Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment

140 (Joint Judgment) Judgment

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the acceptance of bribe from F, pursuant to a partnership agreement entered into with F by the defendant

With respect to the acceptance of bribe from D, it is not a bribe, but a bribe because there is no relevance to duties or a quid pro quo, and ② as to the acceptance of bribe from D, it is not a bribe because D provided automobile leasing expenses and lent money to AI due to the defendant's friendship, not a bribe because it has no relevance to duties or quid pro quo, ③ as to the receipt of bribe from BF, it is accepted as a reward for attracting funds, as the defendant received a reward for business relationship or quid pro quo, it is not a bribe because there is no relevance to duties or quid pro quo, and ④ insofar as the acceptance of bribe is not recognized by the defendant

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

With respect to the part of KRW 90 million and KRW 45 million that the defendant received from D, it can be fully recognized that D is a bribe related to duties and quid pro quo, with a special interest on the special part of the defendant.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) The point of acceptance of bribe from F

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant received a bribe from F in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

① The Defendant and F met by the introduction of Q in early 2008, and thereafter the Defendant introduced F and R, thereby making an investment contract between F and R to enter into force.

② In receiving money from F, the Defendant received money from F for a long time using the account in the name of the wife AH or an account in the name of AI, and the Defendant used the bank corporate card issued in the name of the K in the name of the K in the actual operation of the F for a long time. In the case of money deposited in the name of AH, the Defendant managed the account by depositing the money deposited in the name of AH into the wife BY account via the long-term BY account, and by pretending the place of cash withdrawal (the original judgment 748 to 754 pages 754).

③ From June 1, 2007 to February 15, 2009, the Defendant was to be M and 3 investigators of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office; from February 16, 2009 to July 25, 2010, the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office; from July 26, 2010 to July 1, 2012, the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office M and 1 investigators of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office; from July 2, 2012 to July 2, 2012, the head of the Seo-gu District Prosecutors’ Office E division of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office was working in the investigation agency around 208; from the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office to the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office, the Defendant was investigated from the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office about KRW 76 billion; from the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office on July 26, 201 to the 3rd District Prosecutors’ Office on July 25, 2015.

It was also stated to the effect that the funds deposited in AH account were withdrawn in cash and delivered to Defendant’s wife.

⑤ At an investigative agency, F believed that the defendant could be the wind-free door, and that a certain problem arises, the defendant would have been expected to help him/her, the defendant would have to receive help at the time when he/she is investigated by an investigative agency, and the defendant would have been informed from December 2008 that he/she had been investigated before or after being investigated by him/her (the original trial record 2,430, 2,438, 2, 439, 2,441 page).

⑤ Around February 2009, F made a statement to the effect that it was prepared at the Defendant’s request. From February 2009 to February 1, 2009, F deposited KRW 10 million per month with an account under the name of AH, and deposit KRW 300,000 per month with an AI after preparing the same business contract, and paid KRW 300,000,000 per month with the certificate of deposit. In light of the Defendant and F’s assertion, even though F knew that the R multi-level fraud case was known on October 208 and the investment amount was due to R’s multi-level fraud, it is an example that the Defendant demanded more money from the loan of the same business contract even though F was aware that the amount invested was due to R’s multi-level fraud.

7) Although the Defendant and F alleged that they entered into a partnership agreement, there seems to be no circumstance to view it as a normal partnership agreement (other than introducing R to F, it does not seem that the Defendant separately invested in money in a closed-end investment contract, and F does not seem to have been able to promptly enter the funds of R, and it does not appear that the Defendant has contributed to the Defendant as a partner of a high-end investment contract (the Defendant and F have examined various contracts in this court, and received a report on the progress of the contract from R and F, but merely merely on such circumstance alone, it can be acknowledged that F has continuously paid 50% or 30% of the profits to the Defendant through the settlement of profits in accordance with the agreement between the Defendant and F). In full view of the fact that: (a) the Defendant and F did not appear to have contributed to the Defendant as a partner of a high-end investment contract; and (b) the Defendant and F did not appear to have been paid a large amount of money in relation to the Defendant’s duties.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the above circumstances revealed by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① Until now, F has never lent the certificate of deposit without any security, and if the Defendant was not a public official of the prosecution, F did not lend the certificate of deposit equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion without any security. Moreover, if the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 300,000 per month to AI would not help the Defendant who was a public official of the prosecution would have been at a disadvantage, the Defendant stated that he would have been infinite (the evidence record 2,026, 2,029 of the original trial case).

