Attorney in charge C, D, E, F

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

43,300,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The Defendant, as a police officer belonging to the H police station in Seoul Metropolitan City, performed duties such as control of entertainment taverns and support for crackdowns, investigation of persons related to the case, general criminal investigation, etc.

On November 2011, 2010, the Defendant provided various convenience, such as enforcement information, to K, a business president of the said entertainment drinking house, and received KRW 300,00 from K.

The Defendant, including that, from that time until February 2015, received a total of KRW 43,300,000,000 from around 51 times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness K, L and M;

1. Each interrogation protocol of the prosecution against N or K;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning N or L;

1. An on-site photograph (six copies), such as USB stored in the details of sales, etc. submitted at will, each financial transaction, the dispute settlement council, and the fund accounting report by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., one cash-day, one on-site photograph, one seven on-site photograph, and 137 on the date paid to K in the official secret title;

1. Part of the investigation report (a copy of the record No. 201 type No. 109643 and the report attached to the judgment), a copy of the statement, written statement, written statement, etc., judgment, criminal investigation report (the report of confirmation of persons subject to peculiar conversations, etc. among the suspect A's personal phone conversations (P)), the telephone call details sent to Q using A's personal phone (the report of confirmation of persons subject to peculiar conversations, etc. among the suspect A's personal phone conversations), investigation report (the confirmation of the content of interview with witness who is an entertainment drinking worker, such as 0) on June 9, 2016, one copy of the interview record on June 24, 2016, one copy of the interview record, investigation report (the analysis of suspect A and R's personal account) on June 24, 2016, the criminal investigation report (the confirmation of the control details of Q of the life order of the suspect and H police station, and the contents of the Ka

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, fines shall be imposed concurrently pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

The Defendant did not have received a bribe from K. The direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is only K and L’s statements, and the above statements are not consistent, and their credibility cannot be recognized because they are unreasonable and objective legitimacy.

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following evidence and circumstances, the Defendant may be recognized as having received a bribe, such as the facts constituting an offense, except in October 2012, between November 2010 and February 2015, in return for providing various convenience, such as control information, etc.

(a) Details of the daily statement of funds;

1) The credibility of the content of the daily report on the entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “the instant entertainment drinking club”) prepared by M as the director of the accounting division of the J and the 0 entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “the instant entertainment drinking club”) by organizing the sales and expenses of the instant entertainment drinking club every day regardless of the instant public prosecution, and reporting them to N, who is the operator of the instant entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “the instant entertainment club”). The content of the report is deemed to have been written in detail and closely every day for a period of four years, and the credibility of the content of the report is high.

2) According to the contentM of the daily report of the fund and N, the money paid by N to K to the competent authorities, such as H police stations and global teams, is written as K president’s expenditure, K company officer’s expenses, cooperation expenses (K), 'K’, 'K’, 'K’, and 'Water Treatment (K), etc. (hereinafter referred to as ’the said money’) on the daily report of the fund (hereinafter referred to as ’the aforementioned money’).

As a result of the verification of the details stated in the foregoing item in the Fund Book, N paid K 6,350,000 won in October 2010, 5,000 won in November 2010, 8,000 won in each month during the remainder of the period excluding October 2012 from December 2010 to November 2014, 6,000 won in December 2014, 2014, 5,50,000 won in January 2015, and 7,00,000 won in February 2015) as government expenses.

During the period from November 2010 to March 2015 in which the public prosecution was instituted, there is no indication that K received the payment of the official visa in October 2012 and March 2015. On the other hand, during the period of the public prosecution, K received the payment of the official visa from N in December 2014 and February 6, 2015.

In light of the above contents of the daily loan, N has provided K in charge of so-called official entertainment bars with an amount of at least KRW 500,000 per month except from October 2010 to October 2015, 2012. In particular, K has paid at least KRW 800,000 per month during most of the most of the periods. In addition, K is recognized the fact that the instant entertainment bars commenced from October 2010 to February 2015.

B. K’s statement and its credibility, when the first statement was made by the prosecution, denied all the fact that the government official received the official visa funds or the Defendant paid the money, and then reversed the statement, and received the amount of KRW 500,000 won per month from N from October 2010 to March 2015, and paid KRW 100,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 1 million per month to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s order and order circles, and KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant. After the metropolitan investigation occurred, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s order and order units were paid KRW 1 million each to the Defendant, and KRW 500,000 to the police officers, KRW 50,000 per week before the opening of the instant entertainment bar, and KRW 500,000,000 per week to the first 50,000,000 to the Defendant.

