(b) Improper bribery;

(c) Preparation of false official documents;

(d) Uttering of false official documents;

(e) Bribery;

(f) Business affairs of licensed real estate agents and reporting of real estate transactions;

violation of applicable rate

Housing Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Standing Dong

Reference domicile Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

2.(c) d. B, A public official;

Housing Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dongwon-dong

2. The name of the person in charge of the registration

3.(d) Soldiers, public officials;

Housing Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Reference domicile Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mawondong

4. (a) A. Fully, and a public official;

Housing Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

【Masan-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul

misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the defendant Gap

Law Firm Wood, Attorneys Mag-kwan, Kim Byung-hee, Lee Jin-kin (Defendant)

for B)

Law Firm Jin, Attorney Park Jae-man, and Cho Jae-ok (for defendant Byung)

Law Firm Wood, Attorney Yellow-si, and Kim Jong-soo (for the purpose of defendant law)

2. If a defendant Byung did not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

3. The nine days of detention days before the pronouncement of this judgment was made shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant A and B, the period of detention in the old prison with regard to the above fine against Defendant C, and the 10 days of detention in the old prison with regard to the above fine against Defendant C, respectively.

4. Provided, That with respect to Defendant A and B, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

5. Ordering each community service for 200 hours for welfare facilities and group service activities for Defendant A and B, and for public support service activities for Defendant B.

6. 5,00,000 won from Defendant A, 17,000,000 won from Defendant B, and 85,000,000 won from Defendant A’s court shall be collected respectively.

1. Defendant B is a public official of Grade 9 of the function who is in charge of the duties, such as the aerial photography reading of an unauthorized building, at 00 and 000 teams of Mapo-gu Office in Mapo-gu, Seoul, 57 from May 13, 200 to July 9, 2004.

(a) Preparation of false official documents;

The air carrier reading service of the non-authorized building in charge of Defendant B is an existing unauthorized building (the 12th 1981).

31. With respect to a building previously constructed and constructed before April 8, 1982 and omitted in the ledger of an unauthorized building, among residential buildings, etc., the total floor area of which is not more than 85 square meters, the owner of the unauthorized building is confirmed through a field inspection against the head of the Tong, Ban, tenant, and neighboring residents upon receipt of an application for aerial photography reading, and through a field inspection, the owner of the unauthorized building is confirmed; whether the building without permission is affiliated with the unauthorized building; whether the building is owned by another person within the Han fence; whether two or more persons separate the building; whether the building is owned by the additional facility and the installation; whether the building has been used for the change of the installed facilities and the installation of the installation; whether the building has increased or decreased without permission; and as a result, the building was registered in the ledger of the Existing Unauthorized Building; the building (facilities annexed to the facility or appurtenant building) or the building installed in the fence or the building without permission; and the building subject to exclusion from the aerial reading.

In the Mapo-gu Office Housing and the office of October 6, 2003, Defendant A prepared a uniform letter of application for air-ray reading on an unauthorized building with the name of 000 to be purchased by Defendant A and applied for air-ray reading in the name of 000, Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is located in the name of 000, Defendant B did not verify that the above 000 is its owner through a field investigation on the above unauthorized building, and there was no fact that the head of the Tong/Ban, the former tenant, and adjoining residents were the owner, and there was no fact that the above 00 was confirmed as the owner; whether the building was owned by another person within the Han-gu fence, whether two or more persons were separately owned, whether the facilities and the installation were used, whether there was any change in the facilities and the installation, and whether there was any extension

Nevertheless, the defendant Eul puts this "in the form of "to be read in the form of the name tag for the application for the reading of the aerial photography in his/her computer," and then printed this "in the form of "as for the confirmation column of the owner's identity, the head of the Tong, the leader, the former tenant, and the neighboring resident," respectively, in the part of the confirmation column for the owner's identity, "the building type confirmation column is permitted, whether the existing unauthorized building is affiliated with the existing unauthorized building, whether there is a building owned by another person within one fence, whether there are more than one building, whether there is the separation of ownership, additional facilities, whether there is the change of the temporary facilities, and whether there is any change in the part to be verified and reconstructed without permission" in the form of "the date of preparation" in the form of "10th, 203 "the 9th and name of the master" as "the 9th and the name"

In addition, Defendant B, who has obtained the approval of the duplicate of the airline reading application printed out as above, shall affix his signature to Defendant B, and submit it to the Mapo-gu Office 000 and 000 and received the approval respectively.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul prepared a false copy of the name of the airline operator's application filed in the name of 000 name, which is the official document in the name of the defendant Eul.

