However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Around June 19, 2012, the Defendant received request from the victim D to register defoliants as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the grounds that he/she was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s wife was not in a relationship between E and the deceased, and that the Defendant did not have any employee who was aware of his/her veterans status, and thus there was no intention or ability to have the victim registered as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the grounds that he/she did not make the victim registered as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the grounds that he/she falsely referred to as “the wife would have his/her wife registered as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she was in a relationship between E and the deceased, and that he/she would have the victim registered as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she was paid money and valuables from the victim on June 18, 2012 to the Defendant’s new bank account on June 20, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the F statement section);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused (including D's statements in the second protocol);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the point of receiving money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for handling affairs of public officials);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. To determine the punishment as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act has committed a crime, has committed a crime, has been divided, has not been punished for the same kind of crime, and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant;