(a) Bribery;

B. Bribery offer promise

(c) Indication of offer of bribe;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

(e) Occupational embezzlement;

(f) Damage to public documents;

(g) Property in breach of trust;

(h) Occupational breach of trust;

(i) Acceptance of a third party;

(j) Improper bribery;

(k) Acceptance of bribe;

2.(a) B

3.(a) C

4. (a)(e)(f)(i)(D);

(j) E.

6.(c)(h)F;

7.C. G.

J Law Firm, Attorneys K (Defendant B and F)

L Law Firm, Attorneys Min (Defendant D)

Law Firm N, Attorney Kim Dong-young (Attorney Kim Dong-young)

P Law Firm, Attorneys Q and R (for defendant G),

In the event that the above Defendants did not pay the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for a period of 10 million won converted into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant G, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. The penalty of KRW 7,464,353 shall be collected from Defendant G. The amount equivalent to the above fine from Defendant A, B, C, D, and F, and the amount equivalent to the above fine and the surcharge from Defendant G shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Defendant E is innocent.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of giving evidence in breach of trust against Defendant A, the charge of each occupational embezzlement against Defendant B, the charge of offering a bribe related to Defendant C, each of the charge of taking a bribe against Defendant D, each of the charge of taking a bribe against Defendant D, the charge of taking a bribe against a third party, the charge of taking a bribe against a third party, the charge of taking a bribe, and the charge of taking a bribe against Defendant F, is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant E and the summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant A, B, C, D, and F respectively.

The defendant A, B, and T (hereinafter referred to as "T") is a non-profit incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting the safety of human life and property at sea. The ship inspection under the Ship Safety Act, the marine pollution prevention inspection under the Marine Environment Management Act, the examination of safety management system under the Maritime Safety Act, the examination of port facility security examination under the International Navigation Park and Port Facility Security Act, etc. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs") instructs and supervises T through a comprehensive and occasional inspection, etc. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs") directs and supervises T, and the competent department is a W State (hereinafter referred to as "X") which takes charge of establishing and implementing measures for maritime safety, operating the ship inspection system, and managing the situation of maritime affairs, ports, and accidents at sea.

1. Defendant A

The Defendant was in office as the director of WY division of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from March 2008 to February 2010, and from April 3, 2010, the Defendant was in office as the director of T Government Agency Inspection Director, and is in charge of the rental work, such as the Marine Survey-related agency agreement, ship inspection-related consultation, reporting of audit results to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

(a) Offering golf entertainment and entertainment;

On December 16, 2012, the Defendant conspired with B, who is the head of the planning and coordination headquarters of the T Government Agency, the Government Agency head of the C and the Strategic Planning Headquarters. On December 16, 2012, the Defendant provided golf entertainment equivalent to KRW 543,00 (actually granted amount of KRW 135,750) to the public officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, G officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. In addition, the Defendant provided golf entertainment equivalent to KRW 1 through 5, 7, 9, 10, and 17, as shown in the attached crime list (1) from November 10, 2012 to March 15, 2014. In relation to the provision of the convenience of the government agency services, the Defendant provided public officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries with entertainment equivalent to the total amount of KRW 4,283,00 (actually granted amount of KRW 1,524,500) and bribe duties.

(A) granted the Bank.

(b) Offering and promising to provide corporate cards;

(1) On May 14, 2013, the Defendant provided that the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, which was in charge of audit, inspection of T, establishment and execution of various policies, ship inspection, etc., and the officer G in charge of the ship inspection, shall use one T corporation card without setting the limit of use, and provided the said G with a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by using 235,000 won in total three times from May 17, 2013 to 0:09 of the crime sight table (1) Nos. 11 to 13, 200 as indicated in the same month.

(2) On July 5, 2013, the Defendant promised to accept a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties by receiving a request for revolving expenses from the World Trade Organization AB and ACD of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries immediately after the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s inspection of T of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and promising to send a corporate card through a person.

(3) On April 7, 2014, the Defendant, in collusion with the above C, provided that at the 5-story of the government-type facility located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City C, the head of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the head of the W AE team of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the above G, the head of which, without setting the limit of use, provided that the said G would use the corporation card, without setting the limit of use, thereby having the said G use the said card. From around April 7, 2014 to September 23:58 of the same month, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by using the total of KRW 864,00,00 as indicated in Nos. 14 through 16 of the List of Offenses (1).

(1) On September 201, the Defendant, in collusion with F, the head of T Management Support Headquarters, expressed his/her intent to accept a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties by seeking to deliver gift certificates of KRW 1.7 million to the Government General Office of Oceans and Fisheries, the head ofY division AF, and the head of AB division AB AG, at the W Office of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries located in Gyeonggi-si.

(2) On January 2014, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by delivering 200,000 won for merchandise coupons to the public official G belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and 10,000 won for merchandise coupons to the public official AH belonging to the same State.

2. Defendant B

From March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Defendant, while serving as the head of the T Planning and Coordination Headquarters from March 7, 2011, was in charge of affairs such as corrective measures and supervision of inappropriate matters, prepaid inspection fees, formulation of business plans, management of business plans, board of directors, and support for the affairs of the general meeting. From January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2012, the Defendant is the head of the T Planning and Coordination Headquarters who is in charge of affairs such as formulation and coordination of business plans

In collusion with the above C, the Defendant provided the AJcont clubs located in the Daejeon-gu AI, Daejeon-gu, with golf connection equivalent to the amount of KRW 602,00 (actually granted amount of KRW 150,500) to the WK of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the officer AH in charge of the Ship Safety Act, and on November 14, 2012, the “AM” of the entertainment tavern located in the Seo-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-gu, and on November 14, 2012, the Defendant provided entertainment equivalent to KRW 1,50,000 (actually granted amount of KRW 50,000) to the WAB and the general officer in charge of safety measures at the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the general officer G.

From March 11, 2012 to March 23, 2014, the Defendant provided golf entertainment and entertainment equivalent to 11,315,50 won in total (4,213,937 won in total) on 18 occasions to public officials belonging to Wing countries of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

3. Defendant C.

The defendant is a person in charge of reporting to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, such as reporting on the implementation of a ship inspection-related agency agreement, reporting on the implementation of a request for disposition of audit results, etc. from June 201 to June 201.

(a) Offering golf entertainment and entertainment;

In collusion with the above B on March 25, 2012, the Defendant provided AJ consortium located in the Daejeon-gu AI with the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, WK and the officer AH in charge of the Ship Safety Act with golf contacts equivalent to 602,000 won (150,500 won). On November 14, 2012, “AM” provided 1,500,000 won (50,000 won (the actual amount granted) to WW AB and G of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

In addition, from March 25, 2012 to February 22, 2014, the Defendant provided golf entertainment and entertainment equivalent to KRW 7,119,00 (actually offered amount 2,538,541) over 14 times to public officials belonging to the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, as shown in the attached list of crimes (4) Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 through 16, 21).

(b) Providing corporate cards;

(1) On July 2013, 2013, the Defendant provided a public official with one copy of T Juristic Card to the above G who was in charge of the audit of T, the establishment and execution of various policies, the ship inspection, etc. at a Haman’s non-permanent place, and without setting the limit of use.

In relation to the bribe, the bribe was given.

(2) On April 7, 2014, the Defendant conspiredd to use the above Amph, and provided the above G with one T legal entity card for the use of one set of the limit on the use of the 5th floor of the government-type facility located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City at Papp 2 to 94, and the above G, the head of the W AE team of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and offered a bribe to the said G from April 7, 2014 to September 23:58 of the same month by using a total of KRW 864,00,00, as described in Nos. 18 to 20, as stated in the List of Offenses (4).

As a non-profit incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting the safety of human life and property at sea and promoting the development of technology related to shipbuilding, marine pollution prevention under the Ship Safety Act, examination of safety management system under the Maritime Safety Act, examination of ship safety management system under the Maritime Safety Act, examination of port facility security under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Act, and examination of maritime facilities security under the Maritime Ship and Port Facility Security Act, the government inspection duties related to the safety of human life and property at sea are conducted as its main duties. In addition, the ship drawings related to prepaid registration and maintenance, technical review and approval, inspection, ship machinery, equipment and inspection are conducted as its main duties.

The Defendant, while serving as the Chairperson from March 8, 2007 to April 2, 2013, was in general in charge of the duties of T’s personnel affairs, accounting, management, etc. From April 3, 2013 to April 3, 201, is serving as the honorary Chairperson of T’s Republic of Korea. On February 11, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of taking property in breach of trust at Seoul High Court, which was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution on May 26, 201, and was finally reinstated on January 31, 2013.

1. Damage to public documents;

At around October 25, 2013, 12:10, the Defendant: (a) was subject to seizure under a search and seizure warrant issued by a judge of the Korea Coast Guard from AO to the Busan District Court; and (b) on May 26, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months from Seoul Central District Court on September 14, 2009; and (c) on May 26, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months from Seoul Central District Court on February 14, 201, including the details of the attorney’s fees paid by the Defendant in relation to a criminal case for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the list and amount of employees who provided the Defendant with attorney’s fees.

