Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for four months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 3 shall be suspended.

30 million won from Defendant 2 and three million won from Defendant 3 shall be additionally collected.

All appeals against Defendant 1, Defendant 4 and Prosecutor 1 are dismissed.

A. Defendants

1) Defendant 1

The sentence imposed by the first instance court on Defendant 1 (the imprisonment of 8 months for the crime of 1.A. (1) through (3) at the time of the original trial, and the imprisonment of 1.A. (4) and 1.B.) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant 2

A) On the judgment of the first instance court: The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant 2 (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B) On the judgment of the second instance: Defendant 2 did not commit any crime identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the second instance. Nevertheless, the second instance court convicted all the above facts of the crime. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if it differs from the opinion of the family, the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) that the court below sentenced against Defendant 2 is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant 3

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant 3 (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

4) Defendant 4

Defendant 4 did not receive a bribe from Nonindicted 14, 15, and 7 as stated in each criminal facts in the judgment of the second instance. Nevertheless, the second instance court convicted all of the above criminal facts. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if it differs from the family opinion, the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment) sentenced to Defendant 4 is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that Defendant 1 acquired 30 million won from the victim Nonindicted 16 as stated in this part of the facts charged (Fraud). Nevertheless, the first instance court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment as to the grounds for appeal, the first instance court sentenced Defendant 2 as to Defendant 2 ex officio, Defendant 2 as to the first instance court 2009Kadan50, etc., Defendant 2 as to the second instance court 2009Kadan2704, respectively, and Defendant 2 as to each of the above two appeals cases, and Defendant 2 filed an appeal as to the above two appeals, and the appellate court decided to hold concurrent trials. Each of the offenses in the first and second instance judgment against Defendant 2 as to the second instance court under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act is related to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment, so in this respect, both the first and second judgment as to Defendant 2 cannot be exempted.

Nevertheless, among the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the remaining arguments except for Defendant 2’s assertion of unfair sentencing are still subject to a trial by this Court.

3. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1

1) Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

이 부분 공소사실의 요지는, 「 피고인 1(이하 3.의 가.항에서는 ‘피고인’이라고만 한다)은 2002. 2. 8. 목포시 산정동에 있는 ○○수산업협동조합 ▷▷지점에서 피해자 공소외 16에게 “여관신축공사비가 필요하니 3,000만원만 대출해주면 한 달 안에 틀림없이 갚아주겠다”라고 거짓말하였다. 그러나 피고인은 사실은 일정한 수입이나 재산이 없었으며, 위 조합으로부터 대출받은 2,000만원에 대한 이자 합계 약 주1) 330만원 과 피고인의 집을 담보로 위 조합으로부터 대출받은 5,000만원에 대한 매월 이자 약 70만원이 연체되어 있었고, 피고인은 모텔을 매수하면서 떠안은 은행대출금 채무 6억원과 위 모텔을 담보로 대출받은 채무 2억원에 대한 매월 이자 약 650만원이 연체되어 있어 위 대출금 3,000만원을 갚을 의사나 능력이 없었다. 피고인은 위와 같이 피해자를 기망하여 피해자로부터 공소외 17 명의의 농업협동조합 계좌 (번호 생략)을 이용하여 2회에 걸쳐 3,000만원을 송금받아 이를 편취하였다」는 것이다.

B) The judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the defendant's defense counsel, the court below held that ① although the defendant was unable to use funds for the above remodeling construction work, it was difficult for the defendant to use funds from the non-indicted 16 to the non-indicted 16 in the auction procedure for the above remodeling work, the defendant purchased the building on June 2, 2001 and purchased the building on the 1st floor and the 5th floor above, and actually owned the above remodeling building by completing the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's wife's name on December 12, 2001. ② The money deposited from the above remodeling construction cost is up to 416 million won only if it is objectively confirmed that the defendant had no possibility of selling the above remodeling work, and ③ the defendant borrowed money from the non-indicted 16 to the above remodeling work cost, ④ The defendant could have proved that the above remodeling work cost had no possibility of using the above remodeling work cost again due to the lack of any new construction cost.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of all the circumstances properly decided by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, we accept the decision of the court below that acquitted of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and thus the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

2) Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

It is recognized that Defendant 1 made confession of all of the instant crimes and recognized his mistake.