Defendant B, including this, shall from that time be as shown in the Schedule of Crimes No. 1.

4. Until June 14, all of the above methods, in a false manner, six copies of the letter of name of the airline reading application in the name of Defendant B, which is an official document in the name of Defendant B, were drawn up in a false manner.

(b) Exercising false official documents;

On October 6, 2003, Defendant B, at the house of Mapo-gu Office and the office of Mapo-gu, filed a false statement on the airline reading application in the name of 000 as above, and kept it at a place to be bound into the airline reading-related files as if they were duly prepared.

Defendant B, as well as this, shall from that time be 204, from that time as set out in the Schedule of Crimes No. 1.

4. Until 14. Up to six times all, six copies of a false list of airlines’ reading applications were held respectively.

(c) Improper bribery;

At a restaurant where the trade name near Mapo-gu Office is unknown, around September 2003, Defendant B was urged from Defendant A to provide KRW 50 million on the face of the week by allowing Defendant A to be recognized as an existing unauthorized building through the aerial aerial photography with respect to an unauthorized building located in the site of the Housing Site Development Business in Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City where Defendant A applied for aerial photography.

Accordingly, during the period from October 6, 2003 to April 14, 2004, Defendant A made an unlawful act in the course of performing his duties, such as falsely preparing six copies of the name of the airline reading application for the airline reading of an unauthorized building purchased by Defendant A, and exercising it, requesting the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Division to have the airline reading reading so that Defendant A can be read as an existing unauthorized building, and notifying Defendant A of whether the unauthorized building was subject to the airline reading.

Defendant A received KRW 4,50,000 from the beginning of November 2003 to the middle of March 2004, Defendant A received KRW 2,200,000,000 from the unauthorized Building Confirmation Site located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, KRW 50,000 from the office of Mapo-gu office around January 2004, and KRW 2,00,000,000 from the end of April 2004 to the first day of May 2004, respectively, within the passenger car of Defendant A parked in front of the community credit cooperatives located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Mapo-gu, Seoul. Accordingly, Defendant B received a bribe after performing any unlawful act in the course of performing his duties.

2. Defendant Byung

Defendant Byung is a public official who has been in charge of the affairs, such as unauthorized Building Management and Flight Stage Reading from May 1, 2003 to February 1, 2006 at the Seoul Mapo-gu Urban Management Office 00 and the Seoul Mapo-gu Urban Management Office 000 team.

(a) Preparation of false official documents;

Defendant Byung's Unauthorized Building's Air Reading Services is the previous Unauthorized Building (No. 12, 1981).

31. With respect to a building previously constructed, which was built before April 8, 1982 and omitted in the ledger of an unauthorized building, among residential buildings, etc., the total floor area of which is not more than 85 square meters, the owner of the unauthorized building shall be verified through a field investigation upon receipt of an application by air reading and through a field investigation, by the head of the Tong, Ban, tenant, and neighbor, and the owner of the unauthorized building; whether the building without permission is affiliated with an unauthorized building; whether the building is owned by another person within one fence; whether two or more persons separate the building; whether the building has been owned by the additional facilities and equipment; whether the building has been used for the change of the installation; whether the building has increased or decreased without permission; and as a result, the construction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the construction of the reading report are prepared; and the building (facilities attached thereto or building attached thereto) or the building on which the air reading has occurred, new air reading building, etc. shall be excluded from the category of the building without permission;

At the office of Mapo-gu Office on December 11, 2003, Defendant Byung prepared a uniform letter of application for aerial photography in respect of an unauthorized building located in 000 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, where Defendant Gap purchased and applied for aerial photography under the name of 000, Defendant Byung did not verify that the above 000 is the owner through a field investigation, and there was no fact that the above 00 is the owner of the passbook, the head of Ban, the former tenant, and adjoining residents, and there was no fact that it was a permit or an existing unauthorized building, whether there was a building owned by another person within a single fence, whether two or more persons own the building separately, whether there was a building owned by another person in a single fence, whether there was a change in the incidental facilities and the installation, whether there was a change in the installation, and whether there was any portion

