One day of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 2.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 2 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for three years for Defendant 4.

The 19,800,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 4.

The offering of a bribe to Defendant 1, 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 2’s Defendant 3 is not guilty.

1. Defendant 2 provided money to Defendant 4, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, who is a rearrangement business entity in △△ Three Zones, to order redevelopment works in △△ Three Zones.

Around December 14, 2004, Defendant 5, located in △△△ District, which received a request from Defendant 4 to borrow 330,000,000 won from Defendant 4 as collateral at the closing office of △△△△△ District, and requested Defendant 4 to recommend that Defendant 5 be selected as the contractor of △△ District, and that Defendant 5 will limit the bidding participation conditions so that the company may be selected as the contractor of △△△ District, and that the public opinion of the union members will be drawn in favor of Defendant 5 company. In response, Defendant 4 offered 30,00,000 won with a one-year due date for payment fixed, and 330,50,000 won for Defendant 5 company’s face value (including KRW 550,000,000) 】 (including KRW 550,000,000) 】 (300,3000,000,000 won for financial gains of 】 (including KRW 300,30000,3000,00) annually

2. Defendant 4, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, who is a rearrangement business entity in △△ Three Zones, performed the business of administrative affairs and the selection of a contractor, etc. for the establishment of an association for the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in △△ Three Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Cooperative

On December 2004, upon receiving a request as described in paragraph (1), 19,800,000 won (=330,000,000 per annum of commercial interest x 6% per annum of commercial interest x 1 year) as an executive officer of a rearrangement project operator who is deemed a public official after receiving a request as described in paragraph (1).

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 4;

1. The prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination (not more than 2960 pages of investigation records) against Defendant 2, and the prosecutor's twice the protocol of statement (not more than 2539 pages of investigation records) concerning Defendant 2; and

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the defendant 4 by the prosecution (not more than 3667 pages of investigation records) and each protocol of statement by the prosecution (not more than 1090 pages of investigation records, not more than 1624 pages) against the defendant 4;

1. Each description of an investigation report (the attachment of details of transactions of Nonindicted Company 1’s corporate account, 1100 pages of investigation records), statement of account transactions (the investigation records No. 1102 pages of investigation records), investigation report (the attachment of materials on loans to be submitted by Defendant 4 for reference, the investigation records No. 1559 pages of investigation records), statement of transaction of Nonindicted Company 1’s corporate account (the investigation records No. 1561 pages of investigation records) (the investigation records No. 1594 pages of investigation records), written applications for loan counseling and inquiry of details of credit transactions (the investigation records No. 1594 pages of investigation records), investigation report (the investigation records No. 1961 pages of investigation records), office lease agreement (the investigation records No. 1962 pages of investigation records), detailed statement of credit execution (the investigation records No.

A. Defendant 2: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the choice of imprisonment

B. Defendant 4: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the choice of imprisonment

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following extenuating Conditions for Sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 4: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

A. The above Defendants asserted the following and denied the charges.

The fact that Defendant 2 provided Nonindicted Company 1, a corporation operated by Defendant 4, with an electronic bill in the name of Defendant 5 as collateral, and caused the financial institution to obtain a loan equivalent to the amount stated in the facts constituting a crime.

However, Defendant 2 did not allow Defendant 4 to obtain a loan in relation to his duties as an executive officer by limiting the conditions for Defendant 5’s participation in bidding so that Defendant 5 company may be selected as the Si △△ District, and soliciting members to draw public opinion in favor of Defendant 5 company in a way favorable to Defendant 5. However, Defendant 2 merely allowed Defendant 4 to obtain a loan by using Defendant 5’s operational fund for the purpose of obtaining the execution right of the implementation project promoted by Defendant 1 company in the Chungcheongnamsan City area. As such, there is no relation with the redevelopment works in △△ Zone 3.

Even if the duty relation is recognized with respect to the above domestic money, Defendant 2 is only limited to allowing Nonindicted Company 1 to use the amount of the above loan as interest-free, so the contents of the bribe should be limited not to the amount equivalent to the loan itself but to the corresponding financial interest. In addition, since the subject who borrowed the above money is a non-indicted 1 corporation, Defendant 4 does not constitute the crime of acceptance of bribe.

B. Therefore, the issues of this case are as follows: (a) whether Defendant 2 made the above loan in relation to his duties as a maintenance business entity of Nonindicted Company 1; (b) what is the contents of the bribe provided by Defendant 2 in the event the duty relationship is recognized; and (c) whether Defendant 4 can be recognized as the subject of bribery.

2. Determination

A. Whether the relevance to duties is recognized

(1) Criteria for determining job relevance to a rearrangement project operator

The issue of which profit a public official gains is an unfair profit in relation to his duties and constitutes a bribe shall be determined by taking into consideration all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duties, the relationship between the performance of duties and the provider of benefits, whether there exists a special private-friendly relationship between both parties, the degree of excess benefits, and the situation and timing of receiving benefits (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do3113, Mar. 10, 1998; 2005Do4204, Apr. 27, 2007, etc.). The same applies to an officer or employee of a rearrangement project who is deemed a public official under Article 84 of the Urban Improvement Act. In this case, if it is deemed that an unfair profit in relation to which a public official or employee gains is a bribe, and if it is deemed that it constitutes an unfair profit in relation to which kind of benefits a public official or employee gains, it does not necessarily require the rearrangement project owner to obtain the benefits related to the specific business entrustment contract for a specific reconstruction and redevelopment project (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do95, Sept. 29, 25, 2008, 2008).

(2) Specific review

(A) Review of relevant evidence

1) Details of Defendant 4’s statement

Defendant 4 stated in the prosecutor's statement (not more than 1624 pages of investigation record), suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (not more than 3667 pages of investigation record) and the second trial date and this court as follows.

1) Relationship between Nonindicted Company 1 (Defendant 4) and Defendant 5 (Defendant 2)

Non-Indicted 1 Company was selected as a rearrangement project operator of △△△ District on November 25, 2004, and is actually operated as a private business entity. Defendant 5 Company was selected as a contractor of △△ District around September 2005, and Non-Indicted 1 and Defendant 5 Company did not have any relationship other than the relationship between the rearrangement project and the Si project in the △△ Three Zone.

Defendant 2 was aware of the commencement of the maintenance project by Nonindicted Company 1 in around 2003, and frequently contacted with Defendant 2.

(ii)the name of money delivery;

From the beginning of the year 200 to the June of the year 2004, Nonindicted Company 1 purchased the land in relation to the construction implementation at the Chungcheongnam-si, the amount of KRW 1.5 billion was invested in the amount of 1.5 billion and Defendant 2, who was aware that Nonindicted Company 1 was preparing for the redevelopment project in △△2 and 3 around the time that the redevelopment plan was announced in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, had talked with Defendant 2 as he was interested in the progress of the redevelopment project in the above area. In addition, Defendant 4 asked Defendant 2 about the necessity of money to Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 again asked Defendant 3 about why it was difficult for Defendant 4 to oppose it, and Defendant 2 loaned money to Defendant 4, as it was difficult for Defendant 2 to oppose it.

Defendant 2, at the end of the year, lent the company evaluation at the end of January. Defendant 4: (a) drafted a false lease agreement stating the lease deposit amount of KRW 33050,050,000 and the lease period of KRW 1 year on the condition that Defendant 4 would not pay interest on December 15, 2004 without any loan certificate; (b) filed an application for a prior loan at the closing point of the Bank in Korea; (c) sent the electronic bill amount of KRW 330,550,000 at the face value from Defendant 5 to the above bank as collateral; and (d) borrowed the same amount as the account of Nonindicted Company 1 by paying the bill at the face value of Defendant 5’s company on January 3, 2005. Of the above amount of the bill, KRW 550,00,000 from the face value of the bill was the discount charge in the name of the bill.

(c) whether the received money has been used or returned or not;

As above, approximately KRW 150,000,000 out of the funds borrowed from a bank was used for Defendant 4’s household coverage, and the remainder was used for the company’s operating expenses and the company’s settlement amount.

After that, even though there is no money yet to be paid, Defendant 5 did not pay the above money to Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 2, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, the director in charge, and Nonindicted 11, the director in charge, and Nonindicted 1, the director in charge, and Nonindicted 330 million won, after establishing redevelopment association and approving the implementation of the redevelopment association, agreed to preferentially repay the above money at the cost of services to be received from the association. After the establishment of the redevelopment association, Nonindicted 1, upon authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment association, Nonindicted 1, etc., the association establishment promotion committee of △△ District 3, the association establishment of △△ District Association, obtained the authorization for the establishment of the association,

2) Details of Defendant 2’s statement

Defendant 2 made two statements to the prosecution (not more than 2539 pages of investigation records) and the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (not more than 2960 pages of investigation records) and the second trial date and this court for the following purposes.

1) The reasons why Defendant 4 became aware of

When Defendant 2, at the end of 2003, comes to know of Defendant 4 with the introduction of another person, and thereafter, Defendant 2 became familiar with each other with each other.

