The defendant shall be innocent.

2. Defendant 2

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

293,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

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

Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the charge of offering a bribe is acquitted.

In the latter half of 2005, the president of Nonindicted Company 9 and the president of Nonindicted Company 12 had a very studio that Defendant 1 would form an association, and Defendant 2, the standing adviser of Nonindicted Company 1, who supported Defendant 1, had the representative director of Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted Company 7, the affiliate of Nonindicted Company 9, directed Nonindicted Company 2 to find out Defendant 2, the standing adviser of Nonindicted Company 1, who supported Defendant 1. Defendant 2 was close to the above Nonindicted Company 2.

Defendant 2: (a) around June 21, 2006, multiple rearrangement project management contractor was required with respect to 00,000, Defendant 2 introduced Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) that was proceeding with 5,000, to the Foundation Promotion Committee for the Rearrangement Project; (b) on January 31, 2007, the fixed approval of the above Promotion Committee was imminent; (c) Nonindicted Co. 5 actively cooperates in Nonindicted Co. 9’s selection as the contractor; (d) upon Nonindicted Co. 9’s selection as the contractor, Nonindicted Co. 2 did not have any obligation to return funds provided by Nonindicted Co. 5, 300,000 won; and (e) Nonindicted Co. 2 was given additional payment of KRW 300,000 to Nonindicted Co. 5, 200,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 9’s personal account under the name of 5,000,000 won.

As a result, Defendant 2 received a bribe equivalent to KRW 293 million in total in relation to the duties of the management entity specialized in improvement projects who is deemed public officials.

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 by the prosecution;

1. Investigation protocol of Nonindicted 3 by prosecution

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 2

1. Investigation Report (201-8407 interim report), non-indicted 2's general statement of transaction in one bank account, defendant 2's general statement of transaction in the agricultural bank account, defendant 1's general statement of transaction in Gwangju Bank, customer personal information inquiry note, investigation report (a file of inquiry note with the relevant Korean bank), defendant 2's investigative report (the circumstance that defendant 2 borrowed the name of the non-indicted 1 and was connected with the defendant 1) (the fact that the defendant 2 borrowed the name of the non-indicted 1, the defendant 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the defendant 2, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the defendant 2 and the non- the defendant 1, the defendant 2.

Articles 2(1)1 and 129(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9169, Dec. 26, 2008); Article 84 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009); the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 2 argues that Defendant 2 did not have a position to be deemed a public official because he was not an officer or employee of the management entity specialized in improvement projects, and that he borrowed money from Nonindicted 2, but does not constitute a bribe.

2. Whether Defendant 2’s position as “standing adviser” constitutes an “executive officer or employee of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects” deemed as a public official

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The principle of no punishment without the law, which is guaranteed through Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution, refers to the principle of no punishment without the law, must be determined by law. The principle of clarity derived from such principle of no punishment without the law refers to what is intended to punish a law, what can be predicted by anyone who can decide his/her act, and clearly stipulating the elements of a crime so that anyone can decide his/her act accordingly. However, even though the elements of a punishment law should be clear, it does not require a simple descriptive concept, and even if a person uses a concept that requires complementary interpretation of judges somewhat wide range, if the person has a sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment, it does not conflict with the clarity of the punishment law required by the Constitution if the person has a provision that enables him/her to know the protected legal interests of the punishment law, prohibited acts and punishment, and the kind and degree of punishment. In addition, whether a certain norm is clear or not, it refers to the meaning of the law, the purpose of interpretation and enforcement of the law, the meaning of the law, and the meaning and the meaning of the legal enforcement of the law reasonably.

In addition, penal provisions shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. However, in the interpretation of penal provisions, the teleological interpretation in consideration of the legislative intent and purpose, legislative history, etc. of the relevant law shall not be excluded unless it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the text and text of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2363, Jan. 10, 2003, etc.).