However, on the other hand, Defendant 1 contributed to Defendant 2’s election of the head of the cooperative in the process of the ○○○ Cooperative election. Defendant 2 had a significant influence on the recruitment of the head of the cooperative, Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 received money in the name of solicitation from others as he had a considerable friendship with Defendant 2, and it is not good that the crime was committed as a bribe in connection with the personnel solicitation. Defendant 1 committed the above crime in relation to the personnel management of the ○○○○ Cooperative, even though Defendant 1 had the record of illegal involvement in the ○○○○ Cooperative election and was punished twice, and committed again in relation to the above crime. In full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case including Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, etc., the above assertion by Defendant 1 cannot be accepted since it is too unreasonable to accept the above assertion by Defendant 1.

B. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 2 (with respect to the second instance judgment)

1) As to each acceptance of bribe

A) The part concerning the acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 5

원심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 1은 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 ㉮ 피고인 2(이하 3.의 나.항에서는 ‘피고인‘이라고만 한다)이 2005. 3. 14. 12:00경 조합장 선거 출마예정자인 공소외 18을 만나 선거 불출마를 부탁하게 된 경위 및 당시 피고인 및 공소외 18 등의 발언내용, ㉯ 피고인 1이 같은 날 13:00경 자리를 옮겨 공소외 18에게 선거 불출마를 구체적으로 요청하고, 공소외 18로부터 불출마 조건으로 1억 5,000만원을 요구받아 피고인에게 그 내용을 전달하였던 사정, ㉰ 이에 피고인이 공소외 18에게 불출마 조건으로 8,000만원을 제시하고, 동시에 그 금액은 조카 공소외 19의 취직을 부탁한 공소외 5로부터 마련하라고 지시하였던 사정, ㉱ 피고인 1이 공소외 18 측에 그와 같은 내용을 전달하자 공소외 18이 이에 동의하여 같은 날 20:00경 피고인, 피고인 1 등이 있는 자리에서 선거 불출마 의사를 표시하게 된 경위, ㉲ 피고인 1이 2005. 3. 16. 10:00경 공소외 5로부터 조카 공소외 19의 취직에 대한 청탁 명목으로 자기앞수표 1장(1,000만원)과 현금 500만원을 건네받아 이를 피고인에게 건네주자, 피고인이 위 자기앞수표를 복사한 후 피고인 1에게 다시 건네주면서 이를 공소외 18 측에 주라고 지시하였던 사정, ㉳ 이에 피고인 1이 그 무렵 공소외 18 측 선거운동원들인 공소외 20, 21, 22에게 금원을 전달하게 된 경위 및 실제 금원의 교부방법 등에 대해서 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ② 위와 같은 피고인 1의 진술은 공소외 5, 18, 20, 21 등이 수사기관 및 원심 법정에서 한 진술과도 대체로 일치하는 점, ③ 피고인 역시 2005. 3. 14. 공소외 18에게 선거 불출마를 부탁한 사실, 피고인 1로부터 공소외 18과 8,000만원에 불출마하기로 협의한 내용을 전해 들은 사실, 같은 날 공소외 18로부터 선거 불출마 선언을 직접 들은 사실, 피고인 1이 공소외 5로부터 받은 자기앞수표 1장을 가져와 피고인에게 보여준 사실 등은 인정하고 있는데다가, 특히 피고인이 2005. 9. 27. 검찰에서 조사받을 당시(당시 피고인은 피고인 1에 대한 수산업협동조합법위반 사건에서 참고인 신분으로 조사를 받았다) “ 피고인 1이 2005. 3. 16.경 저에게 찾아와 공소외 18 측이 불출마를 조건으로 1억 5,000만원을 요구하여 8,000만원에 합의하였다면서 일단 계약금조로 1,000만원을 주겠다면서 저에게 1,000만원권 수표를 보여 주어, 제가 피고인 1에게 절대 안 된다고 하면서 그래도 혹시 피고인 1이 위 수표를 공소외 18 측에 주지 않을까 하는 염려에서 위 수표를 복사해 놓기도 하였고, 그런데도 피고인 1이 자신이 ’지 선에서 알아서 한다‘고 고집을 피우기에 당시 완도에서 전남 조합장 협의회 모임이 있어서 ’알아서 하라‘고 한 사실이 있다”는 취지로 진술하였던 점, ④ 피고인 1은 2001년 조합장 선거에서도 피고인을 도와 피고인이 조합장으로 당선되는 데 기여했을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 이외에도 피고인에게 공소외 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 등의 채용을 부탁하여 실제로 위 사람들이 ○○수협에 채용되었던 점, ⑤ 피고인 1이 피고인의 선거와 관련해서 피고인으로부터 지시를 받거나 피고인과의 협의도 없이 독자적으로 선거운동을 하거나 공소외 18 측에 8,000만원을 지급하겠다는 의사표시를 한 후 실제로 공소외 18 측 선거운동원들에게 금원을 지급할 만한 동기나 이유를 찾기 어려운 점 등 이 사건 기록에 의해 인정되는 제반사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인 1과 공모하여 공소외 5로부터 뇌물을 수수하였던 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

