Housing City:

Silung-si in the place of registration

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

4,402,00 won shall be collected from the defendant.

The provisional payment of the above fine and the amount equivalent to the surcharge shall be ordered.

The Defendant leased the part of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Station of K (hereinafter “K”) for a regular inspection and comprehensive inspection of a motor vehicle under the name of K in Sungsung-si (hereinafter “K”), which is a designated maintenance businessman for comprehensive inspection of the interest of the motor vehicle management office (motor vehicle maintenance business), received money in excess of normal inspection fees for an inappropriate motor vehicle, such as illegal remodeling, exhaust gas standard excess, etc., and adjusted photographs of a vehicle without an illegal structure or standard structure, and decided to directly conduct the inspection by adjusting gas emissions by means of partial blocking gas emissions, etc. for a motor vehicle exceeding the exhaust gas standard, and to directly conduct the inspection by the Defendant to directly conduct the inspection of the motor vehicle. The Defendant: (a) ○○○○ (the same day of suspension of indictment on the same day); (b) ○○○ and ○○ (the same day of the same day without the authority to institute the prosecution); and (c) ○○ and the motor vehicle requiring the illegal inspection as above.

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) even though the Defendant loaded the freight 14 tons of Daegu MTM 14 tons car driver, or 200 driver of the vehicle in large scale at the above K, was asked to enter the results of the inspection by viewing the illegal alteration and passing through the comprehensive inspection criteria; (b) received KRW 151,00 in return, and then entered the results of the inspection as a result of adjusting the angle of the above vehicle’s pictures, and then entered the results of the inspection by adjusting the angle of the above vehicle’s pictures; and (c) from that time until August 23, 2016, the Defendant received the aggregate of KRW 15,303,00 from the borrower and others for the total of 114 vehicles below the inspection criteria, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and entered the data that meet the inspection criteria under the above Act.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the above ○○ or the ○○○○○, engaged in the regular inspection and comprehensive inspection of a motor vehicle according to the designation of a designated motor vehicle maintenance business operator for the inspection of a motor vehicle, received the sum of 15,303,00 won in connection with the relevant business, and conducted an unlawful inspection, and at the same time, illegally conducted a regular inspection and comprehensive inspection of a motor vehicle as

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 80 subparagraph 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, Article 45-2 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, Articles 131(1) and 129(1) of each Criminal Code, Article 77-2 subparag. 6 of the Automobile Management Act, the Criminal Code

Article 30 (Improper Action after Acceptance of Bribe)

1. Competition;

Articles 40 and 40 of the Criminal Act (Articles 40 and 40 of the Automobile Management Act and between the crimes of violation of the Automobile Management Act and the crimes of illegal acceptance after each acceptance

Punishment of a heavier penalty after the acceptance of a bribe shall be punished, respectively.

1. Imposition of fines concurrently;

Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the Illegal Action after Acceptance of Bribe

such fine concurrently

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

No. 5 No. 5

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (The following factors shall be considered for repeated consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the defendant's defense counsel's assertion

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that when calculating a fine under Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the criminal proceeds belonging to the defendant are only 4.4 million won as a result of illegal regular inspections and comprehensive inspections of motor vehicles and dividing the profits of the accomplices and their profits, the defendant's defense counsel shall calculate the amount of the fine on the basis of the criminal proceeds actually acquired by the defendant.

In the event that several co-offenders jointly commit the crime of acceptance of bribe, the accomplice cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime as well as his amount of the acceptance of bribe. Thus, in determining the amount of the acceptance of bribe to which Article 2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies, the total amount of the acceptance of bribe shall be based on the aggregate amount of all the co-offenders, and each co-offender shall not be based on the amount actually acquired or the amount he/she wishes to receive is distributed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1557, Aug. 20, 199, etc.). Likewise, in applying Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it is reasonable to determine the amount of fine based on the aggregate amount of the acceptance of all all the co-offenders. Accordingly, the defendant's defense counsel is groundless

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under the Act: the application of the sentencing guidelines from June to June of 22, and fine 15, 303, 000 to 38, 257, and 500 won (the sentencing guidelines are not applicable since they include ordinary concurrent crimes, but the sentencing guidelines are not applicable, for each crime of illegal action after the acceptance of the bribery, for which the sentencing guidelines are formulated);

(a) An unjust disposition after each acceptance of a bribe;

【Determination of Type】

The acceptance of bribe shall be type 2 (the sum of the amount of profit for each crime which is a single concurrent offender according to the standards for handling multiple crimes and the amount of profit for each crime which is a single concurrent offender according to the type 2 (not less than 10 million won but less than 30 million won);

【Special Person in Charge of Acceptance of Bribe

[Scope of Recommendation and Punishment] One year to four years (aggravating area, one step-by-level increase as a result of adding up the areas of increase, 1/3 of the lowest limit of sentence)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for one year, two years of suspended sentence, and fine 10,00 won.

The defendant's plans to make profits by conducting an illegal inspection of his accomplice ○○ and the car illegal inspection are formulated and operated by K, the period of the crime is not short, and the quantity of the vehicle that the defendant unlawfully inspected is also considerable, and the amount of the accepted acceptance received by the defendant together with Ga○○ and Ga○○ is not much high, and the criminal nature of the defendant is not high.

However, taking account of the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the instant crime; (b) the Defendant divided and used the amount of the accepted bribery; (c) the actual amount of the accepted bribery brought by the Defendant is not significantly different from that of other accomplices; (d) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime in the past; and (e) there was no record of the crime exceeding the fine.

The punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing.

Judges Nam-man

Judges Kim Jeon-tae