K paid money to the Defendant from three months after the opening of the instant entertainment tavern business to October 2014, which he had only worked in the instant entertainment tavern business, and the amount was KRW 300,000 to KRW 500,000. The time to pay KRW 1 million is not well memory as it was 2011 or 2012, and the Defendant provided money periodically with the knowledge that he was in the control department, and the amount was not 3-4. The Defendant did not pay a smaller amount after one million.

K's prosecutor's statements and court statements have some different parts of the statements concerning the period of starting and ending to pay money to the defendant, the period of paying KRW 1 million to the defendant, the period of receiving government funds from N, and some of the statements are different in court statements.

However, it is consistent that the overall contents of K’s statement made on a regular basis to the Defendant, and that the amount was KRW 300,000 through KRW 500,000,000,000. The point at which K first paid the money has already reached a considerable period of time since 2010. In that sense, even though it is not clear that the statement has changed in detailed parts because it is not clear that it is within the reasonable scope of consent. Considering that K’s statement is directly related to the principal’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act or the criminal liability of offering of bribe, and that there is an overall interest in reducing the amount of official expenses or the timing or amount of offering of bribe, which is received to reduce his criminal liability, even if there are some other parts as above, it does not seem to have been credibility of the entire statement. Rather, K’s statement made on a regular basis from 201 to 200,000 won, even if it is aware that it received the Defendant’s criminal liability for a regular period of at least 100 to 20,000,000,00.

(c) Statements and credibility of L;

L at the prosecution, after settling accounts between October 2010 and March 2015, L settled accounts between March 5 and March 2015, K paid KRW 800,000,000 per month to K with the conduit funds. At around October 2010, K did not show that it is an official to the low-income bracket. From November 201, it was trying to deliver the market funds to the low-income bracket, and it displayed a way to deliver the government funds to the police.

From November 201 to March 2015, K paid KRW 2,00,00 to Defendant each month. K directly considered that he received control information from Defendant. He stated that H police station order order circles, KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 in W Zone was given to the National Police Agency, metropolitan investigation groups, and HJ office hygiene departments, and that he was accurately given.”

L in this court, after settling accounts at the fifth day of each month and the twentyth day of the day, K was paid at N’s expense funds. Since October 2010, K was aware of whether K directly received an envelope containing robscen funds, but after the beginning of the entertainment drinking house one year, K made three of 2 million won fake bags and two of 1 million won fake bags with the principal's consent to the Defendant. From the beginning of the entertainment drinking house business, K was given at the time of entry into the entertainment drinking house business and the police officer made a statement on behalf of the Defendant at the time of entry into the entertainment drinking house, and the police officer was given at the time of entry into the entertainment drinking house and the police officer made a statement on behalf of the Defendant at the time of entry into the entertainment drinking house and the police officer was given at the time of entry into the entertainment drinking house.

L was made monthly payment of KRW 2 million to Defendant from November 201 to March 2015 by the prosecution, and it was true that part of L’s statement was changed because it was directly seen or experienced in this court. However, L’s statutory statement also was made since October 201, which was one year after the opening of the amusement tavern business of this case, and L’s plastic bags containing Dui L, at K’s request, was set to cover bags and pay KRW 2 million per month to Defendant at the beginning of the opening of the business. In fact, it was deemed that the Defendant did not have any particular change between the police officers and the Defendant, and that there was no difference between the police officers and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 2 million per month, and thus, it is difficult to view that there is a conflict between the Defendant’s statement and the public prosecutor’s statement and its credibility and criminal punishment. Moreover, it is also difficult to view that there is any objective consistency between the Defendant’s statement and the public prosecutor’s statement and its evidence.

(d) Statement of N;

At the time of making a statement at the prosecution, on July 201 through August 8, 201, K asked K to use the entertainment tavern fund of this case for the purpose of using it, and stated that K paid KRW 1,00,000 per month to the Gu office hygiene and KRW 3 million,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,

E. Relevant circumstances

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant does not seem to have been in direct charge of the duty to regulate the amusement business affecting the public morals while serving in H police stations investigation and economic team, female youth, and female youth. However, the Defendant, from July 2008 to January 201, 208, was in charge of the duty to regulate the amusement business affecting the public morals while serving in H police stations’ living safety and living order circles. From June 23, 2015 to June 19, 2016, the Defendant continued to exchange and deliver telephone conversationss or messages to Q in charge of the duty to regulate the amusement business affecting the public morals in the H police station’s living order division on 169 occasions, and around April 11, 2016, the Defendant continued to participate in the duty to regulate the message to Q with the police officer assigned at least the message “from the end of the punishment?”

2) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant used multiple Handphones, and made several calls or received text messages from June 21, 2015 to June 20, 2016, with the business owners of entertainment bars, etc., who were subject to criminal punishment after being investigated by the H police station to control the amusement business affecting the public morals by using handphones in U, from June 21, 2015 to June 20, 2016.

3) From December 16, 2010 to February 12, 2015, the Defendant deposited money from KRW 300,00 to KRW 5,790,000 in cash in the national bank under the name of the Defendant, and the agricultural cooperative account in the agricultural cooperative account, and deposited KRW 5,479,000 via 75 times in total. The Defendant asserted that Defendant’s wife V received daily allowances from cash by conducting a business trip operation. However, the Defendant asserted that he received money from the Defendant’s wife’s wife as a cash receipt by using his business trip operation. However, compared to the V’s income confirmed as objective evidence, the Defendant’s payment in cash is a bank ATM in the vicinity of the Defendant’s workplace, most of the places where cash was deposited is much larger than the Defendant’s payment in cash, and even if it appears that V did not have the income in cash, the Defendant’s allegation and the Defendant’s statement consistent with this assertion and V’s statutory statement are not trustable. The Defendant’s regular payment in cash as above.

F. Whether the person who received a bribe from K is a defendant

A defendant and his defense counsel stated that a person who received a bribe from L and M used a bribe even at all times, but the defendant did not use a bribe even before his or her impulse, and that L and M were not a person who received a bribe. However, since K knew for a long time and stated that he or she consistently offered a bribe to the effect that he or she was not a person who received a bribe for a long time, it is clear that L and M are aware of the name of the person who received a bribe, while L and M are likely to be aware of the fact that the name of the person who received a bribe, is likely to take a bribe for a long time, since L and M are not aware of the defendant for a long time or there is a long time dialogue, and L are consistently stated that the defendant's face is well aware of the defendant's face by directly taking a bribe from the defendant. In light of the fact that it is recognized that the person who received a bribe is a person who gave a bribe after having taken a bribe after having taken it into consideration after having taken it.

G. Determination on the period and amount of acceptance of the bribe

1) According to the statement and N, M, and L’s statement during the period of bribe receipt, during the period from October 2010 to February 2012, 2015, K had regularly paid 5 million won or more to K, and K had worked in the entertainment drinking house of this case during the said period, and K had regularly paid money to the Defendant during the said period. Although K provided money from three months after the opening of the entertainment drinking house of this case in this court, and only worked until the end of October 2014, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s statement was contrary to his criminal liability by considering that the Defendant’s statement or statement was contrary to the schedule of the daily income, L’s statement, or statement made at the investigative agency of the Republic of Korea during the said period from October 2010 to October 10 to October 21, 2015, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had received money from the Defendant during the period of bribe receipt from K to October 201.

2) Amount of the bribe

L directly and directly received KRW 2 million from the Defendant or delivered it to the Defendant at the early stage of running the entertainment drinking house in this case, and there is no reason to change to any other police officer, the Defendant was paid KRW 2 million every month. However, the Defendant stated that N and K, a real provider of the entertainment drinking house in this case, paid KRW 1 million each to the leisure and order circles of the H police station. K stated that there is no fact that the Defendant paid KRW 2 million to the Defendant, and for the remainder of the period other than four times directly experienced, K’s statement is nothing more than L’s trend or judgment. L’s statement alone cannot be deemed to have delivered KRW 2 million every month to the Defendant until the remainder of the period except the above four times. Moreover, L cannot be deemed to have received KRW 4 million each month from the Defendant on a 4-year basis after the opening of the entertainment drinking house in this case, but it cannot be deemed to have received a statement to the effect that the Defendant was given a specific date and time.

K consistently offered KRW 300,000 or KRW 500,000 per month to the Defendant from the investigative agency to this court, and provided KRW 1,000,000 per month to the Defendant. Since 1,000, K stated that there was no fact that there was no provision of KRW 1,00,000,000. K made statements (Evidence No. 1,509) that it would bring about KRW 1,00 in order to avoid regulation while under the influence of the time of providing KRW 1,00,00,000 to the Defendant. On the other hand, N made a statement that 1,000,000 won was paid to the Defendant at least 1,000,0000,000,000 won was paid to each of the instant entertainment tavern and 1,000,000,000 won was paid to the Defendant at least 1,000,000,000,000.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned statements, the Defendant was paid KRW 1 million every month from October 201, when the instant entertainment drinking club was controlled by K, at least after around October 201.

Meanwhile, according to the K’s statement from November 201 to September 2011, the Defendant issued KRW 300,000 to KRW 500,00 per month. Thus, the Defendant appears to have received at least KRW 300,00 per month during the above period.