The defendant, who was confiscated, could be aware of the crime of breach of trust as described in paragraph 2(a) below, and thus, the above AO "it is trying to confirm what the seized article is", and the defendant shall have a copy of the mermo in which the particulars of the attorney's fees were stated, and shall have the mermoth of it several times in good hands.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the official documents seized by legitimate search and seizure warrant.

2. Occupational embezzlement;

On February 22, 2013, the Defendant provided meals to 20 to 20 to 30 persons, such as family members, branch members, etc., who have assisted the Defendant’s special lottery tickets in a restaurant of “A Q Q Q in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.” On the 26th of the same month, the Defendant settled KRW 2,619,50 with a corporate card used by the head of the T Planning and Coordination Team B, and used it for personal purposes. Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled T property by violating his/her duties.

2014Gohap491 - Defendant F

T (hereinafter referred to as the "T") is a non-profit incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting the safety of human life and property on the sea, and performs the duties of ship inspection, etc. on behalf of the government, such as the ship inspection under the Ship Safety Act, the marine environment pollution prevention inspection under the Marine Environment Management Act, the examination of safety management system under the Maritime Safety Act, and the port facility security examination under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Act, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Maritime Affairs and Fisheries") directs and supervises T through a comprehensive inspection and occasional inspection. The competent department is a W (hereinafter referred to as the "W") which is a non-profit incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting the safety of human life and property on the sea.

From April 2010 to June 30, 2013, the Defendant was in charge of general affairs, accounting, personnel affairs, information, education, etc. while serving as the head of the Telecommunication Support Headquarters. From July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2013, the Defendant was in charge of the affairs related to the inspection of ships and machinery.

1. The Defendant, in collusion with A, who is the head of T Government Agency Inspection Headquarters, intends to deliver gift certificates equivalent to KRW 1.7 million to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s W General Government Office located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, 47, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s W StateY division AF of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and AB division AG division AG of KRW 1.7 million, in relation to the public official’s duties

The intention of grant was expressed.

2. From August 8, 2013, the Defendant, as the head of the TF Team to designate and promote TWP independent testing agencies, is in need of route to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries while taking overall control of the work to be designated as an independent testing agency for BP type approval and an independent testing agency for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), while carrying out the work to be performed as such,

On September 5, 2013, the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology (KIOST) located in the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon World Science and Technology (KIOST) issued merchandise coupons equivalent to KRW 500,000 to WY of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Korea Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Department AR affiliated with the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and issued merchandise coupons equivalent to KRW 500,000,00 to ATS in September 27, 2013, and granted a bribe in relation to public officials' duties by giving merchandise coupons equivalent to KRW 500,00 to AT at convenience stores

The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs") is a non-profit corporation established for the purpose of promoting human life and safety at sea, and carries out the duties of ship inspection, etc. on behalf of the government, such as the examination of safety management system under the Ship Safety Act, the examination of security of port facilities under the International Navigation Stambling and Port Facility Security Act, etc., and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries") is guiding and supervising T through a comprehensive and occasional inspection, etc., while the competent department is called as the "X", it is a W State (hereinafter referred to as the "W State") in charge of the establishment and implementation of measures for maritime safety, the operation of the ship inspection system, the situation management of maritime affairs, ports, and accidents, etc.

1. Defendant G

From January 2010 to February 2012, the Defendant was in charge of safety planning and safety guidance in the metropolitan state AB of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and was in charge of the establishment and implementation of precautionary measures related to maritime accidents. From February 2012 to February 2014, the Defendant was in charge of ship inspection in the WY division, and was in charge of guidance and supervision of T-related issues, such as exemption from corporate tax on T, suspension of designation of public institutions, designation of independent testing agency for type approval of ship's ballast water disposal system, approval of establishment of V, approval of establishment of the subsidiaries, and opening of government inspection authority.

On January 2, 2012, 18:45, the Defendant was transferred KRW 200,000 from the bank account under the name of the Defendant to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, to the purport that the convenience of guidance and supervision over T in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries is changed from the head of the T Planning and Coordination Team B.

In addition, from that time until April 9, 2014, the Defendant received cash equivalent to KRW 14,474,00 (amount received to KRW 7,464,353) in total on 27 occasions from B, etc. to the purport that the convenience of guidance and supervision over T, such as the list of crimes (1) in attached Form No. 1, from that time, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of public officials.

2. Defendant B

The defendant retired from office in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries around March 201, and worked as the head of the T Planning and Coordination Team after employed to T.

At around 18:45 on January 2, 2012, the Defendant transferred KRW 2 million from the account under the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of G bank in the name of the Republic of Korea to the account in the name of G, to the purport that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries may change the convenience of guidance and supervision over T.

In addition, the Defendant provided G with cash and entertainment equivalent to KRW 5,935,50 (actually provided amount to KRW 4,121,250) on five occasions in total to the effect that he/she requests the convenience of direction and supervision of T in relation to the pending issues requiring the passage to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, as described in the attached list of crimes (2) from February 11, 2014, as seen above, and offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

2014Gohap3654

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and C

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against G or AH;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement about AV, AW, X, and Y;

1. The Ship Safety Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and its affiliated organizations;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 82, 89, 91, 139, 142, 244, 246, 370, 374, 385, 389) 2014 high-ranking392;

1. The defendant D's partial statement

1. B Legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning the AO and AZ;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 28,222 of the evidence list);

1. A copy of the plan to reach an audit on the Special amnesty/Restoration of Lottery Tickets, a resolution of expenditure (fixture A Q - Q), a copy of search and seizure verification warrant (2013-18257), and a copy of the note related to the attorney's fees “2014 high-priced491”;

1. The defendant F's partial statement

1. A's legal statement;

1. Ship Safety Act and Enforcement Decree thereof;

1. Part of the locations of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the details of use of corporation cards;

1. Investigation Report (Evidence Nos. 100 2014 and 499);

1. Defendant B and G’s respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against C, F, and A;

1. The Ship Safety Act and Enforcement Decree, the Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and its affiliated organizations;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (Nos. 36,40, 71, 96, 155, 206, 313)

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) (Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act) (Article 129(1)(Article 1-3(1) of the Criminal Act) (Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Act; Article 129(1) of the same Act provides that multiple donors are provided; and Article 1-

B. Defendant B: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the offering of a bribe, and Article 129(2) of the Criminal Act, all of which are applicable to a large number of donors in the list of crimes (Article 133(1) and Article 129(2) of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant C: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 129(3)(4) of the Criminal Act, in cases where multiple donors are involved, the provision of a bribe, and Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 129(1) of the Act

(d) Defendant D: Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of damage to public documents, choice of fines), Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of occupational embezzlement, choice of fines)

(e) Defendant F: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (as to Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines)

F. Defendant G: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (including the fact of acceptance of bribe and the donor, inclusive, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

Concurrent Imposition of Fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of offering of a bribe to G with the largest offense)

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of offering of a bribe to AW, the most severe crime). Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of offering of a bribe to G, the most severe crime)

(d) Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes to the extent that the maximum amount of the punishment specified for the crime of occupational embezzlement with heavier punishment is added thereto);

(e) Defendant F: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of offering of bribe to AT with the largest penalty of offense)

(f) Defendant G: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as provided for in the crime of acceptance of bribe from a donor B, who is the most severe,

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant G: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Other Defendants than Defendant E: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant G: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant G: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Other Defendants than Defendant E: Determination on the Defendant’s objection and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The defendant's tear was not subject to seizure, and it does not constitute a public document since it was illegal to seize the original by means of seizure.

B. The event held in "A Q" on February 22, 2013 was an event held for the defendant's individual since the publishing commemorative meeting was held concurrently for the defendant.

2. Determination

A. In light of the due process that the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act intends to realize the damage to public documents and the spirit of warrant requirement, a judge’s language and text to specify “goods to be seized” shall be strictly interpreted, and an expansion or analogical interpretation of the contents to be disadvantageous to the persons subject to seizure or search warrant shall not be permitted without permission. However, it is not limited to goods directly related to the criminal facts of the search and seizure warrant, but it is suspected that the facts and basic facts of the crime of the same or similar crime are related to the same or similar crime.

To the extent that reasonable grounds exist, seizure may be conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2649, Jul. 23, 2009).

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are as follows: ① the defendant was seized on October 25, 2013 by a warrant of search and seizure issued by the judge of Busan District Court from AO affiliated with the National Maritime Police Agency, AO affiliated with the 111 dong and 111 dong 1605, and ② the above warrant of search and seizure shall include: (i) occupational embezzlement related to the payment of wind rain; (ii) occupational embezzlement related to overseas travel and the use of corporate cards; (iii) occupational embezzlement related to the solicitation of recruitment; (iv) occupational embezzlement related to the payment of wind rain rain; and (iv) the relevant documents are written as evidence; and (iii) the defendant’s seizure and methods are written as follows; and (iv) the defendant’s collection of the defendant’s money after the completion of the search and seizure; and (iv) the defendant’s collection of the defendant’s money in relation to the above criminal case.