2) The reasons why money was given to Defendant 4

Defendant 4’s hearing from Defendant 4 that money is necessary to purchase land while carrying out the project in the ASEAN area, and later, in order to secure the right to execute the project, the money was loaned as operating funds for one-year interest free. In 2004, since △△△ business office used all the amount planned by △△△ business office, Defendant 4 would have been lent in the next year, and Defendant 4 would have been lent within 2004, and then, Defendant 1 would have offered bills issued by Defendant 5, which can be settled at the beginning date of the next year as collateral, and had Nonindicted Company 1 receive a loan from the bank, and thereafter, Defendant 5 paid the said bills from Defendant 5. The amount loaned in the above method was prepared as a collateral lease agreement and processed as a loan between Defendant 5 and Nonindicted Company 1. On the other hand, Defendant 5’s funds disbursed from the △△△△ project or the fund in the △△ region. In the meantime, Defendant 1 did not have any right to execute the project in another region.

(iii) the provisions and terms of the service contract regarding the duties of the rearrangement project owner under the Urban Improvement Act;

Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 7392 of March 18, 2005) which provides for the duties entrusted by an association establishment promotion committee or an association or the duties subject to advice in relation thereto includes "the vicarious execution of the duties concerning the selection of a contractor" under Article 69 (1) 4 (Provided, That the amendment of the above Act as of March 18, 2005 is amended to "support of the duties concerning the selection of a contractor").

In addition, Article 3 of the Specialized Management Service Contract (Scope of Services) for the Rearrangement Project (Scope of Services) concluded on November 6, 2004 between Nonindicted Company 1 and △△-3 Cooperative and the Establishment Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Association of △△ District does not stipulate the “business related to the selection of a contractor”. However, Article 3 [Scope of Services] 8 of the Specialized Management Service Contract (Scope of Services) for the Rearrangement Project (Scope of Services) entered into with the change of August 11, 2005 after the change of August 11, 2005, states that “to provide advice or cooperation so that this project can be completed successfully.”

(B) Determination

Defendant 4, 2’s statement, and 6’s statement to the effect that “Nonindicted Company 1 and 5 did not have any capacity to implement the rearrangement project at the time of the establishment of the association in △△ Zone 1 and 6’s establishment.” According to the following circumstances, i.e., ① Nonindicted Company 4’s representative director was unable to reach one month after it was selected as the rearrangement project implementer in △△ Zone 3 and Defendant 2 provided bills as collateral for Defendant 5’s corporate head, and Defendant 5 was selected as the city improvement project implementer in △△△ Zone 3 after around nine months thereafter, Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 would have been granted a loan to Nonindicted Company for the purpose of obtaining the right to implement the redevelopment project in △△△ Zone 5’s name at the time of the amendment of the Housing Act. However, Defendant 4 stated that Defendant 2 did not have any capacity to provide funds at least to Defendant 2 at the time of the amendment of the Housing Act at the time of the second anniversary of the date of the amendment of the Housing Act.

Therefore, Defendant 2 could be deemed to have made a loan to Nonindicted Company 1 where Defendant 4 is the representative director in relation to his duties as a rearrangement business operator.

B. Details of the bribe offered by Defendant 2

(1) The substance of payment of money

Examining the background of the instant loan, Defendant 5’s business office’s annual financing in 2004, instead of not directly lending the money, provided bills that could be settled on the starting date of banking business in 2005, so that Nonindicted Company 1 would receive a loan from the bank, and had Defendant 5 pay the said bills. As Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court, Defendant 2 provided Defendant 5’s funds to Nonindicted Company 1.

(2) Whether Defendant 2 intended to receive a refund at the time of providing money

As seen earlier, considering the circumstances that Nonindicted Company 1 or Defendant 4 did not pay up to the present time the money borrowed through Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 did not specifically take legal measures to recover the money, there is room to deem that Defendant 2 provided the money to Nonindicted Company 1 in the form of loan without having to obtain a refund.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 consistently stated in the investigative agency and court to the effect that, at the time of the above loan to the effect that the above loan was made, Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 agreed to make a repayment one year later at the time of the above loan. In fact, “office lease contract” was submitted as evidence (in fact, 1962 pages) and Defendant 4 stated to the effect that, despite the contact with Nonindicted 10 and Defendant 2 to continue to make a reimbursement from the investigation record, Defendant 4 did not have any money so, and Defendant 4 did not agree to it as evidence, but Defendant 4 did not agree to it, but it is difficult to acknowledge the method of handling the file printing money with Defendant 2’s consent (1051 pages of the investigation record) as the current status of deposit in △△△△ business office, which was prepared as of August 10, 206, on the spot name column of the above document “△△3 redevelopment,” Defendant 1’s “the amount of money to be returned to Defendant 30,5.”

Therefore, the contents of the bribe offered by Defendant 2 are not the form of a loan, but the financial profit to the money, namely, the economic profit to use the money free of interest, which is the profit to receive financial convenience.

(3) Specific calculation of financial gains provided

(A) Calculation Criteria

The necessary confiscation or collection pursuant to the provisions of Article 134 of the Criminal Act aims to deprive the violator of the provisions of Articles 129 through 133 of the same Act of money, valuables and other property gains which are provided or to be provided to the person who violated the provisions of the same Act, and prevent him from holding unlawful profits. In the event that he acquires illegal pecuniary gains through a gratuitous loan of money and other valuables, it is reasonable to deem that the subject of collection is not the money and other valuables that have been provided free loan but the equivalent amount to the above financial gains. On the other hand, the amount equivalent to the financial gains which are subject to collection should be objectively calculated. The amount equivalent to the financial gains which is subject to collection should be objectively calculated, but if the offender borrowed money from a financial institution by ordinary means such as borrowing money from the financial institution, or if the lending interest rate cannot be determined, it shall be calculated based on the statutory interest rate stipulated in the Civil Act or the Commercial Act according to the status of the offender who received the money and other valuables, so it shall be deemed null and void due to agreement on the maturity or delay damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do.).

(B) Specific review

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 consistently stated in the investigation agency and the court to the effect that Nonindicted Company 1 agreed to repay money after one year, preparing a false lease agreement that was one year from Defendant 5 at the time when the money was leased from Defendant 5, as seen earlier; (ii) the period for repayment of loans can be deemed one year; and (iii) the act of lending money to a rearrangement business entity in relation to the redevelopment project by the redevelopment association, such as Defendant 5, such as a profit-making corporation, can be deemed as a commercial activity. In full view of the following circumstances, the corresponding financial gains can be deemed as 19,80,000 won (=30,000,000 x 6% per annum of commercial interest rate x 1 year).

C. Whether Defendant 4 can be recognized as the subject of acceptance of bribe

(1) Determination criteria

The crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act applies to a public official’s acceptance of a bribe in the course of performing his/her duties. In light of the fact that Article 130 of the Criminal Act provides that a public official shall be punished as the crime of acceptance of a bribe in a case where a public official has a third person deliver a bribe without receiving a bribe directly. In a case where a public official had another person deliver a bribe to a third person without receiving a bribe, such as in a case where a public official directly receives a bribe or as a representative of a public official, the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act constitutes the crime of acceptance of a bribe (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1234, Sep. 22, 1998; 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004, etc.).

This legal doctrine also states that the same applies to cases where an officer or employee of an improvement business entity deemed a public official offers a bribe to an improvement business entity, other than himself/herself, in connection with his/her duties. Thus, the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act is established only when an officer or employee is in fact one corporate maintenance business entity, which is a corporation, and is operated together with an individual business entity, or even if not, it is deemed that the offering of a bribe to an improvement business entity is the same as the offering to such officer or employee under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2590, Sept. 25, 2008).

(2) Specific review

The following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 4 is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 4 is the 90,000 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 on the register of shareholders, the 200,000 shares of Nonindicted Company 1, the 45% of the 200,000 shares of Nonindicted Company 1, the 40,000 shares, the 45% of the directors, the 14% of the auditors, the 15% of the 15, and the 30,000 shares (the 3949 through 3951 of the investigation record). As seen earlier, Defendant 4 stated to the effect that Nonindicted Company 1 was operated in the same way as an individual corporation (the 3680 pages of the investigation record). ② The 150,000 won out of the amount loaned by Defendant 5 as collateral on the register of shareholders and the 150,000 won funds were voluntarily withdrawn and used under the name of Nonindicted Company 14.

Therefore, Defendant 4 can be recognized as the subject who received financial gains on the above loan.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 2’s assertion that the contents of the bribe offered by Defendant 2 among the above Defendants and defense counsel are limited to financial interest, is reasonable, but Defendant 2 did not provide money in relation to his duties as a maintenance business entity of Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 4 did not accept the assertion that the said Defendants and defense counsel was not the subject of acceptance of bribe for lack

The crime of this case is a serious punishment against the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant, the head of the business office of the construction company, offered a bribe to an executive of the maintenance business entity in relation to the selection of the redevelopment project project site, which is not good in nature, denies the character of the money that the defendant provided, and although the bribe provided itself is not a loan itself but a loan, the amount of the loan has reached approximately KRW 20 million and there has not been no collection of the principal and interest of the loan until three years have passed since the due date.

