating expenses.

③ At the time, Nonindicted Party 1, who was the president of the Daejeon District of Culp Construction, was an investigative agency, established AcM and continued to engage in public relations activities on redevelopment projects to the residents of the areas in Busandong, and was so aware that it will be selected as a specialized management businessman of the improvement project in the above area in the future. At the end, Defendant AcM would have been able to participate in the construction of Culp in the construction of the city, and requested the head office to provide funds by deeming that it would be a lot of assistance when Defendant AcM is selected as a specialized management businessman of the improvement project in the future. While Defendant AcM did not specify the area of 2 billion won in detail with Defendant AcM, Defendant AcM did not request that the specialized management businessman of the improvement project would have been able to build Cul if Defendant AcM was selected as a specialized management businessman of the improvement project.

④ On June 30, 2006, the Daejeon Metropolitan City was announced as a planned housing redevelopment project area of the zone 2 of Busan Metropolitan City as a public announcement of the master plan for urban and residential environment improvement, Defendant 1 constituted the committee for promotion of the establishment of the housing redevelopment project partnership in the zone 2 of Busan Metropolitan City, and obtained the approval on August 8, 2006, and the said committee entered into an administrative agency service contract with Defendant IM and the said committee on August 12, 2006.

⑤ On August 24, 2006, the said promotion committee, with the help of Defendant AsanM, convened a written resolution from the residents in advance, and selected it as a construction for redevelopment project for the construction of the joint venture (as the residents’ general meeting on August 24, 2006, with the approval of the residents’ general meeting of 317 persons from among 406 residents, and 303 persons from among them). On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 stated at the investigative agency that the construction of the joint venture was so supported by Defendant AM as it was selected as a construction for the redevelopment project for the redevelopment project for the 2nd area of Masandong.

(C) The representative, officers, and employees of a management entity specialized in improvement projects are deemed public officials in the application of bribery in light of the nature of the duties to be handled, but they may engage in activities other than the duties prescribed in Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Thus, punishment for receiving money and valuables, etc. without relation to the duties prescribed in Article 69 of the above Act is against the principle of excessive prohibition.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant 1 provided comprehensive support related to maintenance projects as stipulated in the Urban Improvement Act in the 2nd area of Busandong zone in order to operate IM, and it is recognized that Defendant 1 is also in charge of supporting or advising on the selection of a contractor (Article 69 (1) 4 of the Urban Improvement Act) according to the degree of progress of the maintenance project in the future. Thus, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 is in charge of or is likely to be in charge of duties to assist in the selection of a contractor. Although it was not clearly requested to assist Defendant 1 in the selection of a contractor, it is not revealed that Defendant 1 had no special reason to support the large amount of KRW 40 million. However, considering that Defendant 1, with expertise in the rearrangement project, could not be seen as having been aware of such circumstances, Defendant 1 was in charge of receiving the above funds directly from Defendant 1's management contractor and 300 million won for the purpose of receiving the funds from the above 300 billion won project (Article 69 of the Urban Improvement Act).

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court to the above purport is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

(2) Details of the bribe and acquired profits

Next, according to the records of this case, the following facts are examined as to the contents of the bribe and the profits acquired. ① Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the loan was granted KRW 400 million upon Defendant 1’s request from Nonindicted Party 2, the punishment of Defendant 1, and that the loan was given. ② The money loan contract was actually concluded between Defendant CM and CM Construction; Defendant CM paid KRW 400 million on October 27, 2006, prior to the commencement of the investigation of this case; ③ Nonindicted Party 1’s “The proposal to promote the redevelopment and reconstruction of Daejeon” stated in Nonindicted Party 1’s “It is difficult to determine that there was no cost of loan, and that it would be sufficiently possible to recover the loan amount.” The head of Daejeon branch office did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the loan was granted KRW 400 million to Defendant 1, the actual representative director of AM, and that there was no intention to recover the loan amount to be returned to the 60 billion owner’s new owner’s money construction.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 acquired financial benefits equivalent to the economic benefits that can be used rather than receiving or acquiring the above KRW 400 million as a bribe. However, since the value of such financial gains cannot be objectively calculated, this cannot be applied to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and its value cannot be additionally collected (each monetary loan loan contract entered into by the above Defendant after borrowing the above KRW 400 million from Coul Construction, stating that the due date is specified as December 31, 2006 and the delay damages amounting to 20% per annum after the due date is added, however, the above agreement alone cannot determine the interest rate to be applied to the monetary loan contract between Defendant 1 and Coulul Construction, and there is no other way to specify the above financial gains).

Therefore, the first appeal judgment to the above purport is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

B. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) related to the same T&C

(1) Whether the business relationship is recognized

(A) We examine whether Defendant 1’s executive officers of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects entered into a IM service contract with the same U&S in relation to the duties stipulated in Article 69 of the Urban Improvement Act.