② In the instant case prosecuted on the ground that F offered a bribe to the Defendant (Tgu District Court 2014 High Court 2015No545, etc.), F was convicted of both the portion “AH’s KRW 971 million with the account under the name of H, KRW 197 million with the borrowed account used by AI (hereinafter “AJ”), KRW 197 million with the corporate body card settlement amount, KRW 17498,470,000, KRW 3000,000, KRW 3000,000 with the transferred deposit certificate, KRW 10,000,000 with the cashier’s checks, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015No231), but dissatisfied with this, the appeal was dismissed, and this part of the conviction was affirmed in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2015Do165444).

③ In attracting business funds from R, F has some nature of money, valuables, and property gains received from F by performing an important role as a honorarium for attracting funds, and even if money, valuables, and property gains received by the Defendant are not in a quid pro quo relationship with the Defendant’s individual act, in light of the above circumstances, the entire money, valuables, and property gains received by the Defendant cannot be deemed as having the nature of the Defendant’s act as a consideration for the Defendant’s act of performance of duties, and it is sufficient to evaluate that such money, valuables, and property gains have reached the point where the fairness of performance of duties can be doubtful due to the receipt of such money

2) The point of acceptance of bribe from D

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant could have received a bribe from D in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

(1) When the defendant receives money from D as criminal facts, the details investigated by D with investigative agencies are as follows (the evidence records of the original trial 2015 high-priced 40 case 824, 825 pages):

A person shall be appointed.

(2) While asserting that D does not pay a bribe to the defendant, at the investigation agency, D provided AI in a relationship between the defendant and the defendant at the defendant's request, with the franchise vehicle (AW) in the name of the defendant and the NAX vehicle (AX), and the lease vehicle cost was borne by the defendant, but the lease cost was not paid only once, the lease cost was not paid, and there was no response, but further demand was not made. On October 8, 2010, it was accurately related to the remittance of 10 million won to AI but it was difficult for the defendant to pay taxes of 70 million won, but it was difficult for the defendant to do so, 200,000 won and 200 households to the effect that the defendant did not receive money from the defendant's 1 to 200,000 won, and it was difficult for the defendant to receive money from the defendant's 4 to 7,000 won, and 1 to 3,000 won were transferred to the defendant's prosecutor's office without being aware of the defendant's disadvantage.

③ At the time of the termination of the lease of a low-income vehicle, D stated to the effect that the case was only 10 million won for the reimbursement of the existing lease cost, but did not receive the lease cost from the Defendant, and that the case was not at issue due to criminal cases, etc. (the evidence records 2,570, 2575 pages). (4) In the case of the low-income vehicle and the No. NA, it was known by the investigative agency that the Defendant was aware that the case would have been handled, and that the vehicle would have been replaced at the low-income vehicle, and that it would not be known that it would have been 20 billion won for the first time, and that it would not have known that it would have been 20 billion won for the first time after the fact that the case would have been reported to the effect that it would have been 40 billion won for the first time, and that it would not have known that it would have been in charge of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, including the fact that the Defendant would have been in charge of 200.D and its own opinion.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the above circumstances revealed by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① Although the Defendant appears to have accumulated a substantial relationship with D around around 2004, the Defendant continued to receive money and valuables for a prolonged period of up to five years, and the sum of the money and valuables exceeds KRW 76 million. Moreover, as the Defendant possessed considerable funds from D during the period of receiving money and valuables, there was no room for requesting D to request for the payment of the cost of leasing cars or of moving-out expenses, etc. of AI in an internal relationship. Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to receive money and valuables without any distance, as natural.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the amount of money and valuables by the defendant is due to the need for school division taking into account the amount of money and valuables in accordance with social norms or personal friendship relations.

D From December 2013 to December 2014, 2014, the Defendant and the 158 call were included in seeking advice on the case that was accused by the Financial Supervisory Service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da40, Mar. 1, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 1,599-1,600, Mar. 1, 2014). D was accused by the Financial Supervisory Service and was investigated in the M division of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office around October 2014 (Evidence 2015 High Court Decision 657-659, Jan. 1, 600), and the lower court’s judgment prior to such circumstances (ii) prior to such circumstances, the reason and motive for granting D himself money and valuables for D are not purely visible.