Nevertheless, the defendant Byung marked "○" on the column of the list of air carrier application stored in his/her computer and printed it to "the owner's confirmation column," "the owner's confirmation column, the head of Tong/Ban, the former tenant, and the neighboring resident" on the part of the confirmation column for the owner's confirmation column, "the building form confirmation column, whether the existing unauthorized building is affiliated with the existing unauthorized building, whether there is a building owned by another person within the Korean fence, whether there are more than one building, whether there are separate ownership of more than one building, additional facilities, whether the temporary installation has been used, whether there is any change in the part of the building, and whether there is a portion of the unauthorized increase or reconstruction" in the "12-month and multi-person column" column of the preparation date.

In addition, Defendant D’s signature by Defendant D after obtaining approval on the duplicate of the airline reading application printed out as above, and submitted it to the Mapo-gu Office 000 and 000 to obtain approval from each of them.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising the right, Defendant Byung prepared a false copy of the letter of name of the airline's reading application filed in the name of 000 name, which is an official document in the name of Defendant Byung.

Defendant Byung, including this, shall be from that time as shown in the Schedule of Crimes 2.03.

12. Not later than 29. 29. All of the above four times, in a false manner, four copies of the letter of name of the airline reading application, which is an official document in the name of the defendant Byung, were prepared in a false manner.

(b) Exercising false official documents;

On December 11, 2003, Defendant Byung filed a false statement with the above office of Mapo-gu Office on the airline reading application with the above 000 name, and kept it at the same time after filing it into the airline reading-related files as if they were genuinely prepared.

Defendant Byung, as well as the Defendant Byung, from that time to that time, as set out in the Schedule of Crimes No. 2.

12. By the end of 29. 29 all, four copies of a copy of an airline’s reading application were respectively exercised in the same manner.

3. Defendant fixed

Defendant fixed is responsible for the management of unauthorized buildings, etc. at 00 and 000 teams of Mapo-gu Office in Mapo-gu, Seoul, Sungsan-ro, 557 from March 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003, and at 00 and 000 teams of Mapo-gu, Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and 203.

5. A public official who is a local administrative assistant member working at the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office from January 1 to February 1, 2005.

The defendant Jung-si, at the office of Mapo-gu from January 2003 to April 30, 2003, was in charge of the management of the building without permission and the issuance of an unauthorized Building Confirmation Board, and notified the defendant Gap, who was engaged in the sale and purchase business of the building site located in the housing site development business of the above amamba2, of whether the building without permission is registered in the ledger of an unauthorized Building Management, etc. and whether the building's attached building can be recognized as an existing unauthorized building through the airline Jindo, and provided convenience in response to the request to provide convenience for the issuance of an unauthorized Building Confirmation Board and the change of the name of an unauthorized building. On May 1, 2003, the defendant Jung-gu transferred the building to 00 Dong office of Mapo-gu Seoul on May 1, 2003.

Defendant Company’s transfer to the above 00 Dong Office, from April 2004, to April 2004, provided convenience in receiving the same solicitation from Defendant A. On the other hand, upon Defendant A’s request.

At the Mapo-gu Office, Defendant B, who was in charge of the affairs of aerial photography and change of name of an unauthorized building, provided convenience, such as delivering a request to handle the airline reading and application for change of name with an unauthorized building.

On August 4, 2003, the Defendant Company: (a) transferred KRW 20 million to the bank account in Korea’s definition bank; (b) KRW 40 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s justice bank on September 9, 2003; and (c) KRW 15 million to the bank account in the company bank of Nonindicted 00, a wife on August 3, 2004; and (d) received KRW 85 million in total, such as receiving KRW 10 million in the vicinity of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 Dong office, around August 3, 2003.

Accordingly, the defendant's court accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

4. Defendant A

A. Defendant A offered a bribe in connection with the public official’s duties by delivering KRW 22 million to Defendant B on the date, time, place, and place as referred to in the above paragraph (1)(c). Defendant A provided a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties at the same time, place, and place as referred to in the above paragraph (3). Defendant A provided a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by remitting or delivering KRW 85 million to Defendant Company A as above.