In light of the above facts, since the list of T staff and the details of monetary expenditure are written, it seems that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are related to the crime of the same or similar kind of crime of the warrant for search, seizure and verification of this case, and the seizure of the copy is necessarily premised on the submission of the original document, so the seizure of the main document of this case is lawful.

Therefore, the defendant D and his defense counsel's assertion that the seizure of the domain of this case is illegal is without merit.

B. Part of occupational embezzlement

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was specially reinstated as of January 31, 2013. ② A, the head of T Planning and Coordination Team, prepared the "Special Amnesty/ Lottery Audit Plan" around February 2013, and reported to the defendant. Of the contents of the above document, "[1] the background of this special amnesty/Restoration of lottery tickets, and the most difficult time until now, the head of the National Assembly, who was drank, did not lose the container, was able to reduce the thickness of the family members of the National Assembly and the upper roads, and to prepare a place to express an audit, but it was insufficient for the head of the Si/Gun/Gu who was able to assist the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the defendant was held at the 20th of the Seoul National Assembly, and the defendant was held at the 5th of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries's family members, and the defendant was held at the 20th of the above plan. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24475, Feb. 22, 2013>

In light of the timing, purpose, participants, etc. of this case, which can be known through the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that even if you distributed promotional books to the participants at the time of the above approval, the above consent is an individual event of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant D and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

Judgment on Defendant A, B, C, F, G and their defense counsel's arguments

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendants merely provided or received entertainment due to long-term relationship with which they worked in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in the past, and do not offer or accept entertainment in relation to the duties of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries related to T-related affairs.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

The legal interest in the crime of bribery is the process of performing duties by a public official, the public trust in society, and the purchase of money and valuables. Since the bribery does not require any solicitation or unlawful act, it does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received. It is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in connection with his duties, and there is no need to have an individual job act or a quid pro quo relationship. When a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his duties, it is deemed that the same is merely an exceptional cost in light of social norms, or it cannot be deemed that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is clearly recognized that a private pro rata relationship is due to the need for decentralization. If a public official received money and valuables in relation to his duties, even if he received money and valuables in accordance with the form of private law, such money and valuables shall become a bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3579, Oct. 12, 201).

(b) business relationship related to the guidance and supervision of T;

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A, B, C, F, and G offered and accepted a bribe in relation to the duty of instruction and supervision of T in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant A, B, C, F, and their defense counsel is without merit.

① Defendant A is working as the head of T’s Government Agency Inspection Headquarters from April 201 to December 2011; Defendant B is working as the head of T’s Government Agency Management Team from March 201 to December 2011; Defendant C is working as the head of the strategic planning and coordination headquarters from January 201 to June 201; Defendant C is working as the head of the Government Agency of T’s Government Agency Agency from June 201 to June 201; Defendant F is working as the head of T’s Management Support Headquarters from April 2010 to June 2013; and Defendant F is working as the head of the Inspection and Support Headquarters from July 2013 to June 2013. All of them are the major officers of T’s business affairs.

(2) T shall perform the duties of ship inspection, etc. on behalf of the Government, such as ship inspection under the Ship Safety Act, marine environmental pollution prevention inspection under the Marine Environment Management Act, examination of safety management system under the Maritime Safety Act, and port facility security examination under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Act, and according to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the Enforcement Rules of the Organization of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Y of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries directly guide and supervise T and indirectly related to

③ At the time of the instant case, the position and duties of the principal bribery officers are as follows. Both of them are assigned to the position of ship officers in the W state of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in consecutive circulation of various duties within the W state of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and they are likely to work in the near future with Y or AB in charge of the direction and supervision of T. Defendant G, as an official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, was in charge of safety planning and safety guidance from January 2010 to February 2012. Defendant G was in charge of safety planning and safety guidance in W state AB from February 2012 to February 2014. From March 2014, 2014, Defendant G had been in charge of Y and ship inspection again from AB to February 2014.

-AH as an official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries at the time of the instant case from January 201 to February 2012, 2012, was in charge of ship inspection in WY, from February 2012 to January 2013, AB and a general manager were in charge of ship inspection, and after January 2013, AB and AE team leader were in charge of ship inspection.

-AV as an official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from October 201 to February 2012, 201, has been in charge of piracy in W State AB, from March 2012 to May 2014, and has been in charge of ship terrorism in PU and AU, from May 2014.

-AW served as an official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from June 2009 to December 201, 201 at BA University; from January 2012 to January 2013, the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority was working in the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority; from January 2013 to January 2013, it has served in W country.

-AX served as an official of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs from around 2003 to April 201, 201 at WAB, was seconded from April 201 to December 201 at BA University. From January 2013 to March 2013, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has served in BB in the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs Planning, and from March 2013 to March 201, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs has served in international support policies and BC.

-AY as an official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from January 201 to November 201, 201, he/she was in charge of ship inspection in WY, from November 2010 to February 201, from AB, he/she was in charge of safety team duties in WB, from February 2011 to April 201, he/she was in charge of the safety team duties in WE division, from February 201 to April 201, and from April 2013 to April 2014, he/she was in charge of BE division, from April 2013 to April 2014.

around September 2011, 201, AF was the Yth of W State, AG was the AB process, and AR was the Y of W State, Y and marine fishery officers affiliated with W State, and AT was the Yth of W.

④ Defendant A, B, C, and F, an executive officer of T, continued to provide golf entertainment and entertainment to the public officials of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries as seen earlier, including Defendant G, using T’s corporate card, and even provided a corporation card itself or a cash or merchandise coupon.

⑤ Although Defendant A, B, C, and F are deemed to have a long-standing relationship with Defendant G or any other consignee, in light of the amount, period, frequency, method, etc. of entertainment and money provided or received by him/her, it cannot be deemed that it is merely merely a formal payment under the social norms, or that it is due to an individual-friendly relationship. In addition, it may not be deemed that such relationship is due to an individual-friendly relationship. The duty relationship related to the so-called five pending issues.

On the other hand, the facts charged against Defendant A, B, C, F, and G are suggested as follows: i) exemption from corporate tax on T; ii) suspension from designation of public institution; iii) designation of independent testing institution for type approval of ship's ballast water disposal system; iv) approval of the establishment of subsidiaries; v) suspension from opening the government inspection authority for vicarious execution (hereinafter referred to as the "small five pending issues") as examples of guidance and supervision on T in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries recognized as business relationship with the bribery and bribery.

However, the following circumstances revealed through records, namely, ① corporate tax exemption for T and the department in charge of designating public institutions, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries is the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and it is difficult to find relations with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, ② T and employees from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries seems to have provided entertainment to the public officials belonging to the W State that has been friendly for a long time, and so-called five pending issues were generally emerging from the point of 2013; ③ public officials belonging to the W State who received the instant entertainment are not in the position or position to exercise the decision-making right in relation to the so-called five pending issues; ③ in light of the importance and ripple effects of the so-called five pending issues, and the contents and amount of entertainment provided by the Defendants, it is difficult to view that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is any relevance between the five pending issues and the pending issues, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is a bribe granted or received by the Defendants A, B, C, F, and G.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A, B, C, and F: Each fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 30 million;

B. Defendant D: A fine of KRW 50,000 - KRW 40 million. Defendant G: Imprisonment of up to two years and six years and fine of KRW 7,464,353 from KRW 18,60 to KRW 18,824) 2. The scope of recommendations based on the sentencing guidelines (Defendant G5)

(a) Scope of recommendations;

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, and Less than 10 million won (Type 1)

【General Convicts】 No record of criminal punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of four months to one year

(b) Whether probation is suspended;

[Major Grounds for Indictment] If the amount of a bribe is less than 10 million won (self-esteem) / [General Grounds for Indictment] / Acceptance of bribe (unlawful) for a long period of not less than 2 years, and there is no record of criminal punishment (esteem)

3. Determination of sentence;

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A, B, C, F, and G is that Defendant A, B, C, and F, a major executive officer of T, offered a bribe to the public officials of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in charge of the direction and supervision of T for a long time, such as golf entertainment, entertainment, and provision of merchandise coupons, and G, a public official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, accepted the above bribe.

The crime of this case is committed by the public officials of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to impair the fairness in the performance of their duties and infinites, and the acceptance of bribe over a relatively long-term period of time to the Defendants, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, all of the Defendants seem to have lived in good faith without any special criminal record. All of the facts pertaining to the crime of this case are recognized and reflected, the social relation seems clear, and the amount of bribe granted or received is relatively small, etc., taking into account the favorable circumstances for the Defendants as well as other factors, taking into account the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case, the motive and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

B. Defendant D’s crime of this case is that Defendant D, without permission, damaged the attachment of the body that was seized by the court’s warrant, and paid the individual meal cost with respect to his family members and branch members by way of T’s corporate card, thereby occupational embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the above meal cost.