③ As seen earlier, the Defendant actively endeavored to assist the prosecution investigators who were in charge of D in making phone calls. In light of these circumstances, the reason why the Defendant voluntarily received money and valuables and pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 76 million from D for about five years is that if a criminal case occurs to D himself/herself, the Defendant is aware that he/she was due to the fact that he/she was unaware of his/her intention by taking advantage of his/her superior status as a public official in the prosecution, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant and D merely provided money and valuables and pecuniary benefits to him/her in an abstract and vague expectation sense.

(4) In light of the above circumstances, even if there was a considerable friendly link between the Defendant and D, the entire amount of money and valuables and property gains equivalent to KRW 76,011,267, which are received from D as above cannot be deemed as being in an indivisible nature as consideration for the Defendant’s occupational act. It is sufficient to evaluate that such money and valuables and property gains have reached the level of doubting the fairness in the performance of duties from the general public due to the number of such money and valuables and property gains.

3) The point of acceptance of bribe from BF

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant could have received a bribe from BF in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

① Around 2007, the Defendant became aware of BN through the introduction of BM. Around January 10, 2008, BN was detained on the ground that the investigation agency worked as a multi-level sales company with R, and thereafter, BN was under the control of door-to-door sales company related to the act of receiving the same goods, while creating and operating a door-to-door sales company that is not related to R, and was under the control of the door-to-door sales company that is related to the act of receiving the same goods. Around February 10, 2008, BN introduced the Defendant to R and introduced BN upon request by the Plaintiff that he was aware of the fact that BN was a public prosecutor during the process of meeting BN’s knowledge of D (the evidence record of the original trial 2,687-2,690 pages).

② On January 23, 2008, the Defendant: (a) opened the instant inquiry through the instant search network with respect to the UUB, the executive president AB, and the CA, etc., a company run by R on January 23, 2008; (b) opened the instant inquiry; (c) opened the instant inquiry network with respect to R through the search network of the prosecution; (b) opened the K 2015 high-speed 140, 190; and (c) opened the K 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(4) The BF received KRW 2 billion on the condition that the BF would have received an investment of approximately KRW 30 billion in connection with the BJ development project, and thereafter, would have received KRW 2 billion on the condition that the BF would have repaid the debt of an individual of the BF and would not have made a repayment to the R (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1454, Mar. 14, 201). The Defendant appeared to have participated in the relevant job and the BF would have delivered KRW 2 billion out of KRW 2 billion received from R. BF received from R, while attracting a large amount of investment from R, it is extremely rare that BF would additionally receive KRW 2 billion which would have not been returned from investors.

⑤ At an investigative agency, BG was investigated by BF on several occasions, such as having received complaints from BS and B in connection with BJ development projects. During that process, BG stated that: (a) the Defendant was consulted with the Defendant; and (b) if he was aware of a person working for the prosecution or the police, he/she would have the case identified; (c) the evidence record of 2015 high-ranking 140 cases and 1,321, 1,323 pages;

④ On February 25, 2008, March 31, 2008, April 11, 200, the Defendant, through his subordinate staff, inquired the contents of the case between BF and BG through the prosecution search network. On February 25, 2008, BG made a statement to the effect that, with respect to the case of the Daegu Prosecutors’ Office No. 2007 type No. 5297, on which CB filed a complaint against BG at an investigative agency, he/she would be "whether or not the case will be a case?" The Defendant was consulted thereon and then delivered money to the Defendant (the original appellate court’s evidence records 1,321,323, 1,324, 1,35, 1336 pages). On June 25, 2009, BG had been sentenced to a fine not later than 1, 2005, 209, 2018.

8) In light of the fact that “BF” was aware of the fact that the funds invested from R were illegal proceeds, and that the Defendant, a public official of the prosecution, participated in the process of additionally receiving KRW 2 billion from investors’ investment even if BF was made an investment from investors’ R, and that the Defendant was subject to investigation by the investigative agency at the time of paying money to the Defendant, and that the Defendant appeared to have consulted the Defendant with respect to the case, and that the Defendant searched the case with respect to BF and BG, it can be recognized that the Defendant received money from the BF in relation to his duties.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not accepted. ① At the first instance court on March 10, 2008, the amount of KRW 1.8 billion out of the check 2 billion in the restaurant located in the Daegu Suwon-gu Sudong-dong Modong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu-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-gu (hereinafter referred to as “BF”) delivered the Defendant, and the Defendant sent BG-dong-gu-gu-gu-dong-dong-gu-gu-dong-dong-gu-Appellee-gu-gu-gu-gu-Appellee-