(b) The meaning of executives of the rearrangement project management contractor under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas;

1) Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”) provides that “In applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, the chairperson of the promotion committee, the executives and employees of the association, and the entrusted managers of the specialized management businessmen of the rearrangement project (in cases of a corporation, referring to the executives and employees), shall be deemed public officials.” Articles 69 through 74-5 of the same Act provide for the registration, duties, grounds for disqualification of executives, revocation of registration, etc

2) Article 21 and Article 22 of the Do administration Act provides for personnel restrictions, duties, etc. for the executives of a cooperative, but does not provide for the restriction on the number of executives or the scope of duties for the executives of a specialized management entity of a rearrangement project. The purport of the Act differs from the provisions concerning the executives of a specialized management entity of a rearrangement project is that a cooperative is organized to achieve public interest and that it is anticipated that it will conduct only the business of the cooperative. Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the efficiency of the cooperative through the restriction on the number of executives and to reduce expenses. However, it is necessary for a specialized management entity of a rearrangement project to restrict the number of executives of a private company pursuing private interests, depending on its legal nature, depending on its legal nature, to restrict the number of executives

3) Furthermore, Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the Do Government Act provides for the procedure for the registration of a management entity specialized in improvement projects and stipulates that the address and name of an executive of the management entity specialized in improvement projects should be stated in the application. However, this is merely an administrative procedure required for registration, and it does not determine whether an executive is an executive (However, in this case, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 entered as an executive in the application as an executive at the time of initial registration

4) Article 72(1) of the Do Government Act provides that “A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall not file an application for registration of a rearrangement project management business entity, nor be an executive or employee representing or assisting the management entity specialized in rearrangement projects.” In light of such provisions, the scope of executive or employee of a management entity specialized in rearrangement projects shall be construed as an employee who represents the management entity specialized in rearrangement projects and a person who assists in the management entity specialized in rearrangement projects

5) In full view of the above legal principles and the legislative intent of the Do administration Act as seen earlier, it is reasonable to interpret that an officer of the management entity specialized in improvement projects under the Do administration Act is the representative of the management entity specialized in improvement projects regardless of its name or registration.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

1) Nonindicted 4’s statement

A) Nonindicted 4, who has a position as the major shareholder and the president of Nonindicted Company 1, appeared as a witness in the court, and stated that Defendant 2 had overall control over the chemical area, and that he had the authority to conclude a mixed contract without the resolution of the general meeting of Nonindicted Company 1 or the consent of Nonindicted Party 4. Furthermore, it was stated that the degree of KRW 80 million was given to Defendant 2 in relation to the chemical suspension area.

B) Nonindicted 4 made the following statements at the prosecution (not more than 1,882 pages).

① Although Defendant 2 was registered as a director on the registry of Nonindicted Company 1 and resigned, Defendant 2 did not change depending on whether the registration was made.

② Defendant 2 is an advisor with the power of representation rather than an executive or employee, who operated a rearrangement project of Nonindicted Company 1.

③ Nonindicted 13 was the president (Nonindicted 4), and Nonindicted 13 was the representative director. However, the “ adviser” used by Defendant 2 is deemed to be above the representative director under the president’s direct command. Inasmuch as he exercised externally the power of representation as the president, he/she is deemed to be equal to, or immediately above, the representative director due to his/her external exercise of power of representation. Defendant 2 is an exercise of the power of representation of Nonindicted Company 1 in the maintenance project agreement with each union of the building and reconstruction of the building and reconstruction of the building.

④ As a matter of course, the service cost paid in relation to the chemical reconstruction project was naturally a plan for the payment of part of the amount corresponding to the shares of Defendant 2, by Nonindicted Company 1’s claim and payment of the actual cost and taxes. Around June 2009, it was natural until the difference between Nonindicted Company 4 and Defendant 2 was between Nonindicted Company 2 and Defendant 2.

⑤ There is no time when Defendant 2 paid the user fee under the name of Nonindicted Company 1, and there is no way to demand money under the name of Nonindicted Company 4.

6) However, around June 16, 2009, Nonindicted 4 transferred all the powers on the housing re-building held by Nonindicted 4 in the position of the president of Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 made an agreement by transferring all the powers on the housing re-building to Nonindicted 4.

(ii)other evidence.

① From May 2003, Defendant 2 used Nonindicted Company 1’s standing adviser’s name.

② Defendant 2 voluntarily stated that he had been operating the rearrangement project under the name of Nonindicted Company 1 for up to 11 year (No. 1,316, 2,290 pages)

③ Defendant 2 was registered as a director in the corporate register from May 22, 2003 to August 17, 2006, and received wages from the said company from March 2004 to March 2007, and was registered as an outside director in the corporate register after September 20, 201.

④ Defendant 2 entered into multiple contracts with the delegated agent of Nonindicted Company 1 in relation to the housing re-building in the capacity of the representative.