Considering that the effect of a warrant issued by the court due to the above crime of this case is nullifying the validity of the warrant issued by the court, obstructing the investigation by the investigative agency, infringing the property by using the position of T Chairperson, the actual investigation is not obstructed due to the above crime, and the amount of embezzlement is not significant, etc., circumstances favorable to the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case, results, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, including the circumstances after the crime.

2014Gohap365, the part not guilty (Defendant A, B, and C)

1. Defendant A

A. The point of giving property in breach of trust

1) Summary of the facts charged

From March 3, 2008 to February 2010, the Defendant was in office as the director of the WY division of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. From around April 3, 2010 to around April 3, 2010, the Defendant was in office as the director of the T&D inspection headquarters of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and was in office as the director of the T&D headquarters of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and was in office as the director of the WY division of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, from around March 3, 2008 to around the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and the Defendant was in office as the director of the T&D inspection headquarters of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and was in office as the director of the T&D government inspection headquarters of April 3 of the same year after he was in office as the director of the T&D headquarters of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

Around June 7, 2010, the Defendant transferred KRW 50 million to the national bank account in the name of the wife BG of the above D in return for taking the Defendant as the head of T Seocho Government Agency for Inspection. Accordingly, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation and provided property in relation to D’s duties to handle T affairs.

2) Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendant only lent KRW 50 million to BG due to the relationship between D and its wife BG and private relations, and received all repayment.

3) Determination

In the context of the crime of bribery, the issue of whether the accepter actually borrows the money from the accepter rather than receiving the money from the accepter shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the objective circumstances revealed by the 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, the amount of the guaranteed money, the existence of the interest agreement, the payment period and the possibility of compulsory execution, etc. In addition, the above legal principle can be applied equally to the accepter. In addition, even if a criminal trial bears the burden of proving the facts charged in question, there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant should have probative value to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 10108Do12).

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was employed as WY course in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from February 3, 2010 until the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and was employed as the head of T's Government Agency Inspection Division from April 3, 2010, the defendant confirmed whether he can be appointed as the head of T's Government Agency Inspection Division through BF, and the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 50 million to the national bank account in the name of T's wife BG, around June 7, 2010. However, considering the following circumstances revealed through records, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant granted KRW 50 million to D in return for taking office as the head of T's Government Agency Inspection Director, and it cannot be recognized by comprehensively considering all evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① The Defendant and T-Chairman D’s wife consistently borrowed KRW 50 million from the investigation stage to the Defendant or the Defendant’s wife. However, the Defendant stated that BG borrowed KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s wife. However, while the Defendant stated that BG borrowed KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s wife, BG may face memory after the lapse of about 4 years at the time of the instant investigation, and the Defendant and his wife’s wife borrowed KRW 50 million to BG, it is difficult to doubt the credibility of the Defendant’s and BG’s statement solely on the following grounds. The Defendant’s transfer of KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s national bank account on June 7, 2010 to the Defendant’s wife’s account on behalf of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife to the effect that the Defendant’s wife borrowed KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s wife’s account on behalf of the Defendant. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant transferred money to the government prosecutor’s account in exchange for employment as a large amount of money.

③ BG appears to have repaid the Defendant each of the sum of KRW 30 million on May 30, 201 and the 31st of the same month, and KRW 20 million on July 27, 2012, and KRW 1.5 million on July 27, 2012, to have fully repaid the principal and interest KRW 50 million prior to the commencement of the instant investigation.

④ On January 13, 2014, the Defendant again remitted KRW 50 million to D, but this money was also remitted to the bank account with remaining records, and the said remittance was made after the lapse of about two and a half years from the aforementioned repayment, and at the time when D was transferred, it is difficult to view that BG paid to the Defendant in 2011 and 2012 based on the above remittance was the best repayment of money, and only the said remittance was regarded as a monetary transaction separate from the instant KRW 50 million.

⑤ Since 1987, the Defendant worked for the same department or its neighboring department in D and Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries for not less than 20 years, and D have worked for the direct superior of the Defendant several times, and maintain a friendly relationship between families.

4) Sub-determination

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, it is judged not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58(2)

C. The point of offering of a bribe, promising of offering a bribe, and expressing the intention of offering a bribe

1) Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, as well as the government agency inspection-related business, has primarily promoted T, has been trying to pay organized and dynamicly to public officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, who are the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, in order to exempt T from corporate tax, restrain designation of public agencies, designate an independent testing agency for type approval of ship's ballast water disposal system, approve the establishment of V which is a subsidiary, and restrain the opening of government agency inspection authority

A) golf entertainment, entertainment

The Defendant, in collusion with C, who is the head of the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on February 22, 2014, provided a bribe in relation to the duties of public officials by providing a golf club and entertainment in relation to the provision of convenience in the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries as described in attached Table Nos. 6, 875, including that a public official G belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of KRW 607,50 (actual amount of KRW 151,875), in the context of needing a full-defense route to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in relation to the pending issues in which T has primarily promoted as seen above, as described in attached Table Nos. 1, 6, and 8.

B) Provision of corporate cards

In collusion with the above C, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by providing the above G with one copy of the corporation card without setting the limit of use to the above G who was in charge of the audit of T, various policies, execution, ship inspection, etc., under the circumstances where it is necessary for a full-defense route to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries with respect to the pending issues that T has been promoted primarily as above, in collusion with the above C.

2) Determination on the offer of entertainment No. 6 of the crime sight table (1) No. 1

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can be found to have paid 572,00 won to T corporation cards from Sejong City BJK on July 11, 2013, and the defendant can be found to have received the letter "if there is still a lot of time to exchange with the personnel management department, etc., it is necessary to consult with AD officer who is a public official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on July 5, 201," but there is no direct evidence to recognize that the defendant was only AD officer in BK on July 11, 2013, and ② the defendant denies from the investigation agency at the time of the investigation agency to the effect that there was a meal of T corporation officer in BK, and the statement of B and C correspond to this, the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant provided entertainment to AD officer as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise in relation to the defendant's duties.

3) Determination as to the provision of golf folds No. 8 of crime sight table (1)

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant, on February 22, 2014, acknowledged the fact that the Defendant opened golf at the GH BIcon club and settled the costs with T’s corporate card, and the Defendant, on February 12, 2014, notified the G officer of the content of the said golf reservation.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the Defendant denied to the effect that he had gone through golf with the employees of T at the time. In addition, according to the (ii) golf-friendly statement corresponding thereto; (iii) the person who used a golf club on February 22, 2014; and (b) the person who used the above golf club is entered into C, BL, and BM, including the Defendant; (iii) the prosecutor was charged with the consignee G at the same time with a separate charge that he was receiving a golf course from B at the same time on the same day; and (iv) in consideration of the facts that he did not dispute between G and B, it cannot be deemed that he did not go through golf at the same place on the same day; and (v) in combination with the above facts charged, the Defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the facts charged.

4) Determination on provision of corporate cards

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, C sent a mobile text message to B on August 2, 2013, "B leader G official was sent the card," and B sent a text message to C on August 3, 2013, "B was late. I were not able to use the card, and BN was in the custody of BN." However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, who was not mentioned in the foregoing text message alone, provided T’s corporate card to G official who is a public official of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on July 2, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

5) Sub-decisions

Thus, each of the facts charged is a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus a not-guilty verdict should be made under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but a bribe in relation to such a crime

As long as it is found guilty of the crime of offering promise and the crime of offering of a bribe, it is not judged separately by the disposition;

A. Summary of the facts charged

From March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Defendant, while serving as the head of the T Planning and Coordination Headquarters from March 7, 2011, was in charge of affairs such as corrective measures and supervision of inappropriate matters, prepaid inspection fees, formulation of business plans, management of business plans, board of directors, and support for the affairs of the general meeting. From January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2012, the Defendant is the head of the T Planning and Coordination Headquarters who is in charge of affairs such as formulation and coordination of business plans

T was denied the use of entertainment establishments as business promotion expenses under the "Guidelines for the Implementation of Expenses for the Promotion of Services" on October 7, 2009, but it was pointed out by the audit and inspection of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in 201, the use of entertainment establishments for business promotion expenses by the audit and inspection of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in February 2012, 201, and arbitrarily amended the guidelines that they can be used at entertainment establishments only in extenuating circumstances in the course of their duties.