B. Business affairs of licensed real estate agents and reporting of real estate transactions

No person may use another person's certificate of qualification for real estate agent or render brokerage services using another person's name or trade name, but Defendant A may do so.

1. From around 30. to early November 2006, Defendant A, located in Mapo-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, paid KRW 100,000 per month to 00,000 per month, and provided brokerage services using his name 00,000 while lending and using his certificate of qualification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial or full statement

1. Entry of the defendant Eul and the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office in the defendant Eul and Byung;

1. Defendant A’s statements written by each prosecutor’s protocol of suspect examination of each prosecutor’s office Nos. 3, 4, and 5;

1. Entry of the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office in the second, fourth, and five statements about the defendant's court;

1. Statement made by the prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol concerning 000;

1. Entry in notes B and written statements of 000 (in case of investigation records, 662 pages, 2495 pages);

1. The statement of December 21, 2007, 1. The investigation report of the chief public prosecutor's office in the Seoul Eastern District Public Prosecutor's Office (2389, page 238), the investigation report (2533-2594, page 2594, page 2595-2608, page 2595-2608, copy of the investigation report), the investigation report (personal record card file filing, investigation record file, page 2663-2, page 2672, page 2), the investigation report (the investigation report of the assistant of the Seoul East East Police Station in charge of investigation records)

1. Business registration certificate and certificate of qualification of licensed real estate agent (in the investigation records, 360, 361 pages); and

1. Each airline reading protocol and each duplicate statement on the application for airline reading (at least 676 up to 703 pages of the investigation records);

1. Each description of the details of transactions in a company bank (in investigation records, between 1967 and 1983), each statement of transactions in a fixed deposit account (in investigation records, between 2063 and 2079, between 2128 and 2131 pages);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 131(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 49(1)1 and 7, 7(2), and 19(2) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act;

(b) Defendant B: Articles 131(2) and (1), 129(1), 227, and 229 of the Criminal Act. Article 229 (Preparation of False Official Document and Preparation of False Official Document)

(c) Defendant Byung: Articles 227 and 229 of the Criminal Act.

(d) The fixed amount of defendant: Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act) and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A, B, and C: Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Defendant A shall be punished by the penalty for the offering of a bribe to the ruling which is the largest of the punishment for the crime; Defendant B shall be punished by the penalty; Defendant B shall be punished by the penalty; Defendant C shall be punished by the punishment for the offering of a bribe to the ruling which is the largest of the punishment for the crime; Defendant C shall be punished by the penalty specified in the illegal bribery after the ruling which is the most severe of the punishment; Defendant C shall be punished by the penalty specified in No. 1 of the attached Table 2 of the

3. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant fixed-time: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1448, Apr. 2, 2006)

4. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant Byung: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day)

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

6. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A and B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

7. Social service order;

Defendant A and B: Article 62-2(1) of each Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

8. Additional collection:

Defendant A, B, and C: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Code

The grounds for sentencing are as follows: The defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, including the circumstances after the crime.

1. Defendant A: The fact that a bribe has been given to a public official to seriously undermine the integrity of the public service society, the confidence of the general public in the fairness of execution of duties, and thus the crime is not good, the fact that there is no previous conviction in the same kind of crime, and that the situation has peeped;

2. Defendant B: The fact that a public official received a bribe in connection with his duties and seriously undermines the integrity of the public service society, the confidence of the general public in the fairness of performing his duties, and thus causes poor quality of a crime; the first crime; the fact that he faithfully works as a public official; the fact that he recognized the crime of this case; the fact that he commits the crime of this case and reflects the wrong fact; and the fact that part of the accepted bribe has been returned

3. Defendant Byung: The fact that the commission of the instant crime was due to the failure to perform his duties is not an illegal solicitation or a bribe; the primary crime is the first crime; the commission of the instant crime and the commission of the mistake, and the commission of the public official faithfully.