D Judgment

As above, in full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant 2 received wages from Nonindicted Company 1 during some period at the time of receiving the instant money; (b) Defendant 2 exercised the power of representation of Nonindicted Company 1 in relation to the housing reconstruction project of YY apartment; (c) Defendant 2 appears to have obtained or lost the status of directors on the corporate register; (d) Defendant 4’s statement; and (e) Defendant 2’s claim formation and water supply contract made between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 4 after June 2009, in light of the contents of the agreement on the maintenance and water supply; (b) it is difficult to view Defendant 2 as an executive officer or employee of the rearrangement project management contractor at the time of receiving the instant money, who is the subject of the agreement on the maintenance and management of housing project related to the housing reconstruction project and who is the subject of the agreement that only borrowed only the name of Defendant 2, pursuant to Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

3. Whether it is a loan;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Nonindicted 2’s statement

A) Statement to an investigative agency

Nonindicted 2 made the following statements at an investigative agency:

① Defendant 2 is not in a friendly relationship with Defendant 2. There is no reason to lend the match money, and the expenses are provided to Defendant 2, a rearrangement project operator, to comply with the construction for the re-building. The same certificate of loan was not prepared, and the money was not yet refunded from Defendant 2. Generally, if a construction project operator successs in a contract for the re-building project even before the contract for the construction project, he/she does not receive any money that he/she provided or lent to the head of the partnership or the maintenance project operator.

② From April 23, 2007 to July 12, 2007, a sum of KRW 293 billion, which was remitted to Defendant 2 in the name of statement, from April 23, 2007 to July 12, 2007, was appointed as the contractor for Nonindicted Company 9.

③ Defendant 2’s initial statement that “I am selected as the contractor for the non-prosecution 9 company” was “The time when I am granted conditional approval from the time when I am granted by the committee for promotion of the re-building at around March 22, 2006.”

B) Statements in court

① Around March 2006, at the time of obtaining conditional approval, Nonindicted Party 2 asked Defendant 2 to select Nonindicted Company 9 as the contractor for the construction project, and Defendant 2 demanded Nonindicted Party 2 to pay money.

② For the foregoing reasons, Nonindicted 2 gave KRW 293 million to Defendant 2 as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.

(3) There is no fact that the loan certificate or the repayment period has been fixed in relation thereto, and there is no fact that interest has been received.

2) Other evidence

A) In the agreement on the loan of the project cost for the specialized management of the rearrangement project in Gwangju Jong-ju apartment reconstruction project (No. 1,832 pages), Nonindicted 5’s representative director and Nonindicted 2’s agreement on the loan of the project cost for the rearrangement project (the 1,832 pages), stated that Nonindicted 2 shall lend all the promotion cost for the provision of services between Nonindicted 5’s company and Nonindicted 5’s representative director and Nonindicted 5’s representative director shall actively cooperate in the selection of Nonindicted 2 as the contractor. In the event that Nonindicted 2’s construction is not selected as the contractor, the loan and interest shall be repaid, however, if the agreement on the loan is extinguished and Nonindicted 2

B) Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 2, the party to the contract, signed and sealed as the guarantor under this contract, stated that this contract was actually made between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2.

C) At the time of Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 2’s statement that Nonindicted 2 explicitly told Defendant 2 at the time of concluding a contract that Nonindicted 2 was Nonindicted Company 9 (the 1,813 pages).

D) Defendant 2 stated that the agreement on the instant B) was agreed upon by himself and Nonindicted 2 and 8, and that there was no amount of reimbursement yet made (2,297 pages).

B. Determination

As above, ① Nonindicted 2 stated that Nonindicted 2’s KRW 293,00,00 paid to Defendant 2 from the prosecution to this court is the money that was paid on the condition that Nonindicted Company 9 would be selected as the contractor; ② Defendant 2 would be the money that Nonindicted Company 2 paid to Nonindicted Company 2 on the condition that Nonindicted Company 9 would be selected as the contractor, on the ground that Nonindicted Company 2 would not need to pay the instant money to Nonindicted Company 2. The money that Nonindicted Company 2 paid to Defendant 2 is given on the condition that Nonindicted Company 9 would be selected as the contractor. Since Nonindicted Company 9 was not selected as the contractor after delivery, it does not change on the ground that there was a circumstance that Defendant 2 would return the money that Defendant 2 would have to return to Nonindicted Company 2 pursuant to the agreement. Accordingly, we cannot accept the assertion that Defendant 2’s money was borrowed from Nonindicted Company 2.