On September 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 2,580,000 for alcoholic beverages to the corporation card of the Korea Exchange Bank (BS) in six installments in order to avoid the Defendant’s approval without justifiable grounds; (b) on the BS hotel BT entertainment bars located in Suwon-gu Busan, Busan, without justifiable grounds for the Defendant’s performance of his/her duties, the Defendant paid KRW 3,60,000 for alcoholic beverages with the said corporation card without justifiable grounds; and (c) on the BS hotel entertainment bars located in Suwon-gu, Busan, for the purpose of performing his/her duties, the Defendant paid KRW 18,00 for the total amount of alcoholic beverages with the said corporation card without justifiable grounds for the Defendant’s performance of his/her duties from August 3, 201 to April 10, 2014; and (d) paid KRW 3,600,000 for the said corporation’s performance of his/her duties without justifiable grounds for the Defendant’s performance of his/her duties.

B. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

Although the defendant makes a settlement by using T's corporate card at the date, time, and place stated in the crime sight list (3), it is not only used for the purpose of business, but also for the purpose of business, and it does not violate T's corporate card use guidelines and work execution guidelines.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the defendant paid a total of KRW 62,872,774 over 124 times in entertainment establishments, etc. using T’s corporate card, such as T’s crime list (3), and the defendant did not explain what kind of business he/she used.

However, in the crime of occupational embezzlement, it is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire illegal profits. The evidence should be proved by strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not more reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6756, Jun. 24, 2010). In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the record, the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used the money recorded in the daily list of crimes (3) to use it as an individual for occupational embezzlement, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant has embezzled it in advance, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant did not explain the use individually.

1. There is no evidence to find out which the defendant has settled the amount of damage by using T’s corporate card for any purpose and at any time and at any place specified in the crime sight list (3).

(2) With respect to each item indicated in the list of crimes (3), the Defendant prepared a written disbursement decision in accordance with T’s guidelines for the use of T’s corporate card and guidelines for the execution of business promotion expenses, and obtained approval from the approving authority.

③ The Guidelines on the Execution of Te business promotion expenses (Implementation from February 20, 2012) defines business promotion expenses as expenses required for the smooth performance of duties, such as business, etc. (Article 2(2)), and stipulates that a person must refrain from using entertainment facilities (Article 2(2)), but does not prohibit the use of entertainment facilities itself at a entertainment establishment by providing that the person must obtain approval from the head of the competent headquarters for cases in which expenditure exceeds KRW 500,000 if the person uses entertainment facilities in his/her business inevitably (Article 5(3) and (4)).

④ The former Guidelines on the Execution of Business Promotion Expenses (amended from October 7, 2009) also rejected the use of entertainment establishments in principle. However, in extenuating circumstances, the former Guidelines also did not prohibit the use of entertainment establishments itself (Article 6(4)), and there is no evidence to deem that the amendment of the Guidelines on the Execution of Business Promotion Expenses was unlawful or that the Defendant revised the Guidelines with a specific purpose.

(3) T recognizes the defendant's explanation that each item of crime is used in the course of business as to each item of crime list (3) and accounts normally, and it is not an issue until now.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of this decision is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

3. Defendant C

A. Summary of the facts charged

From June 201, the Defendant was serving as the head of the Government Agency for the Government Agency for the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries from around June 201, in order to report the implementation of the Land Survey Agreement and report the implementation of the request for disposition of the audit results to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, as well as the duty of reporting on the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, such as the duty of reporting on the implementation of the Land Inspection Agency Agreement, and the duty of reporting on the implementation of the request for disposition of the audit results, and in order to keep and defend against the public officials of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, who are affiliated with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, in order to exempt from corporate tax,

The Defendant: (a) in the BV entertainment tavern located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 2, 2012; (b) in the circumstances where it is necessary to provide a full-defense street to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries with respect to the pending issues, T as seen above, the Defendant provided an entertainment equivalent to KRW 1,090,00 (actually granted amount of KRW 545,00) to the officers of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Department BW, as indicated in [Attachment 4] Nos. 3, 5, 6, 17, and 22, with respect to the provision of the government agency services for T and the provision of convenience for the Government agency services for the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the above issues related to the above issues, the Defendant provided a bribe to the public officials of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in total of KRW 4,148,50 (actually granted amount of KRW 1,645,125) and public officials with respect to the duties of the public officials.

(A) granted the Bank.

B. Determination

1) The part of offering entertainment bars No. 3 of the crime sight table (4)

살피건대, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 2012. 5. 2. 23:24경 서울 서초구 BU에 있는 BV 유흥주점에서 법인카드를 사용하여 1,090,000원을 결제한 사실, 피고인이 2012. 5. 3. 01:56경 해양수산부 W국 사무관 BW에게 "과장님 고맙습니다. 막차 매려가....TT.ㅜㅜㅜㅜㅓㅓㅓㅓㅓㅜ"라는 문자메시지를 보낸 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the records, namely, ① the Defendant stated that he did not memory at the time that he went to the above BW and BV entertainment tavern, ② BW also stated that the Defendant does not have any space between the Defendant and the entertainment tavern, ③ it is difficult to accurately confirm the purport of the text message sent to BW, ④ there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant went to BV entertainment tavern along with the above BW, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant offered entertainment to BW as shown in the facts charged, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2) Part on the provision of golf connections Nos. 4 5 of crime sight table (4)

살피건대, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 해양수산부 W국 서기관 AH가 2012. 7. 14. 18:15경 피고인에게 "낼 안성 지역 시간당 70미리 비가 오는데 진행하시나요?"라는 문자메시지를 보내자 피고인이 "한 번 확인해 보겠습니다."라고 답장을 하였고, 이에 AH가 "예, 골프장도 패날티는 없을 듯 하네요^^"라고 문자메시지를 보내자 피고인이 다시 "내일 아침에 출발하기 전에 전화해 달라고 하네요."라고 답장을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through records, namely, ① there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant met AH at the BIC club located at the time of Ansan on July 15, 2012, the following day of the text message, and ② according to BIC trading details (Evidence No. 82) of the TF club, a person who uses the above club on July 15, 2012, indicated that the Defendant provided A with golf connection as indicated in the facts charged, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided BF as having provided BF as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) The part of offering entertainment bars Nos. 6 and 5 of the crime sight table (4)

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is recognized that the defendant paid 1,342,00 won toCC located in Busan Shipping Daegu CB on September 11, 2012 with T’s corporate card.

However, according to the following circumstances revealed through records, i.e., the use of the Defendant’s corporate card (Evidence No. 90),CC is a general restaurant, there is no evidence to regard it as an entertainment drinking house; ② the 16th session of the Maritime Safety Department was held from September 10, 2012 to November 11, 201; andCC was a place of sponsoring from September 18:30; ③ the Defendant appears to have attended the above meeting and conference as a head of the government agency; ③ the Defendant was a head of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with AB and the competent officer of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries who was in charge of the above meeting; solely based on the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided entertainment to public officials of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no evidence to recognize it otherwise.

4) Part on the provision of golf connections Nos. 17 of the crime sight table (4)

As seen earlier 1-b. 3) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone offered golf connection to G from the BIcon club located in Ansan-si BH on February 22, 2014, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

5) Part on the provision of golf connections Nos. 22 of the crime sight table (4)

However, this part of the facts charged is the same day as the list of crimes (4) No. 8, and the same place was provided to public officials G of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries for the same amount, and it is reasonable to view this as an error in the written indictment. In addition, this part of the facts charged is not separately determined.

Therefore, each part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, among them, the fact of offering of a bribe to S is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, the summary of this part shall be published, and the remaining part shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the crime of offering a bribe in relation to such crime, it shall not be sentenced

2014Gohap392, the part not guilty (Defendant D)

1. Occupation of taking property in breach of trust;

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Since the Defendant, as the president, has a position to exercise the overall personnel rights to Twit employees, he shall not obtain unjust benefits, such as money and valuables, which may affect the exercise of said personnel rights from his employees. On September 15, 2009, the Defendant: (a) from the head of T Government Agency Team who took charge of the duties of appointing attorneys and paying attorney fees in connection with the criminal cases of the Defendant as indicated in paragraph (1) of criminal facts as indicated in the judgment in the judgment; (b) “The employees from Twit University, the same among T employees, collect money from the attorney-at-law; (c) the said CD received money from 38 employees to 5 million won for each employee; and (d) the said CD received money and valuables from the said employees to 45 million won for promotion and management of the CD; and (d) the said employees received money and valuables from the said employees on September 15, 2009 to 1.5 million won for the remaining 5 million won for the attorney-at-law’s participation in the above list.

As a result, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties as a person in charge of T affairs.

2) On February 3, 2010, the Defendant, upon receiving a request from the Director-General of the WY division of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, to the effect that he/she would be employed as the Director-General of Twel Government Agency BF, who is his/her superior, from the Director-General of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. On April 3, 2010, the Defendant recommended the above A to the board of directors and appointed him/her as the Director-General of the Seocho Government Agency 150 million

On June 7, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife BG in return for taking office from the above A as the head of T Government Agency Inspection Headquarters. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is in charge of T’s affairs, acquired property in return for an unlawful solicitation in relation to his/her duties.

B. Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion

1) It cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s instruction to collect the attorney’s fees from CDs or other employees or thereafter did not consent thereto, and that such instruction is inconsistent with the social rules by allowing the said employees to collect and deliver the attorney’s fees.