B) The part concerning the acceptance of bribe related to Nonindicted 6 and 7

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., ① Nonindicted 6 and 7 purchased money from the investigative agency to the court of the court below by requesting the Defendant from the investigative agency to join and deliver the money, the process of preparing and delivering the money at the time, ② Nonindicted 6 and 7 subsequently subscribed to the ○○○ Cooperation, ③ the details of transactions on the ○○ Cooperation Account in the name of Nonindicted 6, and all other circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant received a bribe from Nonindicted 6 and 7, such as the written facts charged, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C) Part on the acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 8

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, ① Nonindicted 8 was found from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and demanded a postponement of the repayment of the obligation to ○○○ Fisheries Cooperative, the circumstance that the Defendant at the time instructed Nonindicted 8 to submit a written request for postponement of obligation, the circumstance that Nonindicted 9 was to donate the forest of 900 at the time, and the circumstances that Nonindicted 1 delivered to the Defendant on or around December 2007 through Defendant 1 were consistently and specifically stated. ② The above statement of Nonindicted 8 is consistent with the statements made by Defendant 1 at the investigative agency and the court of the court of the trial, ③ the Defendant was found to be the office and requested by Nonindicted 8 and Defendant 1 to return the written request for postponement of obligation, and all other circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant received the bribe from Nonindicted 8 as stated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, the allegation in this part of this case is without merit.

2) As to the obstruction of performance of official duties

In accordance with the records of this case, the following circumstances are as follows: ① Nonindicted 10, a slope belonging to the Sinpo Coast Police Station, along with Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 31, the Gyeongpo Coast Guard, from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, discovered the site of a marine waste collection center located at the ○○○○○ River Auction House as suspected of violating the Malodor Prevention Act; and the Defendant thereafter made a statement on May 9, 2008, and the circumstances at that time, etc. of intimidation as stated in the facts charged; ② the above Nonindicted 10 made a statement coincide with the contents of the statements written by the above Nonindicted 31,30; ③ the Defendant also recognized the fact that the Defendant called at the Sinpo Coast Coast Police Station and the office in charge of the investigation and the office in charge of the violation of the Malodor Prevention Act in order to identify the circumstances discovered by the violation of the Malodor Prevention Act on the date and time stated in this part of the facts charged. In full view of all circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion on this part of the charges is unreasonable.

3) As to obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., (1) the defendant was present at the prosecution office 404 located in Mapo-dong Office 404 on February 25, 2009, and (3) the defendant was asked at the prosecution office 200 on the charge that he received 1 point of Mapo-dong 404 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 1 point as bribe from non-indicted 8 on March 2008, and (2) the defendant was asked at the prosecution office 200 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 20 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 20 on the charge that he received 1 point of Mapo-dong 20 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 1, 300 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 1, 300 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong 1, 194 on the charge that he received Mapo-dong-dong 20 on the first 1, 1,0000.

