B. The offering of a bribe (with some recognition on Defendant Kim 00)

Name of crime: Indication of Bribery intention

Daejeon Geong-gu

Reference domicile Pyeongtaek-si

2. A. 00, Company Board;

Daejeon Geong-gu

Reference domicile Kim Jong-si

2.2.0:00;

Gangnam-gu Seoul residential

Gangnam-gu Seoul basic domicile

b.(b) Kim 00, Construction Business

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Gangseo-si in the original registration place

5. (b) 00, construction business;

Residential Leecheon-si

Heading City of the original domicile

b. Doo Kim00, Construction Business

Residential Leecheon-si

reference domicile Leecheon-si

Attorney JeonO, Kim 00, Lee 00, Kim 00

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

However, with respect to the defendant fixed0, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the defendant 100-hour community service work for 120 hours.

The amount of KRW 4,550,00 from Defendant 10, KRW 3,550 from Defendant 100, and KRW 3,550, and KRW 00 from Defendant 10 shall be collected respectively. Defendant 10,000, the amount equivalent to the above fine and surcharge, KRW 00, KRW 00, KRW 00, KRW 00 shall be ordered to pay each of the above fines.

Defendant 100 is a person in charge of construction management for the integrated construction project management (construction phase) of the Leecheon-si City/Do and the integrated construction project management (construction phase) ordered by Leecheon-si under the jurisdiction of 00 comprehensive architectural firms from June 26, 2017 to November 4, 2018, who is a person in charge of construction management for the integrated construction project management (construction phase) of the construction project.

Defendant 100 is a person who has worked as a construction management technician for the integrated construction management (construction phase) service contract for the Egycheon City City/Do and the integrated construction management of rural roads (construction phase) ordered by Leecheon-si under the jurisdiction of the comprehensive architectural office of Leecheon-si.

Defendant Jeon-O is an operator of Leecheon-si City City/Do and rural Road Construction Project, 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 00 - 00 00 - 00 - 00 1 - 00 - 00 1 -

Defendant Kim 00 is an operator of Leecheon-si City City/Do and rural Road Construction Business 00 - Road Packing Corporation between 00 and 00, and 000 corporation, which was subcontracted and executed with the Road Packaging Corporation (two tools) in agricultural and fishing villages.

The defendant 00 is the operator of the corporation 000, which performed the construction work of the Road Packing between Leecheon-si City City/Do and the rural road construction work between 00 and 00.

Defendant Kim 00 is an operator of 00 Construction Co., Ltd. who subcontracted and constructed the 00 Rig Agricultural and Fishing Villages Road Establishment Project (three tools) related to Leecheon-si City/Do and rural Road Construction Project.

1. Defendant 50, 100

Defendants are construction engineers who manage construction works in a proper manner in accordance with relevant statutes, standards, design documents, or other relevant documents, or manage construction projects in a way that they provide technical guidance on construction management, quality management, safety management, etc.

(a) Acceptance of bribe related to oil expenses;

The Defendants, while giving technical guidance to construction companies of Echeon City/Do and rural road construction projects on November 22, 2017, received total of KRW 3.6 million from construction companies in total in terms of oil cost from construction companies over 20 times from around October 10, 2018, as shown in the attached list of crimes in the annexed list of crimes, the Defendants received KRW 3.6 million from construction companies in total in terms of oil cost, on December 2017, at the Echeon-si Office located in Echeon-si Office, Leecheon-si, Inc., in order to support KRW 100,000 per month for each construction site, for the convenience of construction companies.

Accordingly, the Defendants, who are deemed as public officials, conspired to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(b) Bribery report and design modification-related bribery and bribe commitment.

around July 2018, the Defendants stated that the Defendants would make a report on the actual situation of at least KRW 100,000 per case on the actual condition of at least KRW 500,000 per case on the actual condition of at least KRW 100,000 per case and KRW 100,000 per case on the modification of the design of at least KRW 100,000 per case without filing an objection to the alteration of the construction of a road between KRW 00,000 per case, and KRW 50,000,000 per case without filing an objection to the alteration of the design of at least KRW 50,000 per case.