2) The Defendant did not receive money in return for the employment of A to the Director of T Government Agency Inspection.

1) Part concerning the collection of attorney fees

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it can be acknowledged that the CF, the president of the CE University, in T, has collected the Defendant’s attorney’s fees from the East literature above the team leader level working in T on August 2009. At the time, the CD, the head of the CE University, and the government agency team in T, notified the Defendant that the CD was collecting attorney’s fees as above on September 2009. The fact that the CD sent the Defendant the remaining amount of KRW 19.5 million, which was used as the list of the East literature, participating in the above fund-raising fund-raising and the attorney’s fees around May 201.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed through the record, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received an illegal solicitation, such as promotion, assignment, etc., from the TE University literature in which the Defendant participated in the collection of the attorney’s fees in the instant case, either explicitly or implicitly, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has received a request in respect of personnel relations, such as promotion, assignment, etc., explicitly from CDs, CF, or other CE University.

② At around May 201, the CD delivered to the Defendant a copy of the list of the employees who participated in the collection of the CD and the remaining money. If the CD or the CE University’s club that participated in the collection of the instant case intended to make an unlawful solicitation in personnel affairs, there seems to be no reason to deliver the list to the Defendant one year and nine months after the fund collection was made, and there is no reason to deliver the list to the Defendant.

③ Furthermore, there is only a list of the employees participating in the instant fund-raising, and there is no indication as to who received and who received money, and thus, it does not appear appropriate to achieve the purpose of solicitation of personnel such as promotion or assignment.

④ On June 1, 2011, the CD stated that the CD was issued to the Head of the Asia-Pacific Regional Headquarters, and that it was sent to the Defendant with the remaining money after drawing up the above list before the end of May 201, and that it was natural and irrelevant to personnel solicitation.

2) Employment cost portion A

As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant received KRW 50 million in return for his/her appointment to the Director General of the Government Agency, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to each of the facts charged, each of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part should be publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the

2. The point of occupational breach of trust

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) CG parts

Since the end of 2002, the Defendant requested a tourist investigation CG to leave the funeral issue to be put to the vicinity of the CG residential area, and maintained a friendly relationship with the above CG upon receiving various scenic advice, such as death, the location and direction of the office of directors, the winding advice of the purchased house, the names of children, and the advice of the mother's funeral, etc.

On October 2008, the Defendant: (a) during the process of the construction of the TMM new construction of the TMM, sentenced the said CG to provide profits by requesting the said CG to pay unfair winding service cost.

Around October 208, 2008, the defendant entered into a contract with the representative of the architect office (ju), CHCH on the design of the building of the building of the Busan city with the representative of the office around October 20, 2008, and the above CI entered into the contract with the above CG on the design service cost, including the winding service cost.

A) The Defendant, under a contract between CH and the above CG, paid the contract amount for construction and construction supervision, including the winding service cost to be paid to the above CG on July 23, 2010, while entering into a contract for construction and construction supervision with the State (representative CK) which is the construction and construction supervision company of the Busan office building (representative CK) around January 2010, the Defendant paid the said CG the contract amount for construction and construction supervision, including the winding service cost to be paid to the said CG, around KRW 10,00,000,000,000 won around July 23, 2010, and around January 31, 201, KRW 10,011,000,000,0000,000 won around November 131, 2011, and KRW 30,000,000,000,00 won.

B) In collusion with F, the head of Tmanagement Support Headquarters, the Defendant: (a) decided to additionally pay the cost of repairing winding services without any justifiable reason upon receiving a request from the said CG to increase the cost of repairing winding services; (b) decided on October 1, 2012, the Defendant instructed the said CG to pay KRW 22,00,000,000 due to the defective design defect in the Busan Posle-ro design to be received from the said CG CH; and (c) decided to make the said CG representative jointly constructed with the said CG enter into a contract with the said CG for selling winding services identical with that entered into with the above CG CH on November 30, 2012, and directly paid KRW 20,000,000 to the said CG on December 31, 201, and directly paid KRW 20,000,000,000 for the cost of repairing winding services.

As a result, the Defendant, who is in charge of T-related affairs, obtained the profit equivalent to KRW 71,500,000 from the above CG, in violation of his duties, and suffered the loss equivalent to the above amount.

2) CN part

A) Main facts charged

(1) On September 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing F, purchased literary works to be exhibited in the Busan Newly-built Office, and the fact is that CN’s literary works are not traded in the amount of KRW 100,000 per store, not only is the value of the works, but also if the goods are purchased in the amount of KRW 50,000,000 under the T-related provisions, the goods must be purchased through a general bid, and even if a negotiated contract is concluded, the goods shall be purchased through a general bid, and the goods shall be received a estimate from two or more persons without good cause;

On September 28, 2012, by paying to the above CN a total of KRW 67 million, which is a price significantly higher than the purchase price, under the pretext of six points for literary works, the amount was in violation of the occupational duty, thereby obtaining the benefits in the amount, and thereby causing the loss equivalent to the above amount.

(2) Although the Defendant, in collusion with the above F, purchased the said CN’s art works in collusion with the above F, and paid the said CN to the said CN to prepare for the completion commemorative stone, the Defendant, without justifiable grounds, paid the said CN a sum of KRW 10 million for the reason that the said CN demands to increase the preparation for the pen, and paid the said CN a sum of KRW 20 million for the reasons that the said CN would be remarkably lower than the market price under the name of the sperm display expense, thereby gaining unjust profit in violation of his duties, and thereby incurring loss equivalent to the above amount.

B) Preliminary charge

On September 28, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with the above F, purchased literary works to be exhibited at the Busan New Posium, and the fact is that the CN’s literary works are not traded at least KRW 100,000 per shop. Moreover, if the CN purchases at least KRW 50,000 under the T-related regulations, it shall be purchased through a general competitive bid, and even if a negotiated contract is concluded, it shall receive a written estimate from two or more persons without any justifiable reason. However, on September 28, 2012, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, paid the said CN a total of KRW 87,00,000,000, which is significantly higher than the market price, under the pretext of the purchase price of the literary works, thereby gaining an interest in its amount in violation of its occupational duty, and thereby incurring damage equivalent to the above amount.

B. Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion

1) On December 2008, CG entered into with (State) CH on and around March 201, the winding water service contract entered into with (State) CJ on and around March 2010, and the winding water service contract entered into with T on and around October 2012, TG did not pay the winding service cost in duplicate to CG.

2) Not only can it be deemed that TN purchased the CN’s work in a non-slided manner, but also the Defendant did not intervene in the specific pricing process.

C. Determination on CG part

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the defendant, who was the chairperson of TG, ordered CG to receive winding services in relation to the construction of TMMMM, <2> around December 2008, CG, the co-owners of construction design services for TMMMM, and 'TMM defense and facility placement services' (hereinafter referred to as 'the primary winding service contract') entered into a contract with 30 GMMM and 20,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

< Remark>

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed through records, the second and third wind service contract is a separate contract for the first wind service contract and its service cost has been paid in duplicate. It is difficult to see that the aforementioned facts alone cannot be deemed as having obtained property benefits from the Defendant in breach of his/her duties, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor cannot be acknowledged even if comprehensively considering the following circumstances.

(1) CG appears to have concluded a contract with a construction designer and a primary wind service contract with a construction supervisor, and a secondary wind service contract with a construction supervisor in connection with the construction of Busan New Airport.

CG consulted about about about 10 times with respect to the first and third wind service contract. With respect to the second and third wind service contract, at least 25 times from May 2010 to February 2013, CG visited the construction site and actually performed wind service from the design stage to the completion of the Busan New Airport.

③ Although the scope of services indicated in the primary and secondary winding service contract is very similar, the secondary winding service contract is merely prepared by a supervisor CK of the CJ at the request of the CO of the head of T’s Busan New Airport Promotion Team, and CK appears to have not confirmed the content of winding services from CG or CO in preparing the above contract.

④ Specifically, the scope of services stipulated in Article 2 of the second winding service contract seems to be primarily related to design. CG, at the actual stage of construction, has laid the brickd timber and the interior finishing is terminated, and revised tools are different from the scope of services indicated in the above contract, such as not including any of the items in the service contract of the second winding service contract.

⑤ The third wind service contract is related to the International Education and Training Center, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Annexed Dong") among Busan New Airport, and it seems that the first wind service contract was not planned to construct the attached Dong around December 2008 when the first wind service contract was concluded.

6) It is difficult to find the grounds for obtaining large profits from CG to enter into a false contract by the defendant or TG.