(B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① From 205 to 2, Defendant 1 planned a complex development project for the Jungcheon-dong and Mountain dong area in Daejeon, Defendant 1 demanded the design firm to participate in the project. Down C, which has its main office in Daegu, provided the Defendant 1 with a view to acquiring the redevelopment information in the Daejeon area through Defendant 1, who operates the management entity specialized in the improvement project, with a view to obtaining the redevelopment information in the Daejeon area. However, Dongwn C had a question about the feasibility of the above complex development project.

② Before Defendant 1 was selected as a design firm for the redevelopment project in the Eastdong Zone Two, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 3 of the East Dawn S&C to assist him while speaking for the difficult financial situation of the Defendant’s I&M. At that time, Nonindicted 3 attempted to assist him in the form of providing services after the clinical outcome.

③ On August 24, 2006, the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in the Zone Two of Mountaindong-dong, selected the same as a design company at the residents’ general meeting. During that process, Defendant 1 provided substantial assistance in the selection of the design company of the same Dan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-based by advertising the same Don&C through the project explanation meeting.

④ After October 30, 2006, Defendant 1 requested assistance from Nonindicted 3 on October 30, 2006. Accordingly, Nonindicted 3 concluded the instant IM service contract with Defendant 1 by concluding the IM service agreement and paying the service cost. In relation to this, Nonindicted 3 stated that the IM is the design firm for the redevelopment project for the 2nd East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East China, Defendant 1’s assistance was required, and Defendant 1 paid the case cost. Furthermore, in order to be selected as a design firm in the development project district within the Daejeon East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East, Defendant 1’s assistance was required, and Defendant 1 paid KRW 220 million.

(C) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that IMC entered into the instant IM service contract in return for the selection of a design company in the 2nd Hodong redevelopment project, and paid the service price to Defendant 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1’s executive officers of the management entity specialized in the improvement project of the rearrangement project of this case entered into the IM service contract in relation to support for the selection of a designer as stipulated in Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (the IM service contract of this case was entered into between AB and B&C, but it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 directly received the above service price in light of the circumstances that Defendant 1 performed the service under the IM service contract of this case while operating A& in substance.)

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court to the above purport is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by Defendant 1.

(2) Details of the bribe

(A) As to the contents of the bribe received by Defendant 1 in relation to the conclusion of the instant MM service contract, the first instance court recognized the service cost itself as a bribe on the premise that there is no substance in the instant MM service contract and only is a means to pay money to Defendant 1.

(B) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., e., M. 1’s cooperation firm for a complex development project that was promoted by Defendant 1, 2, Defendant 1 thought that the above complex development project would be legally restricted, and Defendant 1 was established on July 6, 2006, and Defendant 3 demanded Nonindicted 3 to bear the expenses for the promotion of the complex development project on the following grounds: (i) it is difficult to conclude that MM 1’s service contract was executed on the date of this case’s implementation; and (ii) it was difficult to conclude that M 1’s execution of the above complex development project was conducted on the date of this case’s implementation of the project; and (iii) it was difficult to conclude that M 1’s execution of the project was conducted on the date of this case’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project’s implementation of the project.

(C) However, according to the records, it can be acknowledged that the service price under the IM service contract of this case is excessive calculated compared to the contents of the service performed, and it is reasonable to view that DowC calculated the service price on favorable terms to Defendant 1, unlike the case of entering into an ordinary service contract in consideration of the relationship with Defendant 1, thereby giving unfair profits to Defendant 1. Thus, the bribe received by Defendant 1 through the conclusion of the IM service contract of this case is the amount equivalent to the difference between the reasonable value of the IM service contract of this case and the service price of this case.

On the other hand, with respect to the reasonable value of the IM service contract of this case, the prosecutor uses 172,590,000 won, which is the actual value of the service on the written appraisal of Nonindicted 4’s written appraisal submitted by Defendant 1, at a reasonable price. Accordingly, Defendant 1 does not make a counterargument, and there is no reason to deem the contents of the said written appraisal as lacking rationality or objectivity. Thus, the amount of actual value on the written appraisal of this case’s appraisal is recognized as the legitimate value of the IM service

Therefore, Defendant 1 received KRW 47,410,00 as a bribe after deducting KRW 172,590,000, which is a legitimate value, from the service price of KRW 22,000,000 under the IM service contract of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the entire service price as a bribe as the total amount of the service price as a bribe is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, among the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant 1’s appeal against Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with respect to the same ManbC is well-grounded, while the judgment of first instance is based on the ex officio reversal grounds as seen earlier, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed in entirety without examining Defendant 1’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment is

1. From October 2005, during the process of performing the redevelopment of housing in the above region by supporting the operating expenses of the Housing Redevelopment Promotion Committee of the Daejeon-dong Two District of Busan-dong (hereinafter “Osan-dong Two District”) from around October 2005:

A. On April 2006, Defendant 1 received an illegal solicitation from the Mayor/Do governor of the Daejeon Daejeon District for the purpose of helping people to participate in the construction project, such as the redevelopment where IMM was involved in the construction project, such as U.S. district construction project, from Non-Indicted 1, the president of the Daejeon District for the construction of Culule construction through Non-Indicted 2, the Defendant’s punishment, and the bidding conditions, etc. to allow people related to the promotion committee or residents to participate in the construction project, and promoting Cule construction as good for Cule construction. Defendant 1 received an illegal solicitation to the effect that I would help people concerned participate in the tender of Culule construction at the same time with the intention of helping people to obtain the construction right of Culule construction, and will have the construction right of Culule construction at the same time with regard to the construction work of Dule construction at the same time on April 25, 2006, and Defendant 1 would receive the above KRW 1400 million in total from the interested parties.