However, there are only one criminal records of a fine, and the defendant has been faithfully engaged in the work in the construction sector by Defendant 5, and the defendant appears to have committed the crime in this case in the position of the head of the place of business. Other factors such as the motive, means and result of the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime in this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, and the execution of imprisonment with prison labor in the same sentence as the order should be suspended.

2. Defendant 4 (hereafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph)

The crime of this case is a serious crime because the defendant, who is an executive of a rearrangement project operator, borrowed a large amount of money from a construction company in violation of the purpose of introducing the rearrangement project management business system, and denies the character of money that the defendant has provided, and even though the bribe received is not itself a loan but a loan, the amount reaches approximately KRW 20 million, and there is no return of the principal and interest of the loan at all until now, the defendant should be punished strictly.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant was only the two-time criminal records of a fine; (b) the Defendant appears to have reached the instant crime under the difficult management of the company; and (c) the motive, means and result of the instant crime; (b) the circumstances after the instant crime were committed; (c) the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and family environment; and (d) the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the sentence

Defendant 1, as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu Housing Business Headquarters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Defendant 5, who was in charge of the affairs related to the order of construction and the execution of funds in the area of Do, including △△△△ business office, Defendant 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 5, Defendant 3, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 15 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 15”), and Defendant 4, who is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, the rearrangement business operator.

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2

In collusion with Nonindicted 7, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 6”), who is Defendant 5’s partner company;

In order for Defendant 5 to take the initiative of redevelopment works in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△ District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as “pro rata”) to select Nonindicted 4 candidates who are favorable to Defendant 5 as the head of the association. From August 9, 2005 to December 9, 2005, Nonindicted 5’s representative director of Nonindicted Company 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 8”) who worked for Nonindicted Company 6 as the head of the team and had 81 public relations personnel engage in telephone public relations activities and draft written resolution for the election of Nonindicted 4, and upon Nonindicted 4’s election as the head of the association on September 14, 205, Nonindicted 5, the above Defendant 5, etc., concluded an election campaign with Nonindicted 4 for the purpose of selecting Nonindicted 5 Company as the contractor, and paid Nonindicted 5 Company and Nonindicted 5 Company 10 to Nonindicted 4 in the same way as the amount of money transferred to Nonindicted 5 Company 10 and KRW 1067,270.7.

B. Defendant 1, Defendant 2

Defendant 3 and 4, who are the executive officers of △△△ and 3 improvement projects, shall provide money to the head of the redevelopment project in △△△ and 3; and

(1) around October 204, Defendant 5 Company's business office located in △△△△ District, Seoul (hereinafter omitted), Defendant 2 made a solicitation to the effect that Defendant 5 company will be selected as the contractor in △△ District, Defendant 3 will limit the conditions of participation in bidding to enable Defendant 5 company to be selected as the contractor in △△ District, and that Defendant 5 company members' public opinion will be drawn in favor of Defendant 5 company. On the 22th of the same month, Defendant 5 company's corporate account from Defendant 5 company to Nonindicted Company 15 company's corporate account, and transferred KRW 5 million from March 11, 2005, KRW 25 million from March 11, 2005, KRW 14.5 million from the same month, KRW 15 million from the same month, KRW 4 million from the same month, KRW 15 million from the same month, and KRW 16.2 million from the same month, each of which is regarded as the public officials of the rearrangement project.

(2) around December 3, 2004, at the above △△△ business office; Defendant 2 made a solicitation as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime committed against Defendant 4; on the 14th of the same month, Defendant 5 offered the electronic bills of KRW 330 million at the face value of Defendant 30 million issued by the company to be offered as security at the closing ambling branch of the bank; and on January 3, 2005, Defendant 1 offered a bribe of KRW 330 million to Defendant 4, an executive officer of the maintenance business entity deemed as public official by settling the above electronic bills; and on the 14th of the same month, Defendant 5 offered a bribe of KRW 30 million to Defendant 4,30 million.

C. Defendant 3, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 15, who is a rearrangement business entity in △△△ Zone 1, is performing tasks concerning the administrative affairs and the selection of a contractor for the establishment of the association for the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in △△△ Zone 1 (hereinafter “cooperative”);

around October 2004, in acceptance of a request as described in paragraph (b)(1) above, receives a bribe as an officer of a rearrangement project operator who is deemed to be a public official by being transferred or received a total of KRW 210 million in receipt of such a request;

D. Defendant 4, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, who is a rearrangement business entity in △△ Three Zones, performed the business of administrative affairs and the selection of a contractor for the establishment of the association in △△ Three Zones;

around December 2004, upon receipt of a request as described in paragraph (b)(2) above, receive a bribe of KRW 330 million as an officer of a rearrangement project who is deemed a public official, and receives a bribe of KRW 330 million;

E. Defendant 5 Company

As described in the above A., Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 violated the duties of Defendant 5.

2. Determination

A. Whether the facts charged are specified

(1) Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 5’s defense counsel

First, in the facts charged of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Defendant 1 and 2 made an illegal solicitation and provided property (in the case of the facts charged prior to the alteration of indictment; hereinafter the same shall apply) or property benefits to the above Defendants, the content of the illegal solicitation and the amount of such solicitation are not specified, and their contents are not specified, such as the date, time, place, etc. of public subscriptions made by Defendants 1, 2, and 7 and 5.

Next, in each of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the contents of the public invitation and communication with Defendant 2 are not specified.

Therefore, as to the above part of the facts charged, the dismissal of prosecution should be sentenced.

(2) Review

(A) Criteria for determining the specific facts charged

The purport of allowing the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the object of a trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of its defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to state the facts constituting the element of a crime in the indictment to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking into account these elements. Therefore, even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the general facts in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1139, Aug. 14, 1984; 2006Do388, Sept. 8,

In addition, an invitation to a co-principal is to be made by two or more persons to commit a specific criminal act with a co-principal's intent, and to shift one's own will to one's own execution by using another's act. However, the decision of the conspiracy is not necessary to make a detailed decision on the mother's specific date, time, place, contents, etc., and it is clear that the agreement has been reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2930, Mar. 8, 1996; 2006Do3631, Aug. 25, 2006).

(B) Specific review

First, the summary of the facts charged on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry against Defendant 1, 2, and 5 was clearly described that, in collusion with Nonindicted 7, Defendant 1 and 2 provided property or property benefits by illegal solicitation that Nonindicted 4, who is a candidate for the president of the association of the ▽▽▽△△△△△ Group through Nonindicted 5, in connection with the conclusion of a contract or the supply and demand of construction works, selected Defendant 5 as the contractor for the construction project. Furthermore, following the 16th trial date’s amendment of the indictment, the purport of “the provision of property benefits by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract or the supply and demand of construction works to Nonindicted 4 by allowing Nonindicted 4 to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount” was clearly indicated in the purport that “the provision of property benefits by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract or the supply and demand of construction works to Nonindicted 5, 1, 2, and 7, and 5, the specific place of the crime was not specifically established at the time of the public tender.

Next, in relation to each of the facts charged against Defendant 1, Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 stated that the agreement with Defendant 5 to jointly realize each of the above crimes was established in order to ensure that Defendant 5 and Defendant 2 are selected as each of the Si/Gun/Gu, △△△△, and 3. Thus, the facts charged against Defendant 1 are also specified.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the argument that the above part of the facts charged is not specified is without merit.

B. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 5 (related to the above A. E.)

(1) The above Defendants’ assertion and the issues of this case

(A) The above Defendants denied the charges by asserting the following.

First, it cannot be deemed that the other party to the provision of property benefits falls under “the ordering person, contractor, subcontractor, or interested person” as stipulated in Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (However, if the other party to the provision of property benefits is deemed to be Nonindicted 7, 5, the defense counsel asserts that there exists such problem, but as seen earlier, it is possible for Nonindicted 4 to apply the above provision as it is deemed to be Nonindicted 4.

Next, Defendant 5’s corporate account recognized that each of the money recorded in the facts charged was remitted to Nonindicted 7 through Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account. However, in the election of the head of the association in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽ol union, each of the above money was not given as an activity expense for public relations personnel who campaigned Nonindicted 4 with the aim of having Defendant 5 elected Nonindicted 4 as the head of the association in order to have Defendant 5 receive the redevelopment construction in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽ol union, but it was given as the payment of the cost for the services regarding “on-site investigation services on the 16 North Korean Housing Reconstruction Group” concluded between Defendant 5 Company 5 Company 5 and Nonindicted 7, who is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 6 Company 6. Accordingly, even if Nonindicted 7 again delivered part of the money given to Nonindicted 5’s corporate account, and Nonindicted 5 used the money for the promotion expenses for Nonindicted 4’s election campaign, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1, 2, or 4 made an illegal solicitation.