C. Determination on the CN

The primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged are also examined.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it can be acknowledged that T’s Chairperson ordered CN to purchase CN’s work and post it on Busan’s New History, and T purchased six points of art work to be posted on the Busan’s New History from CN on September 2012, and paid KRW 87 million to CN on the pretext of completion commemorative stone preparation, sperm display expenses, etc.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is close to the CN as much as he/she would obtain pecuniary benefits by violating his/her duties. ② As seen earlier, T has paid KRW 87 million to CN under the pretext of the 6-point purchase price, the preparation for completion commemorative stone, and the expenses for the display of sperm, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to conclude that the above amount is a significantly low price than the objective market price. ③ According to T purchase and contract management rules, if the Defendant purchases more than KRW 50 million through a general competitive bidding, he/she shall purchase them through a free contract, and even if concluding a free contract, he/she shall obtain a estimate from more than two persons, but it is not reasonable to conclude that the Defendant would receive a competitive bid or a quotation while purchasing important art works, and it is not consistent with social norms, ④ The purchase of CN works has been approved by the head of the TN meeting, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not have any economic benefits.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to each of the facts charged, each of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part should be publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the

3. The point of acceptance of bribe to a third party;

A. Summary of the facts charged

around January 2013, the Defendant was undergoing a manufacture-post registration inspection on two passenger ships, including C Q and CR, introduced by the Jeju CP in a foreign country. C Q was 26 years old, and CR was 19 years old, and CR was 19 years old. In particular, C Q was used for a long period after large-scale repair at the female shipbuilding station.

Since it was a short state, it was the situation in which the scheduled operation of two vessels was determined based on the results of the manufacture-after registration inspection, the above (State) CP representative director, CS and CT intended to request the purchase of the above CN’s literary works.

On January 2013, the Defendant, as an officer of the agency under the Ship Safety Act, offered a bribe to a third party upon receiving an illegal solicitation in relation to the business of the inspection agency under the Ship Safety Act, for the purpose of having the said CN observe the exhibition of the art works, and for the purpose of purchasing 2 points of the art works to purchase the art works. From that point, the Defendant used the said CN to purchase 2 points of the art works, and paid the said CN with cash as the purchase price for the art works with the said CN’s 2 points of the art works. Accordingly, the Defendant provided a bribe to the said CN.

B. Determination

살피건대, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, T이 2013. 1.경 (주)CP이 외국에서 도입한 CQ, CR에 대하여 제조후등록검사를 진행하고 있었던 사실, (주)CP의 회장인 CT이 2013. 1.경 CS 대표이사와 함께 T의 부산신사옥을 방문하여 피고인을 만난 후 위 사옥에서 전시 중이던 CN의 서예작품 2점을 구입하고, 그 대금으로 500만 원을 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, ① CT이 피고인에게 위 제조후등록 검사와 관련하여 명시적으로 청탁을 한 적이 없을 뿐 아니라 수사기관 이래 이 법정에 이르기까지 "순수하게 샀다."는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점, ② 피고인이 CT으로 하여금 뇌물을 제공하게 할 만큼 CN과 가까운 관계라거나 CT이 그러한 관계로 오해하였다고 볼 자료가 없는 점, ③ CT은 위 서예작품을 구입함에 있어 가격을 200만 원 깎아 구입하였는데, 뇌물을 제공하는 사람의 입장에서 가격을 깎는다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ④ CTO CN의 위 서예작품을 객관적인 시세보다 비싸게 샀다고 볼 자료도 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 인정사실만으로는 피고인이 선박검사 업무에 관하여 CT으로부터 부정한 청탁을 받고 CN에게 뇌물을 공여하게 하였다고 보기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of this decision is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

4. The point of offering of bribe;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On May 26, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment of one year of suspended execution for the crime of taking property in breach of trust on April 26, 201, and was sentenced to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor or more for a person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more for whom two years have not passed after the expiration of the period of suspended execution under the T articles of incorporation, and submitted a civil petition related to the Defendant’s ipso facto retirement in accordance with the above judgment to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and reported this problem to the media. As such, the issue of the Defendant’s ipso facto retirement due to the determination of the above judgment, the lack of explicit statutory retirement regulations under T articles of incorporation, etc. became a major pending issue for T.

Around July 2011, the Defendant asked the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, to find a job in T when the Defendant came to know that E was in charge of audit in the field of T’s articles of association, government agency inspection, fees, and technology-related fields. Around April 2011, the Defendant promised to take follow-up audit procedures, such as preparation of audit and inspection records on T’s land on November 201, 201, after the completion of the on-site audit of T’s Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The above E, as an auditor for the field of T’s articles of incorporation after receiving employment commitments from the Defendant, committed an unlawful audit on the following: (a) contrary to the annual audit plan, excluding review of whether the Defendant was retired ipso facto or the lack of the provisions of the articles of incorporation on the grounds for ipso facto retirement, and the audit and inspection intellectual property claims; (b) omission in the audit and inspection paragraph at the request of C, the team leader of the government agency; (c) delay in the approval and management of the government agency services; (d) failure to comply with the approval procedure for the government agency inspection fees; and (e) failure to claim inspection fees related to inspection equipment.

According to the above employment commitment, the Defendant provided employment opportunities to receive approximately KRW 95 million each year by finding the above E as the head of the TAudit Team after retired from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 1, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. Determination

First of all, in conducting an audit of T in November 201, E performed by the defendant or C, it is considered whether the defendant or C commits an unlawful act in the course of performing the duty.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On February 11, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and one year of suspended execution with prison labor for the crime of taking property in breach of trust at the Seoul High Court. On May 26, 2011, the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 2011. According to Article 21(4) of the Telecommunication’s Articles of incorporation and Article 3 of the Regulations on the Procedure for Appointment of Officers, which was in force at the time, “a person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and for whom two years have not passed from the termination of the suspended execution period,” and “a person who was subject to

E participated in the preliminary audit of T from October 10 to November 14, 201 of the same month with CV officer and CW competent officer, and after confirming the fact that the defendant received a criminal judgment as above, it was examined the part of the articles of incorporation related thereto. And thereafter, it was designated as a person in charge of 'examination of the articles of incorporation' and 'Comparing with the articles of incorporation of a similar organization' as a person in charge of 'a review of the articles of incorporation' and 'a comparison with the articles of incorporation of a similar organization'. ③ However, in the on-site audit conducted from October 31, 201 to November 11, 201, there was no additional audit or inspection on the above matters.

④ During the above on-the-spot audit period, E confirmed 'the fact that the validity of the vessel inspection certificate and the certificate of international agreement is re-extensiond', 'the fact that the approval and management of the government agency is delayed', 'the fact that the government agency inspection fee approval procedure is not complied with', 'the fact that the inspection fee related to the inspection of machinery and materials is not claimed', but the audit and inspection register was

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed through the record, it is insufficient to view that E solely based on the above facts of recognition was an unlawful act in the course of performing an audit of T in favor of the defendant or C, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be recognized even if all of the evidence are examined.

① The scope of audit and inspection of T conducted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs around October 201 is "the overall entrusted duties executed after January 2008, and the audit and inspection priority is "the appropriateness of the execution of governmental entrusted duties, such as ship inspection and type approval". In light of this, it is difficult to view that the confirmation of a criminal judgment against the defendant and the retirement problem related thereto were the key issues of the audit of this case.

② The CV officers, CW ordering officers, and E, who conducted both preliminary and actual audits, stated that both the Defendant’s criminal judgment and retirement issues were not major audit matters, and that the government’s agency duties conducted in T were conducted.

3) According to the “T General Audit Plan Report” prepared by the Inspector Office, E was in charge of the “inspection commission and type approval” portion along with the instant actual audit at the time of the instant actual audit, and was not in charge of the “organization and Accounting” portion including personnel affairs, board of directors, etc. In regard to the issue of final judgment and retirement of the Defendant 4, T’s labor union filed a civil complaint with the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs around July 201 and the Prime Minister around August 201, when T’s labor union’s labor union and the audit of the Defendant 4 had been completed.

(5) The Audit Regulations of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs provides that the head of an audit team may request the head of an institution subject to self-audit to take on-site measures, such as correction, improvement, etc. (Article 28(1)), regarding minor matters found in the audit.

(6) There is no material to acknowledge that E is an important audit matter to the extent that it is impossible to take on-site measures as to "the fact that the validity of the ship inspection certificate and the certificate of international agreement discovered during the instant actual audit period," "the fact that the validity of the ship inspection certificate and the certificate of international agreement is extended," "the fact that the approval and management delay is delayed," "the fact that it is not in compliance with the approval procedure for the government agency inspection fee," "the fact that it is not in compliance with the request for inspection fee related to the inspection of machinery and materials," and it also does not appear that

Furthermore, in consideration of the following facts, E’s employment as a bribe, i.e., the public official for about 30 years after appointment in April 2010 to April 2012, 201, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs held office in the CY room, ii) the evaluation of E’s ability in T including the Defendant, and the first proposal for employment, iii) the employment through the same process as other employees including document screening, interview, etc., iv) the head of the T Audit Team may receive approximately KRW 95 million annually, but it is difficult to conclude that E’s employment as a bribe is beneficial to E, considering the benefits received as a public official, pension to be received in the future, and other tangible and intangible values of public officials, it is also difficult to conclude that E’s employment as a bribe.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, it is judged not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58(2)

“2014Gohap443, the part not guilty (Defendant E)

1. Summary of the facts charged

around February 1982, the Defendant was appointed as Grade 9 CZ to the Seoul Regional Railroad Office, and up to April 2012, the Defendant served as an electrical series of work (in the former industrial series of work) in the regional port administration, DA, etc. under the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, even if the name was changed to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries). From April 2010 to April 2012, the Defendant was appointed as a state public official in the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, who worked as Grade 6 industry in the CY office from April 201 to April 201, as an auditor in the comprehensive audit of T (hereinafter referred to as "T").