However, the above statement is contrary to the defendant's statement of the court below (the trial record 139 pages) that the BF received 2 billion won of the check from R at the above restaurant and delivered or attempted to deliver 200 million won of the check at the restaurant and at its office to the defendant, and that the defendant received 200 million won of the check from BF and BG, and it is contrary to the defendant's statement of the court below (the trial record 139 pages) that the defendant received 200 million won of the check from BF, and it is contrary to the statement (the "R shall be paid 2 billion won to BF) prepared by R to BF."

(B) At the time BG delivered KRW 200 million to the Defendant at the above office, BG called “sever ?” (Evidence No. 2,794 of the original trial record No. 2,794, the trial record No. 718). In light of this, BG and BF, etc. at the time, are deemed to have been aware that the Defendant was a public official and was unable to receive an easy check, and BG stated that they did not receive a check as a public official (the trial record No. 718 of the trial record).

③ Even if money and valuables received from BF by having the Defendant play an important role in attracting business funds from R, and the money and valuables received by the Defendant are not in a quid pro quo relationship with the Defendant’s individual act of duties and consideration, in light of the above circumstances, the entire money and valuables received by the Defendant cannot be deemed as having the nature of consideration for the Defendant’s act of duties inseparably, and it is sufficient to evaluate that the money and valuables received by the Defendant have reached such a degree that it would be doubtful to the fairness of performing duties from the general public due to the receipt of money and valuables.

4) Concealment of criminal proceeds and the gist thereof.

As long as the judgment of the court below on the part of acceptance of bribe by the defendant which the court below found guilty is just, it cannot be viewed as criminal proceeds, and this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

1) The portion received KRW 90 million from D

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the possibility of receiving a loan was excluded from reasonable doubt, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant and D stated to the effect that: (a) the portion in which D deposited KRW 90 million in the account under the name of the Defendant in the investigative agency from the lower court to the lower court’s trial ( KRW 30 million on December 31, 2008, KRW 30 million on January 21, 2009, KRW 30 million on February 6, 2009, KRW 30 million on February 6, 2009) is merely a return of money that D received from the Defendant.

② The Defendant stated to the effect that the amount of KRW 100 million was invested in D in cash, among the money received from F before receiving deposit of KRW 90 million in the AZ account, and that the principal was returned. Before December 31, 2008, the Defendant received money from F from F to the AH’s account, and paid the money received from F in small amount over several occasions (310-315 pages, 748-759 page).

③ When D pays KRW 90 million to the Defendant, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that D paid a certain amount of cash to D in the process, or that D paid a certain amount of money to D was invested and lent to D, or that it was requested to simply request the Defendant to pay a certain amount of money. (The above KRW 90 million was remitted to the Defendant after the end of 2008 and around early 2009, and the Defendant and D’s financial sources were not clearly explained, and there was a doubt that D’s money paid to the Defendant may be illegal due to lack of consistency in the Defendant’s and D’s statements. However, it is difficult to view that D’s case related to D’s violation of the Labor Standards Act was paid a certain amount of money to the Defendant on March 2, 2009 (which was submitted to the Defendant for a violation of the former Act, on the grounds that D’s financial statements were continuously received a large amount of money from F around 2008 and that it was difficult to view that D’s financial statements were paid to the Defendant.

(6D seems to have required considerable funds in the process of acquiring AP in the last half of 2008, and it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the defendant would have received or contributed money from the defendant in the process.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the above circumstances as stated by the court below, D had the idea to assist the defendant in the event of a criminal case, etc. with respect to the amount of KRW 10 million transferred to the automobile lease cost of KRW 66 million and AI as stated above, and even urging the defendant to change the lease cost. On the other hand, as to the above KRW 90 million, it was not sufficient to regard the above KRW 90 million as money or valuables of a nature different from the above automobile lease cost of the defendant, and there was no statement that the defendant would have attempted to assist in criminal case. Thus, the above KRW 90 million as well as the above KRW 90 million as stated by the court below is just, and there was no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor, and thus the prosecutor's assertion in this part is not accepted.

2) The portion that received an amount equivalent to KRW 45 million, such as subscription money for convertible bonds, etc.