(B) According to the above assertion, the issue of this case is whether the other party to the provision of property benefits constitutes “the ordering person, contractor, subcontractor, or interested person” under Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and furthermore, if deemed as such, whether Defendant 1 and 2 may be deemed as having provided property benefits by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract agreement or the supply and demand of construction works to Nonindicted 4.

(2) Whether the other party to the provision of property benefits falls under “the ordering person, contractor, subcontractor or interested person” under Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(A) Determination criteria

Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that "the project owner, contractor, subcontractor or interested person shall not acquire or provide any property or property gains by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion of a contract or the execution of a construction work," and Article 95-2 of the same Act provides that "any person who has acquired or provided property or property gains by illegal solicitation in violation of Article 38-2 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won." This aims to prevent the project owner, contractor, subcontractor, or interested person from receiving money in connection with the receipt of orders or construction works, and to prevent problems such as defective construction by eradicating irregularities in construction contracts and construction works and to promote the sound development of the construction industry by punishing such violations.

In full view of the purport and language of these regulations, interested parties in relation to the conclusion of a contract for construction works under Article 38-2 of the Act are competing persons to enter into a contract for construction works or for the purpose of receiving a subcontract for construction works, who have a direct and legal interest in the conclusion of a contract for construction works. Therefore, the interested parties in the redevelopment and reconstruction rearrangement project district before a contract for construction works related to the reconstruction and development project or the establishment of an association is entered into, or a rearrangement project operator entrusted or supported with, affairs necessary for the implementation of a rearrangement project or a resident in the redevelopment and reconstruction project district prior to

Furthermore, Article 38-2 of the Act merely prohibits a person ordering, contractor, subcontractor, or interested party from receiving or receiving property or property benefits by illegal solicitation in connection with the order and execution of a project, and does not constitute an act of offering money or goods to a person not stipulated in Article 38-2 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2590, Sept. 25, 2008).

(B) Specific review

As seen earlier, according to the facts charged, the other party to the provision of property benefits is Nonindicted 4, a candidate for the head of the association in a state that is not elected as Nonindicted 4, regardless of whether the head of the association can be punished by Article 38-2 or 95-2 of the same Act as the person ordering the business, the candidate for the head of the association in a state that is not elected as Nonindicted 4, does not correspond to the above ordering person, and as seen earlier, the resident in the redevelopment improvement project district does not constitute an interested person having a direct and legal interest in the conclusion of the contract as a person competing to enter into a contract for the purpose of awarding a contract for construction work or receiving a subcontract, and thus, even if Defendant 1 and 2 provided property benefits to Nonindicted 4, such as the facts charged, the other party, even if he provided property benefits to Nonindicted 4, as stated in the facts charged, does not constitute the “project owner, contractor, subcontractor, or interested person” as provided in Article 38-2

(3) Whether Defendant 1 and 2 may be deemed to have provided property benefits by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract agreement or the supply and demand of construction works to Nonindicted 4

(A) Determination criteria

In relation to the crime of offering of bribe to a third party under Article 130 of the Criminal Act, the legal interest of which is the fairness of the performance of duties by a public official, social confidence in the performance of duties, and the impossibility of the performance of duties, the "illegal solicitation" may be deemed as an "illegal solicitation" if the execution of duties subject to such solicitation is related to a certain consideration relationship and the delivery of consideration for the performance of duties is to be made, even if the performance of duties is not illegal or unjust. However, in order to promote the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, it shall not be deemed that the "illegal solicitation" should be strictly interpreted even in the case of a violation of Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which applies to all general construction industry employees, with its purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5711, Jan. 24, 2008).

(B) Evidence conforming to the facts charged

First of all, the prosecutor applied for the written opinion prepared by the attorney-at-law belonging to Nonindicted 30 Law Firm (hereinafter “instant written opinion”) that Defendant 5 received legal advice from Nonindicted 30 Law Firm regarding the acts of Defendant 5, executives and employees in relation to the above facts charged, as evidence, on the premise that the investigation agency confirmed the contents of the instant written opinion, and on the background and contents of the written opinion, the prosecutor examined Nonindicted 2 and 3 as to the preparation of the written opinion of this case (for Nonindicted 3, the written opinion of this case is limited to twice the prosecutor, but it does not mention it separately; hereinafter the same shall apply) (the part irrelevant to the instant written opinion of this case is the answer; hereinafter “instant written opinion, etc.”).

In addition, the prosecutor also used a number of promotional personnel even though Nonindicted 4, who was going out of the election of the head of the association of the ▽▽▽-area union, was unable to pay the service cost, and Defendant 5 transferred the money to Nonindicted Company 6 again, and Defendant 5 paid the above money to Nonindicted Company 8, which was paid as the service cost for public relations personnel. Defendant 5 and Nonindicted Company 6 submitted each document, such as Nonindicted 7, 5 and Defendant 5’s statements, statements by the employees and employees of the redevelopment association, persons related to the redevelopment association, the statements by Nonindicted Company 6’s account statement, details of Nonindicted Company 8’s corporate account, and review of the report on reconstruction of detached houses, etc.

(C) Probative value of the instant written opinion

1) Prosecutor’s assertion of the gist of proof, Defendant 1, 2, Defendant 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) and defense counsel

According to the purport of proof revealed by the prosecutor in the court, the written opinion of this case was found in the process of search and seizure of the defendant company 5's business office on February 7, 2007, and the defendant 5's act of the defendant 5 or officers and employees related to the above facts charged included the contents of legal advice from the law firm 30. Accordingly, as long as the investigative agency includes the above contents, the defendants and the defense counsel present and use the written opinion of this case as materials for criminal justice, and further, use the written opinion of this case as evidence against the non-indicted 2 and 3 including the contents concerning the preparation of the written opinion of this case as evidence violates the right to legal assistance of the counsel as stipulated in Article 12 (4) of the Constitution. Accordingly, we examine whether the written opinion of this case can be protected by the right to legal assistance of the counsel.

2) Details of the right to assistance of counsel

1) Details of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act

The main text of Article 12(4) of the Constitution provides that “any person arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel.” The Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The right to receive assistance of counsel shall have the right to receive assistance of counsel (Articles 33 and 282), the right to meet and communicate with counsel (Article 34), the right to access to and copy of investigation records by counsel (Article 35).

2) Purpose of the precedent

The Supreme Court has recognized the right to demand the presence of a defense counsel for the suspect detained without any explicit provision under the Criminal Procedure Act for the following purposes.

The Criminal Procedure Act does not yet stipulate that a suspect under detention may participate in the interrogation of a suspect. However, in light of the Constitution, the right to meet and communicate with a counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution and Acts, and any person who is arrested or detained, the suspect under detention shall have the right to immediately assistance of counsel. In such a case, the suspect under detention may demand the presence of counsel during the interrogation of a suspect by analogying and applying the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. In such a case, the investigation agency shall interpret that the suspect under detention shall not refuse such request. This interpretation is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution declaring the "Principle of Legal Procedure" regarding the confinement and punishment of the suspect. However, even if the right to demand the presence of counsel during the interrogation of a suspect is protected by analogical application of Articles 209 and 89 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the right to demand the presence of counsel should be consistent with other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the unlimited permission of counsel at the time of interrogation of the detained suspect does not conform with the spirit of due process, and thus, there is a need to restrict the participation of counsel from 130.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court recognized the right to demand the presence of counsel in the interrogation of suspect against the undetained suspect for the following purposes.

Although the Constitution does not explicitly stipulate whether the right to receive assistance from a counsel is comprehensively recognized to both a non-detained suspect and the accused, the right to receive assistance from a counsel is naturally recognized in the rule of law and the due process of law as stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Article 12(4) of the Constitution also explicitly states that the importance of the right to receive assistance from a counsel is emphasized to emphasize the importance of the right to receive assistance from a physically detained person. The role of a counsel, regardless of whether a suspect or the accused is detained, as the right to receive assistance from a counsel, is the most essential among the contents of the right to receive assistance from a counsel, and the right to receive assistance from a counsel and a counsel is derived immediately from the right to receive assistance from the right to receive assistance of a counsel itself, as the essential premise of other procedural rights that require specific legislative formation among the contents of the right to receive assistance from a counsel (see Constitutional Court Order 200Hun-Ma138, Sept. 23, 2004).

3) Whether a special protection of counseling and advice with a defense counsel (hereinafter referred to as “defense counsel-applicant privilege”) can be recognized

1) The need to maintain confidentiality between the defense counsel and the client

In daily life, there are usually cases where a lawyer seeks advice as to whether a person's act is in violation of the law or what legal preparation should be provided if it is violated. In such a case, in order to obtain sufficient assistance of counsel in the respect of preparing for the risk of criminal prosecution and setting up against forced investigation, it should be premised on the trust of confidentiality between counsel and counsel.

(ii) the provisions relating to confidentiality between the counsel and the client under the current law.

The first sentence of Article 26 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "no person who is or was an attorney-at-law shall divulge any confidential information which comes to his knowledge in the course of performing his/her duties." Article 317(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a person shall be punished as a crime of divulgence of occupational secrets in a case where an attorney-at-law discloses another person's secret which he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties, and the main sentence of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a seizure of another's secret may be refused by an attorney-at-law, etc. on the part of goods possessed or kept by him/her in the course of his/her duties entrusted with the duties

(iii) limitations on protection pursuant to the provisions of the current law.