B. Defendant 1, an interested party in connection with the date and time set forth in the above paragraph (a) above, in relation to the conclusion of a contract or the execution of a construction work at a place, as well as Defendant 1, an actual operator, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the financial benefits from the above illegal solicitation from Corul Construction in relation to the duties of Defendant 1, an interested party, and the property benefits from the above illegal solicitation.

2. Defendant 1 helps Non-Indicted 3 of the first instance court to select as a design company with respect to the project for the redevelopment project of Hosungdong 2, and eventually, when the above company was selected as a design company and received KRW 6.5 million out of the design service cost from the Development Promotion Committee of Sungdong-dong 2 around October 30, 2006, Defendant 1 found to be the Dongdong-dong 3, 111, Dong-dong 11, Dong-dong 11 as the office around October 30, 2006, and requested Non-Indicted 3 of the first instance court to place an order for the work of surveying the feasibility of the redevelopment project, etc. to enter into the M&C service contract between Dong-dong 2,00,000 won and the service cost of 2.22,20,000 won as a bank account under the name of Dong-dong 2,00,000 won and delivered and received as a public official at the above level exceeding 17,4070,7100.

3. Defendant 1 is an employer who has been engaged in the management business of rearrangement projects by employing 20 full-time workers as the representative director of ASEAN.

The wages of KRW 8,190,00,000,000 worked at the above workplace from December 18, 2006 to February 15, 2007, were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date, as stated in the detailed statement of unpaid money and valuables, as stated in the attached Table, and the total of KRW 14,312,000,000 from the date of retirement was not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the due date

A. Defendant 1: Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes], Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 95-2 and Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry), Articles 112(1) and 36 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8072 of Dec. 21, 2006) (the violation of the Labor Standards Act)

(b) Defendant CM: Articles 98(2), 95-2, and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant 1);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Mutually between the crimes of bribery and the Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the punishment provided for the heavier crime of acceptance of bribe)

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant 1);

Each sentence of imprisonment on the crime of acceptance of bribe, violation of the Labor Standards Act, and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes for the punishment prescribed for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the largest punishment for which is applicable]

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 1);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 1);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (as to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of Defendant 1)

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment (Defendant AsanM);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

However, Defendant 1’s act of committing the instant crime with a view to raising operating funds, etc. for Defendant 1, rather than personal interests, and the influence of a management entity specialized in improvement projects on the selection of a contractor or a designer, is not always absolute, and thus, it is difficult to see that the value of the instant crime of acceptance of bribe is significant in terms of the instant crime of acceptance of bribe; Defendant 1 does not have to be sentenced to a sentence; Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime; and other various sentencing conditions, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be suspended.

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 1, an interested party, acquired property equivalent to the same amount of money by such unlawful solicitation in relation to the conclusion of the contract or the execution of the construction work, as a bribe in connection with the duties of the executives and employees of the management entity specialized in the improvement project, under the circumstances described in Paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the facts charged as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant 1, who is the director of AcM and the actual operator, acquired property equivalent to the same amount of money by the above illegal solicitation in relation to the execution of the contract and the execution of the construction work,” and Defendant 1, who is the director of AcM and the actual operator, acquired the property equivalent to the same amount of money by the above illegal solicitation in relation to the duties of the management entity specialized in the improvement project.”

B. The defendants shall not be deemed to have received the above KRW 400 million as a bribe or to have received it by an illegal solicitation as stated in the above 3-A-2 (2). Thus, the defendant should be acquitted. However, inasmuch as the court found the defendants guilty of the crime of violation of the crime of acceptance of bribe and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is one of the ancillary facts added in the above 3-A-2 (2), it shall not be sentenced separately in the disposition.

2. The primary facts charged concerning the crime No. 2 of the judgment;

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 1 1 helps to select B&C as a design firm with respect to the development project of Busandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 3-dong 111 on October 30, 2006 in order to receive KRW 6.5 billion out of the design service cost from the Development Promotion Committee of Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-related-related-related party-related party.”

B. Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have received the full amount of KRW 220 million paid as a bribe in the form of a false service contract, as stated in the above 3-B. 2-2 (2). Thus, it should be acquitted. However, inasmuch as Defendant 1 found Defendant 1 guilty of the acceptance of bribe equivalent to the difference between the service price stated in paragraph 2 of the crime, which is one of the ancillary facts added in the trial, and the actual service value, as stated in the above 3-B. 2-2 (2), it shall not be sentenced separately in the disposition.

Judges Kim Sang-ok (Presiding Judge)