4. Defendant fixed-end: The fact that a public official received a bribe in relation to his duties, thereby seriously impairing the integrity of the public service society, the fairness in the performance of duties, and the trust of the general public, and that the appearance of the crime is bad; however, in the examination of legality of detention, he made a statement to the purport that he makes a confession, and thereafter made a statement to the effect that he denies the crime of this case, and made a statement to the effect that he denies the crime of this case after he was released at the examination of legality of detention, which led to the reversal of the statement related to the nature of the received money; the fact that there is no special criminal record other than the fine prior to the imposition

1. Judgment on Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the argument

Although the fact that Defendant A gave a sum of KRW 85 million to Defendant 1, Defendant A, without any condition, was fully paid the principal including interest, the amount of the bribe offered should be deemed as the financial profit that lent KRW 85 million to Defendant 1.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence mentioned above, the following facts can be acknowledged: (1) Defendant A and the relationship of justice

Defendant Jeong-gun was appointed as the local administrative secretary of the Jeon-gun, Jeon-gun on August 7, 1981, and on March 5, 1985.

On February 21, 1989 after he/she was dismissed from office as a local administrative secretary of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 21, 1989, work for the Mapo-gu Office and its affiliated Dong offices, and was promoted to the local administrative assistant of Mapo-gu on May 1, 2003, and transferred from 00 and 00 teams to 00 Dong offices of Mapo-gu.

Defendant A introduced an unauthorized building (house) attached to another real estate business entity, which is accompanied by the building site development in Mapo-gu Seoul, around 1998, to the other real estate business entity. After purchasing an unauthorized building, the real estate business entity filed an application for public trial to purchase an unauthorized building and then resell the building into an independent unauthorized building upon obtaining confirmation sources of the unauthorized Building, and the said business entity would be able to obtain profits by using the aforementioned methods. After that, the Defendant A anticipated that the building would be designated as a housing site development zone in the above 2-dong, and had anticipated that the building would be a housing site development zone in the above 2-dong, and had the said unauthorized Building confirmed that the building would be determined as a housing site development zone in around 203, and sought the resale to the effect that the building would be decided as a housing site development zone in the 2-dong, 300, and that the building would be issued more at an unauthorized building price through the public trial.

On the other hand, as seen earlier in the middle half of 2002, Defendant A was aware of the fact that he had worked in the city management office of Mapo-gu, and from January 2003, Defendant A was issued an unauthorized Building Confirmation Board upon the request of the public trial at first time after purchasing an unauthorized building at first time and being issued a certificate of the unauthorized Building Confirmation Board.

(2) Defendant Party A’s act related to the request for the reading of an unauthorized building for the public trial, as seen above, should know whether the building was registered in the ledger of an unauthorized building for the purpose of purchasing an unauthorized building, and if the request for the reading of a public trial is made on the ancillary building, it can be concluded by compromise, such as raising a certain amount of value at the owner of an unauthorized building for the reading of the public trial, and if the request for the reading of the public trial was made, it was necessary to know the above matters in advance, but it was difficult to ascertain the above matters in a normal way, and requested Defendant Party 1 to find out whether the building was registered in the ledger of an unauthorized building, and whether it is possible to read the public trial.

At that time, Defendant 1, who was in charge of the change of the name of an unauthorized building at the Mapo-gu Office, was aware of the above matters through a public official in charge of the air-going trial or by the method of directly verifying it, Defendant A was aware of the same fact that Defendant A was not subject to the reading of public trial, and Defendant A was called “in the case of the subject of the reading of public trial,” “in the case of the subject of the reading of public trial, Defendant A would put the application once”, and Defendant A thought that there was no affiliated building, and was registered in the unauthorized Building Register because the building was registered in the unauthorized Building Register because the building was registered in the unauthorized Building Register.” Defendant A knew the name and address of the nominal owner registered in the unauthorized Building Register so that Defendant A can find the owner of the unauthorized Building more promptly than others, and Defendant A would normally be given convenience such as 2 and 3 days when Defendant A applied for the change of name.