The Defendants received KRW 1.5 million from 00,000 from 10,000 to 200,000 from 1,50,000 from 1,000 to 1,50,000 from 1,000,000 from 1,00,000 to 2,000,000 from 1,00,000,000 from 1,00,000 to 2,000,000,000,000,000 from 0,000,000 to 00,000,000.

2. Acceptance of bribe related to Defendant 10’s holiday expenses

On September 20, 2018, the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 1 million in cash on the name of 1 million in the name of a person operating 000,000, at a parking lot for Echeon-si, Leecheon-si, a general sports ground, via an on-site director at the site office.

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

3. The preceding 00

(a) Offering of bribe related to oil expenses;

On November 22, 2017, from 000 to 'Ycheon-si', the Defendant viewed that the supervision would directly go on the spot to the site for the convenience of the construction company when supporting 100,000 won of the monthly oil cost for each construction site', and granted 20,000 won to YYY 1,3,5,9,13,16, and 200,000 won in the name of the oil expenses in the attached list of crimes, as described in paragraph 1,70,000 won in total in the name of the oil expenses, as described in paragraph 1,70,000 won in the attached list of crimes, in order to ensure the convenience of the construction company.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to staticO or static 00 which is regarded as a public official.

(b) Offering of a bribe related to a holiday bonus;

On September 20, 2018, the Defendant gave 1 million won cash in the name of the holiday expenses through the Field Director 00 at the Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, the comprehensive playground parking lot of Leecheon-si.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to 00 regarded as a public official.

4. Defendant Kim 00

(a) Offering of bribe related to oil expenses;

From around November 22, 2017 to 000, the Defendant viewed that “100,000 won for each construction site” to the effect that supervision would directly go to the site to the site for the convenience of the construction company, and that supervision would go to the site for the convenience of the construction company. On March 12, 2018, the Defendant provided KRW 200,000 as a merchandise coupon for oil for the purpose of oil expenses to 4,6, 11, 14, 17, and 18 as stated in the attached list of crimes, including giving KRW 120,000,000 as oil expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to 00, 100, which is regarded as a public official.

B. Giving of a bribe or offering of a bribe in relation to the actual report and design change

On July 2018, the Defendant made a report on the actual situation of at least KRW 100,000 per case, 500,000 per case, and 100,000 won or more per case, without raising an objection to the change of the design of at least KRW 500,000 per case, 50,000 won or more per case, and 100,000 won or more per case, 50,000 won or more per case, 50,000 won or more per case, 50,000 won or more per case, and 50,000,000 won per case.

At around August 3, 2018, the Defendant provided 00,000 won at the Echeon-si Office located on the second floor of Echeon-si, Echeon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, Lee In order to report on the actual condition of the Road Packing Work, the Road Packing Work, and the Road Packing Work (two tools), and to revise, review, and prepare the modification of the modification, and the design, up to 00,000 won, around September 21, 2018, the Defendant promised to provide two million won at the Echeon-si Office located on the second floor of Echeon-si, Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to 00, 100, which is deemed as a public official or expressed his intention to deliver a bribe.

5. Defendant Lee 00

From 000, the Defendant, at around November 22, 2017, issued 100,000 won in cash under the name of oil for the sake of the convenience of the construction company at each construction site, after hearing the phrase that the supervision would directly go to the site to the site for the convenience of the construction company. On December 2, 2017, the Defendant provided 10,000 won in cash from the office of Echeon-si located in Leecheon-si and Leecheon-si, around December 2, 2017, as described in No. 2,7,8,10,10,12, and 600,000 won in total under the name of oil for the purpose of oil expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to 00, 100, which is regarded as a public official.