According to the above provisions on confidentiality between the defense counsel and the client under the current law, the defense counsel should not divulge the client's confidential information, and may refuse to testify. However, apart from the fact that the defense counsel's refusal of testimony in violation of the duty not to disclose confidential information may be punished by criminal punishment. Thus, the client cannot prevent the criminal disadvantage he/she may suffer due to the leakage of confidential information against his/her will.

In addition, even if a defense counsel does not divulge confidential information, the main text of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the above provisions, limits the object of the refusal of seizure to “goods held or kept by a counsel, etc. on commission of his/her duties,” and if an investigation agency seizes “data related to legal advice prepared between a counsel or a client,” which is held by a defense counsel or a client, as evidence to use as an important reason to prove the fact that a client has received legal advice regarding a criminal act, the defense counsel cannot refuse seizure. Accordingly, the client cannot prevent any criminal disadvantage that he/she may sustain due to the divulgence of confidential information against his/her will.

d) Defense Counsel - Acknowledgement of client privilege

In the Anglo-American countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, etc., where a client and a client are allowed to refuse disclosure with respect to an exchange of intent made on a confidential basis for the purpose of legal advice between a client and a counsel, the privilege has been acknowledged in the precedents that the client may refuse disclosure, and the Federal Rule 502 of the United States is also stipulated in the current law. Although there is no express provision in our current law, considering the purport of the precedents mentioned above, and the purport and limitation of each provision regarding confidentiality between a client and a counsel under the current law, it shall be deemed that the client may refuse disclosure with respect to an exchange of intent made between a client and a counsel for the purpose of legal advice.

On the other hand, if the privilege is recognized to the client for the protection of the client, the privilege is ① with respect to all kinds of legal counsel conducted by legal counsel based on the status of a professional legal adviser, ② if the exchange of opinion related to the purpose of legal counsel was conducted on the basis of trust by the client, the privilege can be deemed to be protected from disclosure at the client’s request, ④ if the client gives up his/her protection, ④ if the client voluntarily gives up his/her protection. In addition, unlike the case where the client seeks legal counsel with respect to the crime already committed by the client, it is reasonable to view that the client is excluded from the protection of the above privilege.

4) In the instant case:

1) Probative value of the instant written opinion

First of all, the instant written opinion is inadmissible as long as it is not recognized as the authenticity of establishment by the attorney-at-law belonging to Nonindicted 30 Law Firm, who is the originator in the court.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the instant written opinion was found in the course of search and seizure on Defendant 5’s business office on February 7, 2007, and as long as Defendant 5’s act of Defendant 5 or executives and employees related to the said facts charged includes the contents of legal advice from Nonindicted 30 Law Firm, the instant written opinion constitutes an exchange of intent in secret for the purpose of legal advice between the counsel and the client. Therefore, insofar as Defendant 5, who is deemed to be the client, did not permit the seizure of the instant written opinion, and the said client did not consent to use it as evidence, even if the authenticity of its establishment is recognized by the attorney, regardless of whether the seizure procedure is unlawful, the instant written opinion cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime against Defendant 5, the client, and Defendant 1 and 2, who can be deemed to be included in the client.

2) Admissibility of evidence of each prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 2 and 3

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "if a person who needs to make a statement on the preparation or trial date is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, or any other cause, the relevant protocol or document may be admitted as evidence." In this context, "if a witness is unable to make a statement due to any other reason" includes the time when a witness present at court refuses to testify by exercising the right to refuse to testify (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1211, Aug. 14, 192, etc.). In this case, on the premise that the investigative agency confirmed the contents of the written opinion in this case, the prosecutor's statement concerning the preparation process and contents of the written opinion in this case was submitted as evidence, and the prosecutor's statement concerning the non-indicted 2 and 3 which was examined by the investigative agency on the premise that the contents of the written opinion in this case were confirmed, the above written statement is admitted as evidence. Thus, since the non-indicted 2

However, inasmuch as the instant written opinion cannot be used as evidence, if it is deemed that the protocol examined in relation to the process of preparing the instant written opinion and the contents thereof can be used as evidence, it is contrary to the purport of recognizing the attorney-applicant privilege. Thus, even if the person making the original statement refuses to testify, the said written statement cannot be applied under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it should not be used as evidence as evidence as well as the instant written statement.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant written opinion, etc., is not recognized as authentic by the originator, or is not admissible by the attorney-applicant privilege (or, however, the prosecutor’s examination of the contents of the above written statement was finished at the court on the six-time trial date, and in light of the purpose of recognizing the attorney-applicant privilege, it shall not be considered as material for fact-finding as notified by the presiding judge on the 8th trial date

(D) Review of other evidence

1) Statement of Nonindicted 7, 5, and Defendant 5’s officers and employees, and persons related to redevelopment cooperatives

1) The statement made by Nonindicted 7

Nonindicted 7 made a statement to the following purport in the prosecutor’s statement (not more than 134 pages of investigation record).

① As to the developments leading up to which the money was remitted from Defendant 5’s corporate account to Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account, Nonindicted Company 6, which was operated by Nonindicted Company 7, between Defendant 5 and the person in charge of △△ business office (chief) around August 9, 2005, entrusted Defendant 5 with a survey on the current status of the reconstruction master plan that was being promoted in the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, and Dobong-gu, and received the money from Defendant 5.

② As to the developments leading up to which the money was remitted from Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account to Nonindicted Company 8’s corporate account, it did not convey the money that was remitted from Defendant 5, but instead, introduced Nonindicted Company 8’s representative director Nonindicted 5 regarding the supply of public relations personnel to Nonindicted 4, who was going out of the election of the head of the association in the ▽▽▽△△ District. However, Nonindicted 5 offered public relations personnel to Nonindicted 4, but the public relations personnel was not paid. As such, Nonindicted 5 recognized the responsibility for introducing Nonindicted 4, thereby requesting a regional research service equivalent to the amount between KRW 100 million and KRW 200,000 in consideration of the above service cost, and only remitted the service cost. Since the service report received from Nonindicted 5 was not kept, there was no need to use the service report thereafter.

2) The statement made by Nonindicted 5

In the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record is less than 334 pages, 715 pages less than 3935 pages, and 3935 pages), Nonindicted 5 received the amount of KRW 150 million from around August 2005 to KRW 70 million from the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record is not more than 334 pages, 715 pages, and 3935 pages), upon introduction by Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 4 supplied public relations personnel of KRW 60 to KRW 13,20 days in relation to the election of the head of the association in the ▽▽▽▽△△△△ District, and the total amount of KRW 130 million was incurred, but Nonindicted 4 did not receive money from Nonindicted 4, 700,000 on the ground that Nonindicted 7 did not receive money from Nonindicted 4, who was requested to analyze the situation of the redevelopment site, and received money from Nonindicted 7,000,000 won in the form of public relations personnel who used the money as above, and made a request to the service site.

In addition, Non-Indicted 5 made a statement at the seventh trial of the prosecution with the same content as that at the prosecution, it received a total of KRW 95 million, including KRW 7 million received from Non-Indicted 4 and the previous 7 million received from Non-Indicted 4 during the beginning of 2007 through the beginning of 2008. At the time, Non-Indicted 4 made a statement to the effect that it will be paid later if there is any circumstances after the agreement was reached.

(iii) Contents of the statements made by Defendant 5’s officers and employees (Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 10, 3, and 16)

Defendant 1 worked as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu housing project headquarters at the time of the instant case, Defendant 1, on the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution (the investigation record No. 3569) and twice, but Defendant 1 served as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu housing project headquarters at the time of the instant case. However, in relation to the election of the head of the association of the ▽▽▽▽△△ District Association, Defendant 5 did not know whether Defendant 5 intended to pay Nonindicted 4 expenses, such as the cost of promotional personnel service, or to pay for the service contract for on-the-spot 16 on-site investigation services between Nonindicted Company 6 and 6, and the budget review and final and conclusive for each project was conducted in accordance with Defendant 2’s decision, the head of the relevant business office, who is the head of the relevant business office. The delegation rules on the execution of funds do not require the approval of Defendant 1 on the electronic re-determination system, and it stated to the purport that the contents of the delegation are not known and implemented by the practice.

Defendant 2 was the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record is less than 841 pages, not more than 2539 pages), the suspect interrogation protocol (the investigation record is not more than 2960 pages, and not more than 3846 pages) and the second trial date, and Defendant 2 did not have paid the expenses to Nonindicted 4, such as the cost for public relations personnel service. However, Defendant 5’s office of △△△△△ Company concluded a contract with Nonindicted 7, who operated Nonindicted 6, around May 2005, by requesting a field investigation service of 16 re-building of Gangwon-do North Korea only one unit of detached house, and Defendant 5’s head office did not write off goods in advance, and Defendant 5’s head office made an electronic decision to Defendant 5’s head office on September 10, 2005 through an electronic report on the conclusion of service contracts, amount, terms of contracts, performance results, etc.