4. Whether he is related to duties;

In the case of bribery includes not only the duties under the control of the law, but also the duties that a public official is closely related to or de facto in relation to such duties, and those that may assist or influence the decision-making authority (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do987 Decided May 12, 2006). In this case, Article 69 Subparag. 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents includes "support for the selection of a contractor" as well as "support for the duties of a rearrangement project management entity" and the selection of a contractor is closely related to the duties of an executive or employee of a rearrangement project entity.

5. Conclusion

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant 2 can be recognized as having received a bribe from Nonindicted 2 in relation to the selection of a contractor for improvement project who is closely related to his/her duties as an executive officer. Accordingly, Defendant 2’s above assertion is not acceptable.

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery (Type 5, KRW 100,000 to KRW 500,000)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Seven years of imprisonment or 10 years of imprisonment

2. Determination of sentence;

The defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism by accepting large amounts of money and valuables in relation to the selection of reconstruction works in the position of a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects.

However, even though the defendant was a public official for legislative affairs and received money from the non-indicted 2, it is difficult to see that the non-indicted 9 company actually did not have been designated as a construction project and caused damage to the partnership, the sentence shall be determined as ordered by sentencing the lower limit of the punishment.

In the context of the crime of bribery, if the accepter claims that he/she has received money from the accepter but not received the money from the accepter, whether or not the accepter actually borrows the money shall be determined by taking full account of all the objective circumstances revealed through evidence, such as the motive, reason for delivery, and method of receiving the money from the accepter, the relationship between the accepter and the accepter, the position and work experience of the accepter, the need for borrowing the money, the possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter, the amount and the method of borrowing the money, the economic situation of the accepter and the amount of the borrowed money, the amount of the borrowed money, the economic situation of the accepter, and the amount of anticipated economic interest related to the accepter, whether to provide a security, the maturity of repayment of the principal and interest of the accepter, and the possibility of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 2011).

In addition, the burden of proof on the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged. This legal doctrine likewise applies to the case where the nature of the received money is disputed as to whether it is a bribe. Thus, if there is no evidence that the nature of the received money is true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts that it is a bribe, even if there is a doubt about the defendant's guilt, it shall be judged as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201).

It is difficult to view that the facts charged of receiving a bribe include the receipt of a bribe by borrowing the money, and it is also difficult to view that the contents and form of the crime are different, and the defense of the defendant to cope with it is not different. Thus, it cannot be recognized ex officio that the defendant received a bribe equivalent to the financial interest as a bribe without changing the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do913, Apr. 14, 2005).

2. The part concerning acceptance and delivery of bribe between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

On February 6, 2007, the construction association for the housing construction project was entitled to consult about the appropriateness of the cost for the construction project, which was claimed by Nonindicted Company 1 pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the management services contract for the rearrangement project and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was concluded with the Nonindicted Company 1. In addition, around May 31, 201, the construction contract entered into with the Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) was borrowed from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) and paid the cost for the construction project to Nonindicted Company 1 without compensation, and was entitled to consult about the payment of the cost for the construction. Accordingly, Defendant 1, the president of the said association, was in a position to exercise a considerable influence in determining the amount of the cost for the construction project to be granted to the said Nonindicted Company 1 and consulting about the time, method, etc. of payment.

Defendant 1 demanded from Nonindicted 11 to repay the personal debt of KRW 220 million, around June 2011, Defendant 1 demanded Defendant 2, who was in charge of the business related to the chemical rebuilding as a standing adviser of Nonindicted Company 1, to pay the said personal debt of KRW 11 on behalf of the said Nonindicted Company 2.

Accordingly, around July 13, 201, Defendant 2 issued to Nonindicted 16 a promissory note amounting to KRW 170 million in face value in the name of Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 16 to Nonindicted 11’s employees, at the Dong-dong, Gwangju-dong, 715-2 Law Firm Seosan-dong, a check with KRW 20 million, a check with KRW 30 million, a specialized constructor, and a check with KRW 30 million borrowed from Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2.

As a result, Defendant 1 received a bribe equivalent to KRW 220 million in total with respect to the duties of the president of the reconstruction association deemed public officials from Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 offered a bribe equivalent to KRW 220 million in total with respect to the duties of the president of the reconstruction association deemed public officials.