On the other hand, even after being transferred to the Mapo-gu 00 Dong office on May 1, 2003, Defendant 1 asked whether it is possible for Defendant 1 to read that Defendant 1 would put the application for public trial to the public trial, or would find out the issue of change of name thereafter. Defendant 1 prepared a meal site at around October 2003 and introduced Defendant 2 to Defendant 1. (A) Defendant 1 was due to the fact that Defendant 2 received KRW 85 million from Defendant 50,000 from Defendant 1, the amount of the above apartment loan was loaned to Defendant 20,00,000,000,000,000 won (the size of exclusive ownership was 81m,000,000,000 won, and it was difficult for Defendant 2,50,000,000,000 won after being sold to the Korea Housing and Housing Corporation after November 1, 199.

As a result, around August 4, 2003 and around September 9, 2004, her mother called her phone to the defendant who was in the above-mentioned relationship, and her mother loaned her money to the effect that her mother needed to do so. As seen earlier, the defendant Gap did not think that she would have been her much help in the justice of the defendant while trading a building without permission in the upper amba district, and thus, he remitted 20 million won to the bank account of her justice on August 4, 2003, and her mother transferred 10 million won at around 0 Dong office of Mapo-gu, Seoul on August 4, 2003 to 10 million won, and her mother did not make the above agreement to the above defendant 2 at the time of borrowing her interest on September 9, 2003, and her mother did not make the above agreement to the effect that she did not pay her interest on 00 million won to the above defendant 2.

3. Around 000, the Defendant’s definition address, remitted KRW 15 million to a corporate bank bank account. In this case, the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company A did not enter into an agreement on interest or maturity, and did not prepare a loan certificate.

(C) On March 13, 2007, while being investigated by an investigative agency, Defendant Jung paid KRW 35 million to Defendant A on March 13, 2007. On February 20, 2008, after selling the above apartment, Defendant Jung paid KRW 18,875,000 under the pretext of the sales of the above apartment, KRW 30,000 on March 6, 2008, KRW 12,000,000, and interest over the past.

C. Determination

Before determining the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel, we examine whether the amount of KRW 85 million delivered by Defendant A to Defendant 1 was related to the Defendant’s justice duty. Whether the duty relationship exists (1)

Since the legal interest of the crime of bribery is the process of performing duties and the public trust in society, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established when the amount of money received from a public official's official's duties and the public official's performance of duties is in a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to consider the existence of a solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties. Meanwhile, in the crime of bribery, the duties include not only the duties under the law, but also the duties closely related to the duties, the duties under the custom or the actual jurisdiction, the duties under the custom or the actual jurisdiction, the duties under the jurisdiction of the public official to assist or affect the decision-making authority, and whether the money received by the public official constitutes a bribe as a quid pro quo quo relationship, whether there is a special relationship between the public official and the provider of duties, and whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between the parties, and whether the bribe is a quid pro quo relationship with the public official's trust in the performance of duties.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., (i) Defendant Party A was not in charge of the affairs related to the unauthorized Building Management or Air Career Reading at the time of receiving the money from Defendant Party A, but at the Mapo-gu Office and Dong Office, Defendant Party A was working for more than 10 years, and was in a position to exercise direct and indirect influence over the affairs related to the unauthorized Building Air Career Reading and Change of Name through the Dong Fee or subordinate public officials, such as introducing Defendant Party A who was in charge of the Air Career Reading at the time of the transfer; (ii) Defendant Party Party A and Defendant Party A began to work for Defendant Party A’s business necessity; and (iii) Defendant Party Party A maintained its relationship with Defendant Party Party A’s necessity; (iv) Information on whether it is possible for Defendant Party A to work for the Southern-dong Office from the time of Defendant Party Party’s work to the date of Party A’s annual change of name, etc., it is reasonable to view that Defendant Party Party A’s Party Party A’s personal relationship and Party 500 million for Social Affairs.

In the case of bribery, if the receiver claims that the money received from the receiver is not a bribe but a loan, whether or not the receiver borrows the money should be determined by considering all objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, method, relationship between the receiver and the receiver, the period of payment of the loan and the interest agreement, and whether the payment is made or not.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., ① borrowing KRW 70 million with interest-free interest-free interest without preparing a loan certificate from Defendant A, which was not only one year after the maturity of Defendant Party A, and the interest on the above money has not been repaid for one year thereafter, it is difficult to view that the trust relationship was formed to borrow KRW 15 million with a loan again. ② Defendant Defendant 5 borrowed money with the need of money due to the demand of her mother to purchase a low-priced vehicle and repair an apartment. However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 actually borrowed the above money, it is difficult to understand whether the above money was necessary for her mother’s cancer treatment expenses, ③ Defendant 1 did not receive the above money due to the relationship in which Defendant 1 paid 70 million with interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted earlier, the fact that Defendant A delivered KRW 85 million to Defendant A as a bribe in relation to his duties can be sufficiently recognized.