In accordance with the Audit Regulations of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, an auditor shall closely examine and analyze major business plans of agencies subject to audit, such as T, media reports, direction-setting for processing complaints, Internet bulletin board, prior audit results disposition, documents, etc. conducted by supervisory agencies or superior agencies against agencies subject to audit and inspection in order to minimize audit risk (risk giving face-to-face), and shall not implied or conceal, or give or receive money, valuables, or entertainment in connection with the audit and inspection. The judgment sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months or one-year suspension of execution on May 26, 201, which became final and conclusive. At the time, T union provided that "a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or more and for whom two years have not passed since the expiration of the suspension of execution," was disqualified for the appointment of executive officers, and at that time, T Union submitted a civil petition related to D's ipso facto retirement to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, which also became final and conclusive as a major issue of TD's articles of association.

Since July 201, 201, the Defendant received a proposal from D to be employed in T. A. On November 201, 201, after completing an on-the-spot audit of T.S., the Defendant was promised to be employed in T.S. office after retirement of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, under the circumstances where it is necessary to follow-up procedures for the audit and inspection of T.S., such as preparation, correction request, follow-up supervision, warning of relevant employees, and request for disciplinary action.

The Defendant received proposals and commitments from D that he would be employed in T as above, and committed unlawful audits such as excluding D’s ipso facto retirement and lack of explicit statutory provisions in TU, unlike B’s audit and inspection plan, excluding the audit and inspection intellectual property from C’s audit and inspection clause, i.e., “the delay in the approval and management of the ship inspection certificate and international agreement certificate,” i.e., the failure to approve the government agency inspection fee, i., failure to comply with the procedures for approving the government agency inspection fee, i.e., failure to request inspection fees related to inspection of machinery and materials” from the audit and inspection officer.

On April 2012, the Defendant was provided with employment opportunities from D as the head of the T Audit Team who could receive approximately KRW 95 million each year from May 5, 2012, according to the said employment commitment after retirement from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

Accordingly, the defendant received a bribe after receiving a request while in office as a public official, and received a bribe.

2. Determination

As examined earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant received a bribe after receiving a request from D or C during his/her service as an illegal act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Sub-resolution:

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to the facts charged of this case, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of this decision is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

“2014Gohap491, the part not guilty (Defendant F)

1. Summary of facts charged of occupational breach of trust

A. CG part

The Defendant was aware that D, the president of CG, had had a pro rata relationship with the above CG, and had CG under the direction of CG, the design company (main CH) and the construction supervision company (State) have already paid the cost of winding services in an amount equivalent to KRW 55 million during the process of the construction of TG building in Busan City, but was given the above D’s order to pay the cost of winding services in addition to the cost of winding services to the above CG, even though he was aware that there was no reason to pay the cost of winding services more properly to the above CG, around October 1, 2012, he had CG representative 20,200,000,000 won for defective repair due to the design defect of the PG building in Busan, which was to be received from CH, and had CG 201,000,0000 won for the above CG 20,0000 won for the construction work, and made the above CG 201,02G,01.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the above D, obtained the benefit of KRW 38,50,000 from the above CG in violation of his occupational duty, and suffered the loss equivalent to the above amount.

B. CN part

1) Main facts charged

A) On September 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing D, purchased literary works to exhibit them to the Busan Newly-built Pool, and the fact is that CN’s literary works are not traded in terms of not only KRW 100,000 per shop, but also are not at least the value of the works, and if T-related regulations purchase more than KRW 50,000,000 under a negotiated contract, the goods must be purchased through a general bid, and even if a negotiated contract is concluded, the goods shall be purchased through a competitive bid, and without good cause, undergo a written estimate from two or more persons without any justifiable reason;

On September 28, 2012, by paying to the above CN a total of KRW 67 million, which is a price significantly lower than the purchase price, under the pretext of six points for literary works, the said CN obtained unjust profits in breach of its occupational duties, and thereby caused damage equivalent to the said amount to T.

B) The Defendant, in collusion with the above D, purchased the said CN’s literary works as above, and paid the said CN to the said CN for the completion commemorative stone supply company, without any justifiable reason, on the ground that the said CN demands the addition of the writing preparation, paid KRW 10 million to the said CN for the purpose of preparing for the pen, and paid KRW 20 million in total, such as paying KRW 10 million to the said CN for the purpose of preparing for the pen, and paying KRW 10 million, which is remarkably low compared to the market price under the name of the sperm display, thereby in violation of his duties, thereby gaining unjust profit to the said CN, and causing damages equivalent to the above amount.

2) Preliminary facts charged

On September 28, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing D, purchased literary works to be exhibited in Busan New Posium. The fact is that CN’s literary works are not traded in terms of not less than KRW 100,000 per shop, and, under T-related regulations, if purchased more than KRW 50,000,00 through a general competitive bid and a negotiated contract is concluded, the Defendant shall purchase them through the general competitive bid, and even if concluding the negotiated contract, without any justifiable reason, without any justifiable reason, paid the said CN a sum of KRW 87,00,000,000, which is remarkably higher than the market price, under the pretext of the purchase price of the literary works, to obtain unjust profits to the said CN by violating its occupational duty, and thereby causing damage equivalent to the said amount.

2. Determination

A. CG part

As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having acquired CG pecuniary benefits in collusion with D in breach of its occupational duty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. CN part

As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant, in collusion with D, has acquired financial benefits to CN in breach of his/her occupational duty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Sub-resolution:

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to each of the facts charged, each of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part should be publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the

12014Gohap499, the part not guilty (Defendant B)

1. Summary of the facts charged

From July 2013 to February 2014, the Defendant, while serving as the head of the management planning office of the Company V (hereinafter “V”), was in custody for the said Company’s business after obtaining a corporate card for the said Company’s performance. On August 27, 2013, around 01:32, the Defendant paid KRW 350,000 for alcoholic beverages using a corporate card (credit card number: DD number) in the name of V without justifiable grounds for performing his/her business. In addition, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 4,435,00 for personal purposes, such as entertainment expenses and purchase of gift certificates, using the corporate card in the name of V, without justifiable grounds, from that time until January 10, 2014.

2. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

Although the defendant made a settlement by using V corporate cards at the time and place stated in the crime sight table (3), it is used only for the purpose of business, and it cannot be deemed as embezzlement because it does not violate T's corporate card use guidelines and work execution guidelines.

3. Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the defendant paid a total of 4,435,00 won to entertainment establishments, etc. 10 times through the corporate card in V, such as the list of crimes (3), and the defendant did not explain what kind of business it used.

However, as examined in the part of innocence against Defendant B, the prosecutor must prove that there was an act of embezzlement in realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement. The evidence must be proved by strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not more reasonable doubt. ① there is no evidence to deem that the defendant used the corporate card for his own purpose, such as in the list of crimes (3). ② there is no evidence to prove that the defendant violated the guidelines for the use of the corporate card, ② there is no evidence to prove that the defendant violated the guidelines for the use of the corporate card. ③ In full view of the fact that the defendant's explanation that he used the business for each item listed in the list of crimes (3) was recognized as having been used for the business, and the fact that the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used the amount listed in the list of crimes (3) to be embezzled for the personal business, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant has embezzled the business as well as the fact that there is no problem until now.

4. Sub-committee:

Thus, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of this decision is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

Judges Geung-dilution

Judgment of the Supreme Court

iv) Approval of the establishment of subsidiary V, and v) Acceptance of bribe and acceptance of bribe against the opening of government agency and private rights.

The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, which is recognized to be related to the duty, presents as a example of guidance and supervision of Telecommunication by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, but under the following "Defendant A, B, C, F, G and its:

As examined in Section 2-C of the "Determination on the Defense Counsel's argument", the relationship relationship between the accepted acceptance of the bribe of this case and the said services or between them.

As it is difficult to recognize the identity, the above part of the criminal facts of this case concerning business relationship and related parts are excluded.

2) The list of crimes (1) Nos. 6 and 8 are excluded.

3) The list Nos. 3, 5, 6, 17, and 22 are excluded.

4) The amount of less than KRW 4 shall be discarded.

5) The sentencing guidelines shall not apply to Defendant A, B, C, D, and F, as they were punished by a fine.

5) As Defendant A, B, C, D, and F are punished by a fine, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.