B. Determination

(i) the basic facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

① Defendant 1 promised to pay KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 11 by August 30, 201 (the debt certification and performance confirmation as of May 17, 201, and the investigative record No. 30 pages).

② Defendant 2, on behalf of Defendant 1, agreed to perform the obligation of the above paragraph (1) to Nonindicted 11 by August 31, 201 (the debt certification and performance confirmation as of July 13, 201, and the investigation record No. 33)

③ Defendant 2 delivered a promissory note of KRW 50 million to Nonindicted 11’s agent on July 13, 201 in accordance with the agreement referred to in the above paragraph (2) and issued it on July 13, 201, and authenticated it on the same day (the authentic copy of the notarial deed, the investigation record No. 38).

④ Around August 30, 2011, Nonindicted 11 filed a complaint with Defendant 2, who did not repay the above debt, Defendant 1, who was the victim of fraud, occupational breach of trust, etc.

⑤ On October 21, 2011, Defendant 2 delivered to Nonindicted 11’s agent the remaining KRW 170,000 as a check, and Nonindicted 11 revoked the complaint on October 26, 201 (the copy of the check, the letter of revocation of the complaint, and the statement of the investigation, No. 332, 333).

2) Circumstances that seem to correspond to the facts charged

① Around October 18, 2011, Defendant 1 and 2 kept records of remittance in a way that Defendant 1 deposited 220,000 won in Defendant 2’s account and returned it again between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2. Around June 18, 2011, Defendant 1 planned to create a letter of commitment to repay obligations on June 18, 201 (a record of the Investigation Record No. 1,191).

② Defendant 2 made a statement that he did not necessarily have to receive the above money from Defendant 1 at the prosecution twice (in the investigation record No. 1,363, 2,270).

3) Circumstances in need of reasonable doubt

① The above recording record is a situation in which Defendant 2 intentionally led Defendant 1 to answer questions that are likely to mislead misunderstanding, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s end of the recording record is highly high in the value of evidence.

② Even according to the record on the above record, Defendant 1 expressed that Defendant 2 shall pay the following money over several occasions, and Defendant 2 also expressed that he shall be able to pay money:

If ○○ (Defendant 2) written the statement of Defendant 1 contained in the main text, ○○ (Defendant 2) is entitled to receive 200 million son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

③ Defendant 2 stated in the prosecutor’s office that “However, even during the empty term, Defendant 1 would have repaid the words “I will have the mind to do so only once” (Article 2,269 pages).

④ Defendant 2 stated in the court that Defendant 1 would have repaid the meaning of the above 2) prosecutorial statement, such as the above 2) ②, and that Defendant 2 would have been able to receive money due to his difficult circumstances. However, Defendant 2 stated that he would not have to pay money.

⑤ Defendant 2, who has promoted the work related to the housing reconstruction association for the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of the housing of

6) In a case where Nonindicted 11 explicitly expresses that Defendant 2’s agent was subrogated to Defendant 1’s obligation to Nonindicted 11 with respect to Nonindicted 11, it is difficult for Nonindicted 220 million won to give the said KRW 220 million as a bribe in light of the nature of the crime of bribery demanding the secrecy of the bribery.

4) The circumstances in question prior to the fact that the instant money itself is not a bribe and suspected of being a bribe are nothing more than that of having convictions beyond the degree of deliberation that the instant money is likely to be a bribe provided for the same purpose as indicated in the facts charged, and it is nothing more than that of having a reasonable doubt excluded from a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

C. Conclusion

Thus, the evidence of this case presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proved with each part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2 to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it shall be acquitted as per Disposition under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

3. Part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 1’s non-indicted 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, around April 2003, interviewed Nonindicted Co. 9 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 9”) with Nonindicted Co. 12 as the chairperson of the promotional committee for the establishment of the housing reconstruction and improvement project of YY, and borrowed KRW 153 million from Nonindicted Co. 9 in terms of safety inspection expenses. Nonindicted Co. 9 started to enter into mutual association upon submitting the business participation proposal to the said promotion committee on June of the same year.