6. Defendant Kim 00

On October 2018, 2018, the Defendant heard the horses to the effect that the supervision would directly conduct on-site inspections for the convenience of the construction company in the event of providing KRW 100,000 per month oil expenses for each construction site from the field office of the construction site of the 00-ri rural Road Packaging Corporation (three construction sections) in the Leecheon-si Ho-si Ho Ho-si Ho Ho-si Ho-si Ho Ho-si, Leecheon-si. On October 10, 2018, the Defendant provided KRW 100,000 as oil expenses to the Leecheon-si Office located on the 2nd floor of the construction site of the construction site.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a bribe to 00, 100, which is regarded as a public official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement on the preceding 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, Ma00, 00, 00, Gao00, GaoO, Gao00

1. Each written statement of the lowest number and JeonO;

1. Each certification of 00, KimO, and Hab00

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of a note seized by suspect from 00 shall be attached);

1. On-site construction ledger, details of payment of 00 construction, written supervision service contracts, order for supervision, direction for business, each starting and attached documents, certificate of employment, actual report prepared by the regular 00, list of design changes, actual report prepared by the regular 00, and written opinion on supervision and examination of design changes, and other related documents, including documents prepared by the regular 00, and photographs of 300 business photographs;

Application of Statutes

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

○ Defendant 100: Each of the following punishments: Articles 129(1) and 30 (the points of acceptance of bribe and promise of bribe as stated in the judgment of the court below), Article 129(1) (the points of acceptance of bribe as stated in the judgment of the court below) of the Criminal Act, Article 129(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific

○ Defendant 100: Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and

○ Pre-Defendant 00, Kim00, Lee 00: each criminal law Article 133(1) of the Criminal Code, each choice of fines

○ Defendant Kim00: Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 50, 100, 200, 38(1)2, and 50: former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 500: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 50, 100: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 50, 100

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under the law: Imprisonment of one month to seven years, and a fine of eight million won to thirty million won; (b) crimes under Articles 1, 2, and 3 (Articles 1, 1, 2, and 3 (Articles 1, 1, 2, and 3 of the recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines); and

[Determination of Type] Acceptance of Bribery [Type 1] 10,000 won or less [Special Aggravation] 10,000 won: positive demand

[The scope of recommendation and recommendation range] Aggravation of increase, the scope of recommendation range according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for 8 months to 3 years (the upper limit of crime ＋ 1/2 of the upper limit of crime + 1/3 of the upper limit of crime ＋ 3)

(c) Determination of sentence: (1) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of one year and a fine of two million won; (2) the sentence of imprisonment for a term of eight months, the suspension of execution for a term of two years and a fine of eight million won shall be determined as per Disposition in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the position of the Defendants, degree of participation, age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and

The crime of this case is a person who exercises overall control over the supervision over the instant supervision group in the case of Defendant 100, by promising the Defendants, who are deemed public officials, to receive or accept a bribe actively and repeatedly in the application of the crime of this case, thereby impairing the fairness and the indiciability of the relevant duties. The crime of this case is not sufficient in its nature; the amount of money and valuables which the Defendants promised to receive or deliver are not substantial;

The facts that the Defendants were led to confessions: the Defendants’ confessions; the Defendants were first offenders who did not have any criminal power; Defendant 100 appears to have used the money and valuables which were accepted for maintaining the office, such as oil expenses, etc.; Defendant 100, there are circumstances to consider the process of participation; Defendant 100 supported the spouse and family members whose health is not good.

2. Defendant Jeon Soo-tae, KimO, Lee 00, Kim 00

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under the law: ① Defendant JeonO, KimO, and Lee 00: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 30,000,000; ② Defendant KimO: fine of KRW 50,00 to KRW 20,000; and

B. Determination of sentence: ① a fine of KRW 3 million: ② a fine of KRW 4 million; ③ a fine of KRW 700,000; ④ a fine of KRW 700,000; and ④ a defendant Kim 00: a fine of KRW 300,000; the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the status of the Defendants, degree of participation, age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and

In the case of the crime of this case, the defendants committed the crime of this case again during the suspended execution period in the case of the defendant Kim 00, who again committed the crime of this case while the defendants committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period for a separate case. The crime of this case again committed the crime of this case while the defendants committed the crime of this case again during the suspended execution period for a separate case of the defendant Kim 00, while the defendants committed the crime of this case again during the suspended execution period for a separate case.

In the case of confessions, the defendants appear to have given or expressed their intent to give a bribe according to the demands of regular0, regular00, and KimO, the amount of money and valuables granted in the case of defendants Lee 00 and KimO is not so significant, and in the case of defendants Kim 00, Lee 00, Lee 00, and Kim 00, there are no identical criminal records.

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judge Dok-un