The above assertion by the defendant Gap and the defense counsel, which are disputed in other opinions, is without merit.

2. Determination as to the defendant's arguments and defense counsel

A. Summary of the argument

Defendant Company’s 30 million won received from Defendant Company A for convenience as stated in the above criminal facts. However, the sum of KRW 50 million received after September 2003, Defendant Company A transferred from Mapo-gu office to Odong office, and requested Defendant Company A to introduce and request Defendant Company A who works for the 000 team of Mapo-gu office from Defendant Party A after Defendant Company was transferred from Mapo-gu office to Odong office. Defendant Company A introduced Defendant Company, and arranged Defendant Company to inform Defendant of whether an unauthorized building was subject to aviation reading and received for that consideration. As such, the crime of bribery is not established with respect to the sum of KRW 55 million.

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine the defendant's justice prosecution and statements in this court.

Defendant fixed, at the first interrogation, received KRW 30 million in total in return for providing convenience in issuing an unauthorized building verification source (30 pages 1140), “In the second interrogation,” each of the Defendant’s statements (1815 pages), and “in the first written statement of February 14, 2007, the amount of KRW 85 million in total was received, but the statement was received,” (1824 pages), “In the third interrogation of a building without permission, the total of KRW 120 million was recorded,” and “in the third interrogation of a building without permission, it was recorded,” and “in the second interrogation of a building without permission, it was recorded,” and “in the first interrogation of a building without permission, it was recorded, 50 million in the investigation record,” and “in the second interrogation of a building with KRW 1828,00,000,000,000 in total, 30,000 if the building without permission was recorded.”

After the prosecution, the defendant court accepted the fact that he received KRW 85 million from the defendant Gap from the second trial date of this court until the second trial date of this court, but it stated that it was not a bribe but a loan, but it was only a third trial date, and the amount of KRW 30 million received until August 2003 among the total amount of KRW 85 million received until the third trial date, as alleged above, was a bribe, and the remaining KRW 55 million received after September 2003 was received as a consideration for mediation, and thus, it was not a bribe.

As seen above, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement of justice has been reversed several times from the prosecution to the prosecution, and its consistency has not been consistent, and the following facts acknowledged, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement and the defense counsel’s assertion that KRW 55 million delivered after September 2003 was merely remuneration for mediation. Moreover, during the third trial of this Court, the part of the Defendant’s statement consistent with the Defendant’s testimony and the defense counsel’s above assertion is inconsistent with that of the previous statement, and it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of false statement, such as the Defendant’s statement and the defense counsel, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion and the defense counsel.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted above, the defendant Jung-gu continued to provide convenience, such as: (a) from January 2003 to April 2004, when transferred to Dong office in Mapo-gu, Seoul; (b) whether the unauthorized Building was registered in an unauthorized Building Management Register, etc.; and (c) whether the affiliated building can be recognized as an existing unauthorized building through the airline Jindo; (d) offered convenience for the issuance of an unauthorized Building Confirmation Board and the change of name of an unauthorized Building; and (e) delivered it to the defendant Eul upon the request of the defendant Eul even after transfer; and (e) provided convenience as a consideration for the provision of overall convenience as above.

3. It can be sufficiently confirmed that he received a total of KRW 85 million from September 3, 2003. If so, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's fixed amount of KRW 50 million received from the defendant Gap to the point of view that the defendant's fixed amount of KRW 5,00,000,000,000, which was received from September 2003, is a bribe received in connection with his duties, rather than as a consideration for arranging matters belonging to the defendant Eul's duties. Thus, the defendant's court's decision and the defense counsel's above assertion are without merit.

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

Judges Maximum number of judges

Judges Kim Min-soo

A person shall be appointed.