Meanwhile, examining the progress of the promotion of the reconstruction association of △△ apartment before around 2005, Defendant 1, who was supported by Nonindicted Company 1, the management entity specialized in the improvement project, had been supported by Nonindicted Company 14 at the time of having been supported by Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 15, who was supported by the △△△△△ Group (Yansan Construction, EL branch Construction, Culon Construction, and Sulco Construction), was affiliated with the said committee, and the said committee of promotion was affiliated with each other. However, the said committee of promotion was reconvened with Defendant 1 in around 2005, and it was found that Nonindicted Company 1, the said committee of promotion was able to form a representative director of the said committee of promotion, and Defendant 1 was found to have been an affiliate of Nonindicted Company 29, the chairperson of the △△△ Group, who supported the said committee of promotion, around the second half of 2005.

Defendant 1 demanded the above non-indicted 2 to pay KRW 30 million at the tecian hall located in Seo-gu, Seosungdong, Seo-gu, Gwangju, on March 22, 2006, and then at the same place on the following day, if Defendant 1 becomes the president of the partnership from the above non-indicted 2 at the same place on the same day, the above non-indicted 2 received KRW 10 million in cash and KRW 20 million in check under the pretext of giving the convenience of construction contract in relation to the reconstruction of the above chemical apartment. On July 2006, the above non-indicted 2 demanded the above non-indicted 2 to pay money under the same name after demanding the money from the above non-indicted 2 on July 6, 2006, and then transferred KRW 40 million on the same day and KRW 40 million on July 7, 2006, and KRW 25 million on the same month and around the same day.

Defendant 1 was appointed as the president of the partnership on October 22, 2008 after obtaining a regular approval of the promotion committee around February 5, 2007.

As a result, Defendant 1 accepted a bribe amounting to KRW 135 million in total in response to a solicitation by a person who will be the president of the reconstruction association who is deemed a public official in relation to his duties.

B. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances can be recognized.

1) Circumstances that seem to correspond to the facts charged

① In the investigative agency, Nonindicted 2 stated that he provided the instant money to Defendant 1, who was the chairman of the reconstruction promotion committee of the chemical apartment reconstruction promotion at the time of the said money, and paid the said money in order to have the reconstruction construction work ordered (Article 5

② Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 1 did not prepare a loan certificate with respect to the instant money, and did not set interest, maturity, etc.

③ Nonindicted 2 did not demand the payment of the instant money to Defendant 1.

2) Circumstances in need of reasonable doubt

① Nonindicted 2, at the court’s discretion, lent a loan to Defendant 1 for convenience in the reconstruction construction. However, Nonindicted 2 stated that he did not have any reason to make the convenience of Nonindicted Company 9’s construction orders between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1.

② Accordingly, Non-Indicted 2 stated that Defendant 1 did not need to separately select Non-Indicted 9 as the contractor and that he did not need to speak, and that he did mainly act as the counter-party to the rearrangement project operator, Defendant 1 did not particularly speak (the first,386 pages, the second trial date).

③ Nonindicted 2 stated that the money exchanged between Defendant 1 and himself was the borrowed money from the prosecution to this court, and Nonindicted 2 delivered the money via the real name account to Defendant 1.

④ Around August 2006, Non-Indicted 2 made a statement that he/she was paid KRW 15 million out of the above KRW 135 million and received KRW 10,000,000 within a few months (the second trial date) out of the remainder of the money (the second trial date). In addition, even though Defendant 1 was able to repay the remainder of KRW 20,000,000,000,000, it was stated that he/she was able to fully repay the remainder of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (the second trial date).

⑤ As above, Nonindicted Party 2 made a statement that the payment of money to Defendant 1 for a rapid period of time is due to the fact that it thought that it would have been prejudicial to the State of Home Affairs and Fisheries (the second trial date).

3) The circumstances in question prior to the fact that the instant money itself is not a bribe and suspected of being a bribe are nothing more than that of having convictions beyond the degree of deliberation that the instant money is likely to be a bribe provided for the same purpose as indicated in the facts charged, and it is nothing more than that of having a reasonable doubt excluded from a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

C. Conclusion

Thus, the evidence of this case presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, it is not guilty as per the disposition of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Support for Kim Tae-tae

Note 1) formally, from May 22, 2003, Nonindicted Company 1 was registered as “director” in the corporate register from May 22, 2003 to August 17, 2006, received wages from the said Company from March 2004 to March 2007, and was re-registered as “outside director” in the corporate register after September 20, 201.

2) Since the above loans borrowed from Hyundai Construction without compensation are appropriated from the sale price or charge of the sectional owners, such as the association members, etc. at the time of the liquidation of the association, the above rearrangement project service cost is ultimately transferred to the members and the general buyers, etc.