However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant and the victim C(51) have been known from 10 years ago to 10 years, and in the vicinity, there have been a lot of people who have been able to have political and political relations, such as police, prosecution, court, etc.

On March 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around March 25, 2012, from the victim in Fda of the E Bank located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, “A person who is a man G is undergoing a police investigation as a theft case; and (b) whether the Defendant can be identified.

The phrase “I hear the horses, I would like to bring the victim to the police and the prosecution, while G would not be prosecuted.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay or make a solicitation for the case requested by the victim to the police, the prosecution, etc., and was thought to obtain money from the victim by iceing entertainment expenses.

Defendant: (a) received KRW 500,000 in cash from the public prosecutor’s office-related persons before the I Hospital under the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H high-priced bridge at the end of March, 2012 from the victim by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 500,000 in cash

4. The same year in which a person receives cash of three million won in the name of a guard guard at the same place for entertainment.

9. Around December 12, 200 won was received under the same name as the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness C and each legal statement of the J;

1. Statement of each part of the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the prosecution against the accused in each of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect (including each substitute part ofC and J);

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. In the investigation report (Confirmation of G expropriation), the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the defendant received a total of KRW 3.7 million from the injured party, and the fact that the defendant received a request related to G, but the victim stated that "the police, prosecutor's office, many people, and G are not charged with prosecution," and the victim did not receive money by visiting entertainment expenses, but received appraisal fees that the injured party did not pay to the defendant before the instant case, and thus, the defendant is acquitted.