3. Conclusion

Comprehensively taking account of the entries in the Fund Book and the statements of K, N, L, and M and the remaining evidence, the Defendant may be recognized as having received a bribe of KRW 300,000 per month during the remainder of the period excluding October 201 and KRW 1,00,000 per month during the remaining period from October 201 to February 2015, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, at least 51 times in total.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for two years and six months, to 15 years, fines of 43.3 million won to 18.25 million won; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Acceptance of Bribery from 3 million to 5 million won (Type 3)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Five years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years and fine of 50 million won; the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, a police official, as a bribe for a period of four years or more, in return for providing various convenience, such as informing the proprietor of an entertainment tavern business within the jurisdiction of the service police station of the information on entertainment tavern control by informing him/her of the information on entertainment tavern control. The Defendant received a bribe in return for a police official responsible for enforcing the Act, such as preventing, suppressing, and investigating a crime, who is a police official with high integrity and morality, and is given a bribe in return for informing him/her of crackdown information; and such Defendant’s crime is significantly prejudicial to the public’s trust in our society. Since the Defendant received a bribe on a long-term basis, and the amount of the crime is considerable, such crime is very poor. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not seem to deny his/her own criminal act from an investigative agency to this court and at all be contrary to this law.

However, the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment is a favorable condition to the defendant. In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as per the order

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

From November 2010 to March 2015, the Defendant received KRW 2 million monthly from K and received a bribe of KRW 16 million in total over 53 times.

2. Determination

(a) Whether it received KRW 2 million every month from November 2010 to September 2011;

We examine whether the Defendant received KRW 2 million each month from November 201 to September 201 of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment. As seen earlier, L directly or directly stated that the Defendant received KRW 2 million each month from November 2010 to September 201, and that he/she stored bags in which the Defendant paid KRW 2,00,000 per month, and that he/she did so if he/she changed in Korea. However, the time of opening the entertainment drinking house in this case was 1 year after the opening of the entertainment drinking house in this case, and the time of opening the business is 1 year after the opening of the business. Since L’s statement alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received KRW 2 million each month from November 201 to September 201, it is difficult to view that the Defendant received KRW 3,000 only for the above period exceeding 3,000 per month after examining other evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the daily statement.

(b) Whether it has received KRW 2 million each month from October 201 to February 2015 (excluding October 2012);

We examine whether the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month as stated in the facts constituting a crime during the period from October to February 2015, 201, excluding October 2012, 2011 to February 2015. The main evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month during the above period is L’s statement, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month during the above period. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant received KRW 1 million per month during the above period.

(c) Whether he/she has received a bribe during October 2012 and March 2015;

We examine whether the defendant received a bribe in October 2012 and March 2015.

According to the public prosecutor’s statement, the Defendant received a bribe every month from November 2010 to March 2015, however, as seen earlier, there is no entry of the official secret funds in October 2012 and March 2015 on the funds log with high credibility as objective evidence as seen earlier. K also stated from the investigative agency to March 2015 to this court that 3-4 were the same as the Defendant did not give a bribe. In addition, considering the fact that it stated from October 2010 to March 2015, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant received a bribe from October 2012 to March 2015.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the portion exceeding KRW 300,000 per month from November 2010 to September 201 among the facts charged in this case, the portion exceeding KRW 2 million per month from October 2011 to February 2015, the portion exceeding KRW 1,00,000 per month from among the part that received KRW 2 million from October 201 to February 2015, and the portion that received KRW 2,00,000 per month from October 2012 and around March 2015, the part that received KRW 2,00,000 per month from around March 201, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, it shall be sentenced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the A

Judges Park Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jae-nam

2) In the case of October 2010, in addition to the funds log Nos. 25 in the evidence list Nos. 25 and the funds log No. 7 in the evidence list, 6 million won is stated in the funds log No. 5 of October 5, 2010.

3) In the case of December 2010, in addition to the funds log set forth in the evidence list Nos. 22 and 25, in addition to the funds log set forth in the evidence list Nos. 7, one million won is stated in the funds log set out in the funds log set forth in the evidence list as of December 15, 2010.

4) On February 23, 2015, the evidence list Nos. 25-25-200,000 won is written on the funds log Nos. 3 million won, and on February 26, 2015, on the funds log No. 7 of the evidence list, one million won is written on the funds log No. 7 of February 6, 2015, among the evidence list No. 7.

5) From Nos. 25 to 25 of the evidence list, K wage of KRW 6.5 million is written in the Fund Book (Evidence Record 1218 pages) dated 23 December 2014.

6) At 25, the evidence list Nos. 25, the "K Benefit" is written in the Fund Book (Evidence No. 1221 pages) dated February 17, 2015.

A person shall be appointed.