Non-indicted 10 entered into a service agreement on the 16 on the spot investigation between Non-indicted 6 and Non-indicted 10 on the records of the prosecutor's statement (the investigation records less than 810 pages, less than 833 pages, 3913 pages) and the 13th trial date, and Non-indicted 10 entered into a service agreement on the 16 spot investigation between Non-indicted 10 and Non-indicted 6. The period from October 2005 to the end of November 2005. The service charges are known to be 270 million won after deducting taxes. The service charges are known to be 20 million won after the commencement of the office of △△△△, which received a service report on November 20 or before and after the beginning of December 2005, which received a revised report in accordance with the revised plan to be published in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 4, 2006 to keep the revised report and make a statement on the service contract.

Nonindicted 3, who was an employee of the above △△ business office, was the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record No. 879 pages) and the six days of trial; Nonindicted 3, which was the employee of the above △△△△ business, thought that Nonindicted 3 did not prepare a contract for on-site investigation of 16 areas of detached houses located in the Gangnambuk-do, which was concluded with Nonindicted Company 6, and that Defendant 2 prepared it. The service investigation report was made to the effect that Nonindicted 10 received at the end of 2005

Nonindicted 16, who had been in charge of accounting affairs at the above △△ business office, stated in the prosecutor’s statement (in the investigation record, 2457 pages, 2710 pages, and 2710 pages) that he entered the accounting program under the direction of the head of the office of △△△△ in relation to the execution of funds, he may print out the slips, which is known to the effect that if the head office approves it after obtaining the approval of the head office, it would be a fund execution from the head office. Even in the case where the head office entrusts the service to the service company, he shall receive the tax invoice from the head office and send the slips to the head office to the service company after receiving the approval of the head office, and shall receive the money from the head office

4) Contents of the statement made by persons related to Nonindicted 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (Nonindicted 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, and

Nonindicted 4 stated in the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation (the investigation record is less than 71 pages, not more than 165 pages, and not more than 200 pages) that Nonindicted 4 went out of the election of the head of the association in the ▽▽▽▽▽△△△ District and was elected through the resident’s general meeting on September 14, 2005, and that at the time of election campaign, Defendant 5 was supported by the public corporation at the time of election campaign, 10 promotion personnel was used in an election campaign, and 7 million won was paid to Nonindicted 5 at the expense. Meanwhile, on February 16, 2006, Nonindicted 4 stated to the effect that Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 22 were selected as the public corporation as Defendant 5 as the result of voting by members on the cooperative with Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 22.

Nonindicted 17, on the date of the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record less than 28 pages, the 86 pages) and the 10th public trial, and Nonindicted 17, who aided Nonindicted 4’s election of the head of an association in the ▽▽△△ region. However, in relation to the election of the head of an association, Nonindicted 4 was aware that the public relations personnel’s service fee used by Nonindicted 4 was not paid by Nonindicted 4 but was paid by Nonindicted 7 at Defendant 5’s side, and Nonindicted 4 and 23 met Nonindicted 7, and that the public relations personnel’s expenses were resolved. The purport was that the public relations personnel was all responsible for Defendant 5, a contractor, and that Nonindicted 4’s public relations personnel were aware that 120 public relations personnel were paid for meals. On the other hand, the following day after the election of the head of the association was completed.

Nonindicted 18 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 18 tried to take part in Nonindicted 4’s election campaign at the prosecutor’s statement (the investigative record less than 178 pages, 202 pages, 979 pages) and the 11st trial date, but Nonindicted 18 tried to take part in Nonindicted 4’s election at the head of the association. However, since Nonindicted 4’s election at the end of the association’s election, the number of public relations personnel employed by Nonindicted 4 was fewer than 70, and Nonindicted 4, in relation to the selection of the corporation, set the conditions for the tender of the corporation without a prior discussion with other directors, and made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 4 attempted to go beyond the beginning of the corporation.

Nonindicted 19 stated in the prosecutor’s statement (the investigative record No. 105 pages), that Nonindicted 19 attempted Nonindicted 4’s election activities for the president of the association, and that Nonindicted 4 used approximately 70 public relations personnel. Nonindicted 4 stated to the effect that it would have been paid by Defendant 5 because the public relations personnel’s service charges did not have been paid from the election campaign and the service charges need to be strict.

On the 10th public trial of the prosecutor’s statement (the investigation record No. 39) and the 10th public trial of the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 20 was the candidate with Nonindicted 4 in the election of the head of the association. In relation to the election of the head of the association, Nonindicted 20 stated to the effect that Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 4, who was the designated company for Nonindicted 5’s exclusive election of the head of the association, was using Nonindicted 4 with Nonindicted 4, because the amount of public relations personnel’s service spent by Nonindicted 4 was more than a few hundred million won.

Nonindicted 21 stated in the prosecutor’s protocol of statement (the investigation record No. 156 pages) to the effect that Nonindicted 21 came to be a candidate with Nonindicted 4 in the election of the head of the association, and Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that: (a) Nonindicted 4 used promotional personnel while conducting an election campaign, and 100 persons frequently used promotional personnel; and (b) how to prepare promotional personnel expenses, Defendant 5 made a statement to the effect that there was a lawsuit to file a report on the establishment of public relations personnel.

2) Details of Nonindicted Company 6’s account details, Nonindicted Company 8’s account details, and review contents of the report on reconstruction services for detached houses

1) According to the details of the transaction statement of Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account (the Investigation Record No. 308 pages), it is revealed that the money was deposited in several times from the Defendant’s corporate account to the Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account from January 27, 2005 to December 4, 2006. In particular, the amount was deposited in KRW 62,370,000 on October 27, 2005, and KRW 249,480,000 on December 13, 2005.

2) According to the details of the transaction statement of Nonindicted Company 8’s corporate account (the investigation record No. 663 pages), it can be seen that Defendant 5’s corporate account was deposited several times from January 27, 2006 to September 27, 2006 with the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 8, and that KRW 100,000 and KRW 52,174,000 have been deposited from the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 6 on November 30, 2005, respectively, and on December 1, 2005, KRW 80 has been transferred from the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 6 to the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 8’s corporate account of KRW 130,000,000 for the public relations services for the president of the partnership with Nonindicted Company 4 on December 1, 2005.

C) According to the contents of the review of the report on the rebuilding service of detached houses (the investigation record No. 990 pages) as seen earlier, this is found in the process of search and seizure at the business office of Defendant 5 on February 7, 2007, as shown in the above written opinion, and it is revealed that: (a) as of December 3, 2005, the author Nonindicted 6 company, and the date of preparation, the title “(s) on-site inspection services of 16 re-building areas in the Hanbukbuk-do, the Hanbuk-do, Dongdaemun-gu, the Dobong-gu, the Jungdong-gu, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Gangnam-gu)” were written, and among the attached photographs, some of the photographs are included.

3) Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① Nonindicted 4 used approximately 70 million public relations personnel for the election of the head of the association in the ▽▽▽△△△△ Group. Nonindicted 4 did not have the ability to pay public relations personnel at the time, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 7 million even after that time, ② Nonindicted 8’s corporate account was deposited with Nonindicted 6’s corporate account as stated in the facts charged. Next, it can be deemed that KRW 130,00 won was remitted and disbursed as public relations personnel for the election of the head of the association in Nonindicted 4, and as a result, KRW 5,00 won was used as public relations personnel for the amount from Nonindicted 6’s company, and Nonindicted 5,000 won was used as public relations personnel, ③ Nonindicted 5,000 won, which was 7,000 won from Nonindicted 6 company’s private investment fund, and Nonindicted 7,000 won was paid to Defendant 4 and other material materials for public relations in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

However, according to the above evidence, i.e., other circumstances known through the above evidence, i., ① the fact that Nonindicted Company 5 transferred some of the funds to Nonindicted Company 6’s account at the time of remittance from Nonindicted Company 5 to Nonindicted Company 5, and the more money was transferred from Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account after Nonindicted Company 5, and the amount was transferred from Nonindicted Company 5 to Nonindicted Corporation 6’s corporate account. The aggregate of the funds transferred from Nonindicted Company 5’s corporate accounts to Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account was much more than the aggregate of the funds transferred from Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate account to Nonindicted Company 8’s corporate assets. Ultimately, in light of the above timing and amount of remittance, it is difficult to conclude that Nonindicted Company 5 transferred funds from Nonindicted Company 5 to Nonindicted Company 5’s corporate office through Nonindicted Company 5’s business establishment without the intention of Nonindicted Company 4’s participation in the election of Nonindicted Company 5 to Nonindicted Company 6’s corporate funds.

