Violation of law

50,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

From February 20, 2006 to December 4, 2006, the Defendant served as Grade 3 vice-director at the 1 headquarters compensation team for the EP project, and was in charge of compensation affairs within an urban development project district, such as Mareal, mountain, port, Dong, etc. implemented by EP at EP, from December 5, 2006 to June 30, 2007, as the lease team lease team leader at EP customer support headquarters from July 1, 2007 to June 6, 2009.

21. Until now, EP Compensation Headquarters as the team leader at Grade 2 of EP 2 team, and takes charge of the affairs of compensation, such as the acquisition of land, etc. in an urban development project zone, such as set-off and rock, implemented by EP, and at the same time, the head of EP Compensation Headquarters is a person who attends a meeting of the team leader (the standard leader of compensation criteria, the 1st team leader of compensation land, the 2nd team of compensation land, the 3st team leader of compensation land, the 4th team leader of compensation land, and the head of EM project team) supervised on every Saturday, and participates in the affairs related to the compensation for each project zone implemented by EP, and is deemed a public official under the Local Public Enterprises Act.

From April 2007 to May 2007, the Defendant found an office for lease of ○○○ Logistics Center operated jointly by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Gangseo-gu Seoul Airport Dong on two occasions. At the same time, the Defendant shared the above airport-dong land and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “land and buildings subject to ○○○○○ Logistics Center”) located in the Mareal Urban Development Project District and offered a rent to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

Accordingly, the defendant, taking advantage of his position, received 50 million won under the pretext of soliciting the affairs of an appraiser who is deemed a public official in order to improve the officially assessed individual land price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness Kim ○○;

1. Part of the prosecutor’s statement concerning ○○○; and

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning the newly established ○;

1. A copy of an investigation report (referring to a report attached to personnel records of ○○○○○○○○○○○○), a copy of a personnel record card (referring to the report attached to the Articles of Incorporation, the Organization Regulation, the Regulations attached to the Regulations on the Organization), a copy of the Articles of Incorporation, the rules on the Organization Regulation of SH Corporation, the investigation report (referring to the report attached to the duties of 2 teams related to ○○○○○○○○, the report attached to the duties of 2 teams), a copy of the work division of the 2 Team, the work division of the 1st executive team, the investigation report (the confirmation report of the head of SH Corporation’s team leader and the Compensation Deliberation Board), the investigation report (the confirmation report of the departments of SH Corporation’s Compensation Headquarters), the investigation report (the report on the confirmation of the departments of SH Corporation’s Compensation Headquarters), the organization of SH Corporation, the list of persons in charge of the MH district affairs;

1. Investigation reports (Reporting as reference materials for an urban development project of a marina District), progress of an urban development project of a marina District, announcement of determination of the zone of the urban planning project (urban development project), announcement of the master plan for marina R&D, announcement of the standard date for taking measures for relocation of marina R &D urban development projects, announcement of the standard for taking measures for relocation of Gangseo-gu M&D urban development projects, public announcement of restriction on building permission of a marina M&D urban development zone, publication of the draft urban management plan, announcement of the designation of a marina M&D urban development zone and development plan, announcement of the plan, announcement of measures for relocation, alteration of a marina urban development zone, establishment of a development plan, implementation plan, and topographic drawings, information on each real estate register, investigation report (Attachment to the current status of compensation work of a marina district, etc.), report on the status of compensation work of a marina district, publication of the master plan, publication of the report on search and seizure, copy of the report on execution of the search and seizure, report on the list of seizure, copy of the investigation report, title 200 and attached.

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the Internet output in the calendar of 2007, such as a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the details of transactions of a deposit account in the name of Kim○○), a copy of a deposit passbook in the name of Kim○○, two deposit accounts in the name of an enterprise bank, a copy of a deposit sheet in the name of Kim○○, a copy of a deposit sheet in the name of an enterprise bank, one million won in the name of an enterprise bank, and

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 132 of the Criminal Act (a point of acceptance of bribe), Article 111 (1) and (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Articles 45 and 29 (1) 3 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (a point of violation of the Attorney-at-Law

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with more severe punishment, but the upper limit shall be 15 years pursuant to the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. The defendant's receipt of money from Kim○-○ is around June 2007. The defendant does not receive money on the pretext of arranging matters belonging to public official's duties or soliciting the appraiser's affairs. Mediation or solicitation such as facts constituting an offense is not possible for the defendant to exercise any influence. The defendant merely received KRW 50 million from Kim○-○ around June 2007, while he did not clearly confirm whether he would give money or not, he was used as a result of an urgent payment of money, although he did not clearly confirm whether he would give money or not. The defendant received money once he received money from Kim○-○ and Jeong○-○, by requesting that he would receive more compensation from the public official's official duties or by requesting that he would receive more compensation from the public official's commercial company, etc., or by raising the publicly announced individual land price.