4) As to intimidation

이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피해자 공소외 32는 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 2008. 12. 19.부터 2009. 2. 24.까지 사이에 피고인 및 성명불상자, ○○수협 ◁◁지점장 공소외 33, ○○수협 ☆☆지소장 직무대리 공소외 34, ○○수협 상임이사 공소외 35, ○○수협 감사 공소외 36 등으로부터 이 부분 공소사실 각 기재와 같이 ‘아버지와 조합장 사이가 좋지 않으니, 그만두어라. 그만두지 않으면, 가만두지 않겠다’는 취지의 이야기를 계속적으로 반복해서 들은 사실 및 당시 정황 등에 대해서 대체로 일관되고 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ② 피고인은 위 성명불상자가 공소외 32에게 위와 같은 취지로 말할 때, 그 옆에서 이를 듣고 있었거나 바로 그 전화를 이어받아 “ 공소외 32! 왜 아직도 일을 그만두지 않고 버티고 있는 거야. 내가 왜 너 조합장이냐“라고 말하였던 점, ③ 피고인은 2008. 12. 22. 17:24경 공소외 32로 하여금 다음날부터 ☆☆지소로 출근하도록 하라는 내용의 인사명령을 발하였던 점(당시 인사명령 대상자는 공소외 32 1명 뿐이었고, 위 인사명령은 ☆☆지소장의 사전 의견도 듣지 않은 상태에서 갑작스럽게 이루어진 것이었다), ④ 위 범행 무렵 공소외 32의 아버지 공소외 37이 피고인을 횡령혐의로 고발하는 등 공소외 37과 피고인의 사이가 좋지 않았던 점 등 제반사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같이 성명불상자와 공모하여 공소외 32를 협박하였던 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

5) As to the Forgery and the Forgery

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, ① around January 30, 209, 200, 300 won was requested to use the public funds of the fisheries association, which is a gathering of 200,000,000,000 won (Non-Indicted. 37) from 30,000 won was released after 9 months, and the contents were transmitted to the president of the association. ② The defendant instructed the non-indicted 12 and 38 to create evidence proving that he was using donations equivalent to 13 million won for the purpose of spreading related to 20,000 won, and the defendant did not receive 20,000,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 30,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 205,00 won of 205.

6) As to the violation of the Fisheries Act

On June 2, 2005, when the record of this case reveals the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant was suffering from economic difficulties due to Nonindicted 13’s failure in the business, i.e., (ii) around June 2, 2005, when Nonindicted 13, who was a friendly △△, she was trying to maintain his livelihood first while operating △△△. Accordingly, Nonindicted 13 was directly operating the said △△△△ from May 20, 2009; (iii) Nonindicted 13 was partially receiving some money from the Defendant under the name of oil value and fishing expenses, etc. while operating △△△△△△△△, and (iv) Nonindicted 13 was not regularly receiving monthly wages from the Defendant, and all other circumstances, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that Nonindicted 13 had been in fact controlled by the instant △△△△△△△△△△△, as stated in the facts charged, is unreasonable to deem the Defendant’s assertion in this part of the charges.

C. Determination on Defendant 3’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

It is recognized that the crime of this case is not good.

However, in full view of all of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that Defendant 3 made confession of all of the crimes of this case and recognized Defendant 3’s mistake, Defendant 3 was the first offender without any previous conviction, and other circumstances leading to Defendant 3’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 3 seems to be too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant 3’s above assertion is with merit.

D. Judgment on Defendant 4’s assertion

1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts

A) The point of acceptance of bribe related to Nonindicted 14

이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 4(이하 3.의 라.항에서는 ‘피고인’이라고만 한다)는 이 부분 범행일시경 ○○수협 조합장인 피고인 2의 친동생이자 ○○수협 이사로서, 어민들의 ○○수협 ▷▷위판장의 사용 등에 관여할 수 있는 위치에 있었던 점, ② 공소외 14는 2007. 8.경부터 어업을 시작하였는데, 당시 ○○수협 소속의 조합원이 아니어서 위 ▷▷위판장에서 어류를 위탁·판매하기 어려운 상황에 처해 있었던 점, ③ 그럼에도 공소외 14는 2007. 1. 5.경부터 2008. 12. 27.경까지 계속해서 ▷▷위판장에서만 어류를 경매하였던 점, ④ 공소외 14는 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 피고인에게 위 ▷▷위판장에서 어류를 위탁·판매할 수 있도록 해달라는 내용의 청탁하게 된 경위, 자신 또는 자신의 형수인 공소외 39를 통하여 피고인에게 이 부분 공소사실 기재 각 금원을 전달한 방법 및 당시 정황 등에 대해서 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ⑤ 위와 같은 공소외 14의 진술은 공소외 39가 수사기관 및 원심 법정에서 한 진술과도 일치하는 점, ⑥ 피고인도 공소외 14 및 공소외 39로부터 금원을 받은 사실은 대체로 인정하고 있는 점 등 제반사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같이 공소외 14로부터 뇌물을 수수하였던 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