(4) Sub-determination

Nonindicted 4, the other party to the facts charged alleged that Defendant 1 and 2 provided property benefits, does not constitute “the ordering person, contractor, subcontractor, or interested person” as provided in Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

As to whether Defendant 1 and 2 may be deemed to have provided property benefits by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion of a contract agreement or the supply and demand of construction works, the instant written opinion, etc., without the admissibility of evidence by the defense counsel- client privilege, and the other evidence alone, are insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (Furthermore, even if the aforementioned Defendants’ defense counsel is guilty of the facts charged, Article 98(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is a joint penal provision applied to Defendant 5, is alleged to the effect that the said Defendants’ defense counsel is unconstitutional (Article 98(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is a joint penal provision applied to Defendant 5, but it shall not be determined as to

C. The offering of a bribe by Defendant 1 and 2 and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 3 (related to paragraphs (b) (1) and (c))

(1) The above Defendants’ assertion and the issues of this case

(A) The above Defendants denied the charges by asserting the following.

Defendant 2 paid money to Defendant 3 by means of account transfer, cash payment, etc., as described in paragraphs (1) and (c) of the above facts charged. However, the above money is not a pretext of solicitation to the effect that Defendant 5 limit the conditions of participation in bidding to enable Defendant 1 to be selected as the contractor of △△1, and that the public opinion of the members of the association would be drawn toward favorable direction to Defendant 5, but rather, it is given to Defendant 5’s business office to pay the purchase price for the materials on the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction purchased from Nonindicted Company 15 operated by Defendant 3.

(B) According to the above assertion, the issue of this case is whether Defendant 1 and 2 limited the conditions of bid participation so that Defendant 5 company can be selected as the contractor of △△△ Zone, and whether they delivered money to Defendant 5 company as a solicitation to the effect that Defendant 5 company’s public opinion was favorable to Defendant 5 company.

(2) Evidence conforming to the facts charged

As evidence consistent with the above facts charged, each statement and investigation report at the investigative agency and court of the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 24 and 25 (the attachment and analysis of the transaction statement of the corporate account of the non-indicted corporation 15), investigation report (the attachment of the copy of the passbook of the account of the non-indicted corporation 5), collection of report, business service contract draft, tax invoice and receipt submitted by the defendant 3 to the prosecution, which are materials submitted by the defendant 3, the evidence recognized as admissible only for one copy, defendant 1, and 2, such as the office lease agreement and the business service contract draft.

(3) Examination of each evidence

(A) Each statement of Defendant 1, 2, 3, and Nonindicted 24, and 25

1) Details of Defendant 1’s statement

Defendant 1 worked as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu Housing Project Headquarters at the time of the instant case on the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution (the investigation record No. 3569) and twice, but Defendant 1 served as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu business at the time of the instant case. However, whether Defendant 5 remitted funds to Nonindicted Company 15, and the name of Defendant 5’s solicitation to the effect that Defendant 5 can be selected as the contractor of △△△ Zone 1, and whether Defendant 5’s business office and Defendant 3 are paid the cost of the service contract for the investigation of the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction entered into between Defendant 5 Company 5 Company 1 and Defendant 3, without knowledge as to whether the budget is paid. The execution of funds for each project was conducted under the decision of Defendant 2, the head of the business office, and the delegation pre-determination rules on the execution of funds do not require Defendant 1’s approval on the electronic resolution system, and it was made without knowledge of the content and its practice.

2) Details of Defendant 2’s statement

Defendant 2 made a statement to the following effect on the second written statement by the prosecution (not more than 2539 pages of investigation records), the suspect interrogation protocol by the prosecution (not more than 2960 pages of investigation records) and the second written date.

Before May 204 through June 6, 2004, Defendant 3 entered into a redevelopment master plan with Defendant 5 company office working for Defendant 2, and agreed to reduce the price of KRW 200 million by half the purchase price, but the other company also did not have to reduce the price at the price. In conclusion, the contract was concluded without obtaining separate approval from the head office, and the money was received as the head office after preparing a deposit sheet under the name of Defendant 3 and sending it to the head office. Since the contract was received from Defendant 3, the amount of KRW 14 business was more than 250,00 and more than 10,000,000,000,000 won out of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was less than KRW 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

3) Details of Defendant 3’s statement

(i) The first written statement by the prosecution (the Investigation Records No. 1062 et al.)

After the non-indicted 15 company operated by the defendant 3 was selected as the rearrangement project implementer in △△ Zone 1, there is no fund from the defendant 5 company in relation to the selection of the construction project. However, it is thought that the materials made the current state of national redevelopment including this will be sold to the defendant 5 company at the level of KRW 100,000,000,

(ii) double prosecutorial protocol of statement (not more than 1075 pages of investigation record);

Since the time when the Seoul Special Metropolitan City redevelopment master plan was announced around June 2004, the time when the materials on the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction were sold to Defendant 5 was from July 2004 to August 8, 2004, and the amount received as a consideration for information was KRW 200 million, not KRW 100 million. Defendant 5’s deputy office and office, prepared a written contract with Nonindicted 26 director, but did not keep the current contract. The current status of redevelopment and reconstruction was sold to Nonindicted 27 Co., Ltd., in addition to Defendant 5, and Nonindicted Co. 28 was reversed, and the contract was sold to other small-scale companies and large companies. Meanwhile, Defendant 5 filed an objection to the information included in the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction, and Defendant 200 million won was directly paid at the time of the request of Nonindicted Co. 240 million won, not at the time of the execution.

c) Prosecution interrogation protocol (not more than 3621 pages of investigation record)

Defendant 3 received a total of KRW 210 million from Defendant 5 as stated in the facts charged. However, around June through July 7, 2004, Defendant 5 received KRW 200,000 from Defendant 2 the sales of basic investigation information on redevelopment in Seoul area. The prosecutor’s first statement that the amount received as information sales fee is KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from Defendant 5’s second written statement of prosecutor’s office, which stated that Defendant 3 sold to Nonindicted 26 division of business. In addition, the amount of KRW 210,000,000 was included in value-added tax on KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 from Defendant 200 to KRW 50,000,000,000,000 from Defendant 2 to Defendant 3’s family members, and the amount of KRW 75,000,000,00 among individual employees.

d) Two trial dates;

In relation to the partial change of the statement on the sale of redevelopment data in the investigation agency, it appears that the first statement was made only for the part on which the tax invoice was issued, and then the defendant reversed the amount of KRW 100 million before the prosecutor was examined. On the other hand, as to the 100 million won for which the tax invoice was not issued, only the corporate receipt was issued. On the other hand, Nonindicted Co. 28 and Nonindicted Co. 31 were in a similar contract, and Nonindicted Co. 31 stated that the separate amount of value-added tax was KRW 190 million (including value-added tax, KRW 290 million, KRW 360 million, KRW 500,000 on June 21, 2004, KRW 2700,000 on Nov. 6, 2004, and KRW 2700,000 on Mar. 6, 2005, Defendant 2814 of the contract was cancelled, respectively.

서울지역 재개발자료의 가치에 관하여, 처음에 위 자료를 웹사이트에 올려놓은 다음 ◐◐일보와 연계하여 일반인들도 유료로 열람할 수 있도록 하였는데, ◐◐일보로부터 자료를 웹사이트에 올리는 비용에 대해서만 3,000만 원을 받았고, 개인이 위 웹사이트에 한 번 로그인해서 열람하는 대가로 10만 원을 지급받았으며, 로그아웃한 이후 다시 들어오려면 또 비용을 지급해야 할 정도로 고급 가치였기 때문에 불과 2년 동안 수천 명이 열람하였고, ◐◐일보에는 절반 정도 금액이 지급되었으며 나머지로서 공소외 15 회사에 입금된 금액이 약 5억 원 정도 되었다.

As stated in the facts charged, Defendant 3 received the sales proceeds for the redevelopment data in Seoul area instead of receiving money from Defendant 5 as consideration for solicitation as stated in the facts charged, and thus, Defendant 3 received money from Nonindicted Company 15 to the corporate account immediately and deposited the money received as a check into the said corporate account and made and issued a tax invoice, receipt, etc.

4) The statement made by Nonindicted 24

In the prosecutor's statement (the investigation record No. 1648 et al.), Nonindicted 24 stated to the effect that the amount indicated in the facts charged by Defendant 3 was received by Defendant 3 as the name of selling information and data to Defendant 5, and that with respect to the business of creating the sold information and data, KRW 110,000,000 which was first deposited to Nonindicted Company 15's corporate account, the above half of the above amount was divided into KRW 24,00,000 because Nonindicted Company 24 dispatched employees of Nonindicted Company 24 (Nonindicted Company 29) to the same day, and that the sum of KRW 10,000,000 deposited thereafter was divided into KRW 24,00,000,000 from Defendant 3 to Defendant 5's business office, and was deposited

5) The statement made by Nonindicted 25

In the prosecutor's statement (the investigation record No. 1855) the non-indicted 25 submitted a statement to the prosecutor's office (the investigation record No. 1855) and the non-indicted 25 submitted a survey on the redevelopment and reconstruction conducted by the non-indicted 15 together with the defendant 3 to investigate the information on the redevelopment in the Seoul metropolitan area, and related to the redevelopment and reconstruction conducted by the non-indicted 31 corporation, such as where 4-5 employees attend a business trip in order to investigate the information on the redevelopment and reconstruction conducted in the Seoul metropolitan area, the data investigated about how the value would increase to the individual through the Internet, and the non-indicted 31 corporation also sold the data prepared by the non-indicted 31 corporation to the non-indicted 31 corporation, and the subsequent investigation on the current status of the redevelopment and reconstruction conducted in the Republic of Korea and the subsequent non-indicted 31 corporation did not request the service to investigate the data on the development and reconstruction conducted by the non-indicted 31 corporation and the materials stated to the effect that the employees were the same.