B) On June 2007, the Defendant did not have a de facto relationship that could affect the implementation of the urban development project compensation work in the Food Development Project Area implemented by the Food and Rural Development Project Corporation at the time of receiving money from Kim○○ on or around 2007. Since the authority related to the Food and Rural Development Project in the Food and Rural Development Project in the Food and Rural Development Project was in Gangseo-gu, not E.S., it could not have any de facto impact on E.S. companies in charge of compensation in the Food and Rural Development Project in relation to the compensation, and there is no room to deny the process of calculating the amount of compensation in relation to E.S., so the Defendant cannot have a de facto impact on the calculation of the amount of compensation. Moreover, the officially assessed individual land price is calculated automatically on the basis of the completion date of the table, so it could not affect the Defendant, and

3) Article 45 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, which is a provision of a certified public appraiser’s public official’s provision, is merely the meaning that a certified public appraiser is deemed a public official in the application of crimes concerning bribe as provided by the Criminal Act. If a case or affairs handled by a certified public appraiser are subject to a solicitation or solicitation, it is not the purpose of criminal punishment, and even if a certified public appraiser receives money under the pretext of solicitation or solicitation, it does not violate Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. Determination

A. The time when the defendant received money is July 21, 2007.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, ○○○○○ 2, the following circumstances, namely, Kim○ 5,000 won at the time of interrogation of the Defendant at the time of 00,000 won of cash 50,000,000 won, were not closed, but the above money was collected at the end of 7,000,000 won, and the bank account used at 207,000, was offered to the Defendant at the time of 7,000,000 won, and at the time of 7,000,000 won, was collected from the Defendant at the time of 7,000,000 won, and the Defendant offered 7,000 won at the time of 7,00,000 won for 7,00,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 17,07,07,000.

The above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted.

B. The Defendant received money under the pretext of soliciting matters belonging to the duties of E.S. employees and soliciting the work of certified public appraisers.

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was lawfully admitted and investigated the following facts: (a) was the principal interest in obtaining high compensation when the land and the building was included in an urban development project in the Gereal District; (b) was thought that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 5-one of the facts that he was not able to receive high compensation for the land and building included in the Gean○○○○○○.

2) Meanwhile, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by this court based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the Mae District Urban Development Project was not yet conducted on July 207 due to the designation of a district and the establishment and announcement of a development plan, but there was an estimate for the relocation plan to be established on January 18, 2006, such as that there was an inspection announcement of the urban management plan (not known). On January 22, 2007, the public hearing was held on June 27, 2007, that the head of the 5th appraisal team at the same time applied for the approval of the designation of the area from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, i.e., the head of the 20th appraisal team at the same time on June 28, 2007, and the head of the 4th appraisal team at the same time on the 20th appraisal team at the same time, and the head of the 5th appraisal team at the same time was also in charge of the 7th appraisal project.

The above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted.

C. Receiving money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or good offices with respect to verification affairs of officially assessed individual land prices conducted by a certified public appraiser constitutes a violation of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Article 45 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act provides that a certified public appraiser who performs the duties of verifying individual land prices under Article 29 (1) 3 of the same Act among the duties of a certified public appraiser shall be deemed a public official in the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act. Article 111 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person who is deemed a public official in the application of penal provisions under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act pursuant to other Acts shall be deemed a public official under Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act. As such, if a certified public appraiser performs the duties of verifying individual land prices, he/she shall be deemed a public official under Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Therefore, if a defendant receives money

The above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted.

The reasons for sentencing are not applicable to the sentencing criteria: Superior competition;

The defendant actively demanded a bribe, the amount of which is a relatively high amount of KRW 50 million, and the fact that the defendant's act is not divided into his own act, etc., is considerably unfavorable to the defendant, and in the case of a bribe crime, a public official who enforced the law is the subject of the crime, etc., and thus, a strict punishment should be followed in that it directly threatens the public trust in the state system, compared to other crimes on which the sentencing guidelines are set. However, the defendant returned the bribe, but there is no criminal record yet, the defendant still has no criminal record, the defendant works in good faith as an employee of E.S., the defendant is a quasi-public official, and the defendant is not a bribe in relation to his duties. Thus, considering these circumstances and the sentencing factors under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the violation (i) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes constitutes the increase of the bribe category No. 4 among the crime of bribery in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and (ii) imprisonment with prison labor for a period of up to 6 years and 6 years, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-jin

Judges Park Jong-ho