(영문) 광주지방법원 2007. 6. 29. 선고 2007고합57 판결[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)][미간행]
Defendant
5 5 5 14
Attorney Early Preliminary et al.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.
134 days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.
Of the Bank of Korea notes confiscated 10,000 won, gold 50,000,000 won shall be confiscated (Evidences 1 through 3, 2007, which were seized on February 12, 2007).
50,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
The defendant, who was on July 1, 2006, was the head of the ○○-Gun, who was appointed on July 1, 2006, and has overall control over the affairs of the military administration, such as ordering various construction works conducted by the ○○
From September 206 to December 12, 2006, the Defendant’s office located in the ○○ Military Office and the Defendant’s house located in the same Eup/Myeon 809 from 200 million won for a total of KRW 1.6 billion after receiving the Defendant’s check from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1, who contributed to an election campaign, etc. at the house of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1, the representative director of the ○○ Military Office (name omitted), who is the Defendant’s house located in the 200,000 won, and received the Defendant’s house from 206,000 won for a total of KRW 1.6 billion for the Defendant’s check from 20,000,000,000 won, which is part of the construction work, and received the Defendant’s house from Nonindicted 1 and 3,000,000 won for the said 20,000 won. < Amended by Act No. 7940, Dec. 16, 2006>
1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness
1. Statement made by Non-Indicted 1 in the first copy of the trial record in the Gwangju District Court 2007 Godan493 case
1. Results of this Court’s verification of visible fences, recording tapes, etc.;
1. Each statement of Nonindicted Party 1
1. Written statement and statement of self-denunciation of the accused (not more than 121 pages of investigation records);
1. Each statement made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 4 and 5
1. A detailed statement of deposit transactions and a certified copy thereof, a statement of deposit transactions and a report on the results of the treatment of red farmers and the pan-managed sewage, and a report on the progress of the improvement project of sewage pipes (not more than 874
1. Each investigation report (a statement on the source of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 submitted by Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1’s protocol of suspect interrogation, and a report on the source of KRW 70,000,00 for reference witness Nonindicted Party 10, a statement of budget for the construction of red farmers and law sewage treatment plants, a report
1. Bank of Korea notes of 10,000 won (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3) confiscated;
1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;
Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act.
1. Discretionary mitigation;
Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the amount equivalent to a bribe received has been seized, and the contract for construction has not been actually made, and considering the age, career, career, etc. of the defendant has been taken into account)
1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;
Article 57 of the Criminal Act
1. Confiscation;
Of the amount of KRW 20,00,000, the sum of KRW 10,000,000, the sum of KRW 50,000,00,00,000, on which the seal of the employees of the employees of the employees of the Young-gun, the Young-gun, which was exchanged by Nonindicted Party 1 in cash among the Bank of Korea notes 7,000 (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3) seized under the former part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act is affixed, shall be confiscated.
1. Additional collection:
Article 134 of the Criminal Act
A. The gist of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is that there was no demand from Nonindicted 1 and 3 for money at the cost of the automatic control system (Monitoring) construction, which is part of the construction work, for “Yeong Pung Agricultural and Legal Sewage Treatment Facility” (hereinafter “instant construction”). However, on December 16, 2006, Nonindicted 1 and 3 demanded Nonindicted 14, who was the Defendant’s wife, to bring KRW 100,000 cashier’s checks up to KRW 100,000,000,000,000 to Nonindicted 3, but the Defendant did not unilaterally exchange the checks on December 22, 2006, with Nonindicted 3’s cash return KRW 100,000,000 to Nonindicted 1 and 3,000,000 won, and the Defendant did not immediately return the checks to Nonindicted 1 and 3,000,000 won to Nonindicted 3,50,000 won.
B. From the investigation agency and this court, from September 2006 to September 16, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 made efforts to find out the Defendant’s office and home-to-door with Nonindicted Party 3 several times to receive the instant construction, upon request. At the end of September 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 presented 5-6% of the construction cost as the price for the instant construction before the Embassy, and the other company presented 10% or more at the end of the Defendant’s oral statement that it would give 10% or more of the construction cost. After borrowing KRW 100 million from Defendant 5, Nonindicted Party 3 sent 100,000 to the Defendant’s office at the time of borrowing KRW 100,000,000,000 on December 16, 2006, Nonindicted Party 3 sent the Defendant’s cashier’s check to Nonindicted Party 14 and then sent it to the Defendant’s office by December 26, 2006.
C. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 is consistent on the date of the Defendant’s offering of a bribe case (Seoul District Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 2007Da493) and is detailed to the extent that it is difficult to view the contents of the statement as a statement made by a person who did not have any direct experience.
In particular, in relation to the process of exchanging checks in cash, according to the result of this court’s verification of the Bosium and recording tape, etc., the defendant, at his own home on December 24, 2006, after considering the fact that the defendant delivered KRW 100 million to Nonindicted Party 1 as a check on December 22, 2006, in a conversation with Nonindicted Party 1 and 3, the check must be subject to an absolute check even if she is in Korea. The check refers to the check that "I do not have to do so." The defendant stated at the end of Nonindicted Party 1, 1, "I would like to do so," "I would like to do so." The defendant stated at the end of the above statement that "I would like to do so." In addition to the fact on the day when the check was exchanged on December 22, 2006 with Nonindicted Party 1 and 3 on December 24, 2006, it would be consistent with the defendant's statement exchange in cash.
In addition, on February 11, 2007, when the prosecution conducted search and seizure of the defendant's office of the ○○ Military Office and his house, the defendant took the same day as the lawyer, prepared a self-denunciation certificate and a written statement to the prosecutor voluntarily attend the prosecutor, and he was asked by the prosecutor to return cash of KRW 100 million to the defendant at the request of the owner of the instant construction work, but he did not return it. However, on February 12, 2007, the prosecutor instructed the non-indicted 10 million to return cash of KRW 100 million to the non-indicted 3, but the non-indicted 10,000 won was unable to return it to the non-indicted 10,000 won, and he did not return it to the non-indicted 10,000 won, and he did not return it to the non-indicted 10,000 won on the day when he was found to have been aware of the above danger of harm to the non-indicted 10,000, and made a false statement concerning the defendant's offense of bribery.
In addition, in light of the fact that the seals affixed to the Agricultural Cooperative manager and the first person in charge of the agricultural cooperative manager, who exchanged the checks by Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of the seizure, are partially different ( Nonindicted Party 1 is KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted 10 million won in cash was ordered to be returned to Nonindicted 10 to Nonindicted 3, but Nonindicted 10 was partly misappropriated of the money and thus, it is difficult to believe that the money was not returned to Nonindicted 10. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
At the time when six months have not passed since the defendant was appointed as the head of ○○○○○○ on July 1, 2006 and was in a position to perform his duties fairly, while maintaining integrity and morality, the crime of this case is a case receiving KRW 100 million from Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 3 in relation to the order of this case. In the process of accepting a bribe, the defendant presented the rate of rebates, demanded the exchange of the first issued check in cash, etc., which shows in a manner to doubt the quality of the head of the local government as a public-private partnership head. The crime is not good in that the defendant himself was present at the prosecutor’s office and voluntarily surrenders himself, but the statement was reversed, and since it was not against this law, it is appropriate that the defendant is subject to strict punishment corresponding thereto. The defendant should be sentenced to the punishment in consideration of such circumstances, the defendant’s age, character and behavior, career factors, etc.
Judges Kang Jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho Kim