B) The point of acceptance of bribe with respect to Nonindicted 15 and Nonindicted 7

According to the records of this case, the following circumstances are as follows: ① the defendant is the friendship and her natives of the defendant 2, who is the head of the ○○○○ Cooperative upon the date and time of the crime, and the defendant was at a location to be involved in the fishery's accession to the ○○○○ Cooperative and qualification conditions; ② the ○○○○○○ Cooperative Council held on February 20, 2006 resolved to automatically withdraw from the Cooperative; ③ Nonindicted 7 was demanded from the investigative agency to re-enter the Defendant from the Cooperative (the board of directors' meeting) for the amount of money (the date and time of the crime), the method of paying the money to the defendant; the method of paying the money to the non-indicted 15; the circumstances leading up to the request from the defendant to re-enter the non-indicted 15; the details of the statement made by the defendant at the time, the contents of the statement made by the defendant to the non-indicted 15; and ④ the defendant's statement that he was given to the non-indicted 15 and the statement.

2) As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

It is recognized that Defendant 4 has no record of punishment for the same crime.

그러나 이 사건 범행은 피고인 4가 ○○수협 이사로서의 지위를 이용하여 ○○수협 ▷▷위판장에서 어류를 위탁·판매할 수 있도록 하는 데 영향력을 행사하거나 ○○수협 조합원으로 다시 가입시켜주는 것에 대한 대가로 수차례에 걸쳐 금원을 수수한 것으로 그 죄질이 좋지 못한 점, 그럼에도 피고인 4가 당심에 이르기까지 계속해서 범행을 부인하면서 자신의 잘못을 뉘우치지 않고 있는 점, 그 밖에 피고인 4의 연령, 성행, 환경, 이 사건 범행에 이르게 된 경위 등 이 사건 기록 및 변론에 나타난 제반 양형조건들을 종합하여 보면, 원심이 피고인 4에 대하여 선고한 형이 너무 무거워서 부당하다고는 보이지 아니하므로, 피고인 4의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 among the judgment of the court below of the first and second, since the above reasons for the reversal of the above authority exist, pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the appeal by the defendant 3 is well-grounded, all of the parts against the above defendants among the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act are reversed, and it is again decided as follows. The appeal by the defendant 1, 4 and prosecutor against the defendant 1 is without merit, and they

A. Defendant 2

Article 129(1) of each Criminal Code, Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes [Article 30 of the Criminal Code, as to each bribery and 1.A. 1 of the judgment of the second instance court], Article 136(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 137 of the Criminal Code, Articles 15(1), 31(1) of the Criminal Code, Articles 283(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code, Articles 95 subparag. 4, 48(1), and 34(1) of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9626 of Apr. 22, 2009)

B. Defendant 3

Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of each offering of bribe)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 3);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. among the grounds for reversal against Defendant 3)

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Code

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant 2 on several occasions by using authority as the president of the ○○○ Fisheries Cooperatives and received a bribe in response to illegal solicitation, and its nature is not good. The above act of acceptance of bribe is an offense that infringes on the fairness of performance of duties and the credibility of society, and thus requires strict punishment. Defendant 2 instructed his subordinate employees to forge evidence to conceal the above crime and submitted it to an investigation agency, and thereby interfered with the prosecution's investigation. The crime of this case was committed by interfering with Defendant 2's criminal punishment for other cases similar to the crime of this case, including the age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case including the records and arguments of this case.

Judges Song Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) Daj-dong Jin-jin

Note 1) As stated in the instant indictment, the phrase “3.3 million won per month interest” appears to be a clerical error of approximately KRW 3.3 million in the sum of interest (see, e.g., the protocol of interrogation of prosecutions conducted on January 8, 2009, referring to the protocol of interrogation of prosecutions conducted on January 8, 2009, 728 pages).