(B) Other evidence

1) An investigation report (the attachment and analysis of the details of transactions of Nonindicted Company 15’s corporate account), investigation report (the attachment of a copy of the passbook with Defendant 5’s previous accounts)

According to the investigation report (the attachment and analysis of the details of transactions of the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 15, and the investigation records 1261 et al.), among the corporate accounts of Nonindicted Company 15, the amount of KRW 5,5 million was deposited from Defendant Company 5 (the "Chile Team" is indicated in the "Chile Team" column of October 22, 2004, and October 29, 2004). The amount of KRW 15 million was transferred to each of the following accounts: KRW 25 million on March 11, 2005; KRW 15 million on March 14, 2005; KRW 25 million on March 15, 2005; KRW 40 million on March 15, 2005; KRW 206 million on March 16, 2005; KRW 200,000 on March 26, 2005; and KRW 2008 on March 26, 20007.

According to the investigation report (the attachment of a copy of the passbook in the previous accounts of Defendant 5, and the investigation record No. 1784) of Defendant 5, Defendant 5’s account in the bank (Account No. 3 omitted), Defendant 5’s account, which was used as the passbook in the previous account at the business office of △△△△△△△△, and Defendant 5’s account, which was seven times from March 10, 2005 to March 11, 2005 (as stated in the “pro rata Team” column, the construction division’s account is deemed to be the housing project headquarters account in the construction division), was deposited in KRW 1.45 million. From March 10, 2005 to March 11, 2005, the fact that KRW 94,500,000 was withdrawn in cash over ten times from March 11, 2005.

2) Copy of the report collection, business service contract draft, tax invoice, and receipt, which is the data submitted by Defendant 3 to the prosecution

According to the content of the sampling report (1404 et al. of investigation records), regarding the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction in Seoul Special Metropolitan City area, location, address, area size, number of association members, private land and state-owned land area, construction project, scale, floor area ratio, floor area ratio, total floor area, building area, total number of households, square, complex selection, master plan, construction project selection, management and disposal plan, district designation, starting, opening, establishment, sale, authorization for project implementation, cooperative (promotion) telephone number, educational conditions, traffic conditions, and environmental conditions are prepared in the form of a map stating 150 pages. The quantity (excluding district boundary and on-site photo) attached to the investigation record is about 150.

According to the contents of the draft of the business service contract (the investigation record No. 3643 et al.), it can be seen that the service name column includes “the current status of potential housing redevelopment zones under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Master Plan, and detailed investigation services on the current status of housing redevelopment zones in ○○○○-gu ○○○○○○○○○”.

According to the contents of a copy of the tax invoice (the investigation record No. 3660 pages), each of October 20, 2004 and 50,000,000 won as of October 25, 2004, respectively, issued the tax invoice to Defendant 5 by Nonindicted Company 15. According to the contents of the copy of the receipt, the fact that Nonindicted Company 15 prepared the receipt to Nonindicted Company 5, which was 15,000,000 won as of March 10, 2005, KRW 25,00,000,000 as of March 11, 2005, and KRW 20,000,000 as of March 15, 2005 and March 16, 2005, respectively.

3) One copy (not more than 2480 pages of investigation records) of △△.xls file output.

Of the items described in the investigation records 2482, the amount of 40,000,000 won in the column of “△△△1” and “date 10,000,000,” and the content column of △△△ Central Library,” respectively, are written in the column of “△△△△△ One,” and the amount of 37,00,000,000 won in the column of “△△△△ and March 14, 2005,” and the content column of the investigation records are written in the column of 2482 as “loan 1,00,000” and the content column as “loan 1,00,000,000,000 in the column of 14, 205,” respectively, written in the column of “△△△△△△△,” and in the column of date.

4) The evidence admitted as evidence only to Defendant 1 and 2

(i)the draft office lease agreement;

According to the above document (1036 pages 1036 et al.), the following facts are revealed: (a) the date of preparation between Defendant 5 and Nonindicted Company 15 on March 15, 2005; (b) the lessor’s “Non-Indicted Company 15”; (c) the lessee’s “Defendant 5”; (d) the lease term of KRW 100,000,000; (b) the lease term of KRW 15,000; (c) the lease term of March 15, 2005 to March 15, 2006; and (d) the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Han River-ro 3,5 stories (number omitted); and (e) the first lease term of Nonindicted Company 15.

(ii) the draft of the business services contract;

According to the contents of the above document (including investigation records No. 1386), “Defendant 5 Company Construction Division”, “Nonindicted Company 15”, “△△△△△△△△△△△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City,” “Investigation Services” from October 11, 2004 to the time of the selection of the contractor, “the date of preparation” on October 1, 2004, “the method of payment of service amount of KRW 100,000,000, and service amount of KRW 100,000,000,” and “the method of payment of service amount” are paid in two or more installments. It can be seen that the draft of the work service agreement is the draft.

(C) Determination

Considering the following circumstances, namely, ① the aggregate amount of KRW 10 million transferred from 50 million to 150 million in the account of Nonindicted Company 15, as indicated in the facts charged, and Defendant 3’s statement on the process of receiving KRW 100 million from 50 million in the account of Nonindicted Company 15 was changed from the investigation agency and court; ② Defendant 3 submitted research data on the current status of redevelopment and reconstruction in Seoul area, which was sold by 50,000 won, to 10,000 won in KRW 50,000,000,000,000 KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 15,000,000,000,000,000, KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000 won.

However, in light of the circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the contents of Defendant 3’s statement on the grounds that it was difficult for the above △△△△△ to be recorded in the investigation agency and court. On the other hand, considering Defendant 3’s statement that it was attempted to sell data at other business offices of 5, the developments leading up to changes in the contents of the statement are consistent. Also, Defendant 2, who was the delivery agent and court, submitted the copy of the tax invoice and the receipt to the effect that it was difficult for the above △△△△△△△ to acknowledge the credibility of the Defendant’s original data on the grounds that it was difficult for the Defendants 1 to use the original data to be recorded in the 6th page’s original data on behalf of the Defendant 5’s head office to be recorded in the 5th page, and that it was difficult for the Defendant 2 to use the data to be recorded in the 7th page△△△△△△△△△’s original data on behalf of the Defendant. However, the content and content of the report were omitted 2700 million.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 and 2 provided money under the pretext of a solicitation to the effect that Defendant 5 company can be selected as a contractor in △△ Zone, limiting the conditions for participation in bidding, and allowing members to draw public opinion in favor of Defendant 5 company in favor of Defendant 5 company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(d) The offering of a bribe by Defendant 1 and 2 and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery related to paragraphs (b)(2) and (d) of Defendant 4

(1) Whether Defendant 1 participated in the crime

Defendant 1 asserts that there was no participation in the loan to Nonindicted Company 1. Considering the circumstances that the issuer of the electronic bill used for the loan of Nonindicted Company 1, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, is Defendant 5, Defendant 1, who was the head of the Housing Project Headquarters of Defendant 5, who was the head of the housing project headquarters of Defendant 5, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, provided Defendant 4 with the electronic bill in the name of Defendant 5 to Nonindicted Company 1 operated by Defendant 4 as collateral and provided it with the electronic bill in the name of Defendant 5, thereby allowing the financial institution to obtain a loan equivalent to the amount stated in the

However, even if the evidence cited in the above "the summary of evidence" is comprehensively added, it is insufficient to recognize that the executive officers and employees of the Do governor of the Do governor in charge of the Do governor in charge of the business of 5 company or the head office of Defendant 5 company engaged in the process of fund execution by Do governor in writing or electronic decision-making, etc., and furthermore, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 1, the head office of Do governor in charge of the Do governor in charge of the Do governor in charge of the housing project of Do governor in the company 5 company, as well as Defendant 2, was aware

(2) Whether the money provided by Defendant 2 can be viewed as a bribe

As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 2 delivered money to Defendant 4 without Defendant 2’s intention to receive a refund, as in the “judgment on Defendant 2, 4, and defense counsel’s assertion”, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. However, the contents of the bribe offered by Defendant 2 are not the money itself but the financial interest on the money, i.e., the economic interest that can use the money without interest, which is an economic interest that can receive financial convenience.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the offering of a bribe to Defendant 1, 3, 5, and Defendant 2's Defendant 3 constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime, and thus, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. ② The fact of offering a bribe to Defendant 4 and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 4 are also a case where there is no evidence of each crime, and thus, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 1, 3, and 5 and Defendant 2 guilty of the offering of a bribe

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

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)