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to find that the possibility of the Defendant to receive an investment refund was excluded from reasonable doubt, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Around October 30, 2009, the Defendant invested in D’s acquisition of the AR convertible bonds issued by D three copies of the certificate of deposit issued by Korea Bank (Evidence No. 1,054 of the first instance trial case No. 2015, 446,027, and the due date of March 29, 2010) at D’s request.

② At the investigative agency, D demanded the Defendant to preserve 30 million won at a discount of KRW 270 million from the Defendant’s certificate of deposit issued by the Defendant, and it was the Defendant to make an offer of KRW 30 million under the name of the Defendant to make up for the amount of KRW 30 million, and even if it was compensated for KRW 30 million, it was necessary to issue convertible bonds at the time to prepare for the company’s operating fund. Since it could be less than invested in issuing convertible bonds at the time, it could be able to bear expenses to the extent that it could have been invested and paid KRW 15 million at the Defendant’s request for additional payment of KRW 15 million equivalent to interest (the evidence records of the original case 2015Da400).

③ AY, who has worked as a regular director of AR, ordered D to make an offer by proxy on behalf of a list because there are many negative factors, such as the company image, etc., and D at the time, knew about D’s “Is only if Is no subscription?” (Evidence No. 654-655 of the original instance case No. 2015Da40), and expressed to the effect that D recommended to make an offer to the neighboring people to success in capital increase through the issuance of convertible bonds, and even the employees of the company also recommended to make an offer of convertible bonds.

④ The Defendant appears to have invested KRW 300 million in the certificate of deposit in the issuance of convertible bonds upon D’s solicitation; the Defendant could have been guaranteed the payment of KRW 34.5 million on March 29, 2010, which is the maturity date of the certificate of deposit; D was inviting investors to issue convertible bonds at the time of the issuance of the convertible bonds; and considering the high risk of investors following the issuance of the convertible bonds, it appears that there was a reason to guarantee additional benefits for successful issuance of the convertible bonds; and the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 315 million (including the amount of KRW 27.5 million received in cash at discount of the certificate of deposit), which the Defendant received at maturity, does not seem to have been excessively excessive compared to KRW 34.5 million, which the Defendant could have received at maturity.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the above circumstances stated by the court below, i.e., ① the above 45 million won portion, like the above 90 million won portion, D did not demand the return of the above 45 million won portion to the defendant, and there was no statement that the defendant attempted to assist in criminal cases. It is sufficient to view the above 45 million won as money and valuables different from the above 45 million won automobile lease cost, ② the defendant's assertion that the above 45 million won amount was received at around October 30 and around January 12, 2010, and it is difficult for the prosecutor to regard the above 45 million won portion as a criminal case against D, and it is hard to see that the prosecutor's allegation that the above 45 million won amount was under suspicion of violation of the Labor Standards Act, and that the prosecutor's allegation that the above 45 million won portion of the case was under a reasonable disposition on November 1, 2010, and that there was no reason to believe that the above 400 million won portion of the case was under the above misunderstanding of evidence.

The Defendant, while serving as a senior public official of the prosecution, has significantly undermined the fairness and influence in performing duties of a public official, and the social trust thereon, and the sum of money, valuables, and property gains received as a bribe exceeds KRW 1.8 billion. The Defendant is very heavy in that the crime was committed in that the sum of money, valuables, and property gains received as a bribe exceeds KRW 1.8 billion. The Defendant initially attempted to transfer the bribe to the title holder of the next borrowed account by asserting that he was received as a borrowed account at an investigative agency that he was not related to the instant case, and most of his facts were revealed by evidence that he participated in the said case, but up to now, the Defendant was distributed profits based on his business relationship with the offerer.

The vindication shows that the responsibility is to be avoided while maintaining it.

On the other hand, in the case of a bribe received from F or F, the defendant has some nature as a referral fee or case fee according to the inducement of funds along with the nature of the consideration for the act of providing duties, and there is no evidence that the defendant had taken to perform his duties in an illegal manner upon the solicitation of the bribe payer.

The Defendant appears to have contributed to the deposit of 71 billion won, which is almost all of the money acquired by the F from R and the benefit therefrom. The Defendant appears to have served as an initial offender who has no criminal power and as a public prosecutor for at least 20 years, while serving as a public official in the prosecution.

In full view of all circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is determined to be within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to the Defendant’s liability, and the sentence is too heavy or unreasonable. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-term

Judge Jeon Soo-soo