B. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

Criminal Bribery)

2. A. B

3. b. C.

2. Law Firm G, Attorneys H. Law Firm AP, Attorneys A Q (PP)

For Goman B

3. Attorneys J or K (for the defendant C):

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed. [Defendant B] The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

22,00,000 won shall be collected from the defendant. [Defendant C] The judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

26,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

A. Defendants

1) Defendant A

A) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant A received KRW 500,00 from around August 2006, but the statute of limitations for this part has expired, and except for this, Defendant A did not receive a bribe from 0 or M as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the court below found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged that Defendant A received a bribe from M was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and since the facts charged that Defendant A received a bribe from M are very comprehensive and timely, the date and time of the crime is not specified and thus the prosecution procedure becomes invalid in violation of the provisions of Acts, the court

B) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below against Defendant A (the penalty of one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 3.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B

Although Defendant B did not accept a bribe from L, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged as evidence, and the facts charged prior to May 2007 had expired, and thus, rendered a judgment of acquittal. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine on all of the facts charged.

3) Defendant C

The punishment of the court below against Defendant C (the additional collection of 2 years of imprisonment, 26 million won) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) Defendant A made a concrete statement about the background leading up to the delivery of a bribe, the time of delivery of a bribe, and the method of determining the amount, etc. in the prosecutor’s office. Although this part of the statement was reliable, Defendant A was acquitted of part of the inclusive crime on the ground that L’s statement on the completion date of the acceptance of bribe is not correct, the court below’s decision not to determine the remainder is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2) Since the system of accepting the bribe in a lump sum from the owners of entertainment establishments to Defendant B is a systematic act premised on the distribution of the team members to Defendant B, and Defendant B, in addition to this, received the bribe by itself, it is deemed that Defendant B received the bribe through M, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, and the sentencing (the penalty of imprisonment with labor shall be collected in 1.6 months and 1.6 million won) is also unreasonable.

3) Although L’s statement against Defendant C is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and its credibility has been made in detail, the court below acquitted the Defendant C of some facts charged, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, and the sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

1) Before the judgment of the court below on the part of conviction against Defendant A and each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below is ex officio to examine the acquitted part of Defendant A, and the public prosecutor is a bribe from 0 when the judgment of the court below was rendered.

From among the facts charged as to the part of the charge concerning the part 1-A(2) 2 through 5 of the daily list of crimes (2), the place of crime in the part 2-5 of the charge is "N District Register Office of the second floor in Gangnam-gu, Seoul" to "N District Register Office of the N District Unit in the N District P in Gangnam-gu, Seoul," and this court changed the object of judgment by granting permission, the conviction part against the defendant A among the judgment below is no longer maintained. However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument about mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant A and the prosecutor is still meaningful, and thus, I will examine it separately.

2) Prior to the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant B and the prosecutor, the prosecutor added "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of this part of the facts charged [the part concerning the acceptance of bribe from M] to this part of the facts charged [the part concerning the acceptance of bribe from M] before the court below, and "the defendant B conspired with the team members such as M, and "the defendant B" to receive 2.5 million won each month from August 2007 to May 2008, an entertainment business owner L and AR respectively, and received 3.5 million won each month from 2.5 million won each, and around that time, it received 6 million won each month from the distribution and received 6 million won each of them to the effect that the prosecutor received the bribe in relation to her and team members' duties, and thus the court below changed this part of the facts charged so that it can no longer be justified in the judgment below's judgment.

B. As to Defendant A and B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

1) Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A) Part 1 of the receipt from 0

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

From March 13, 2006 to February 29, 2008, Defendant A worked as the N District Register of the Gangnam Police Station, and managed overall control over the duties related to the regulation of illegal entertainment establishments in the above District, 112 reported duties, and the personnel affairs of police officers belonging thereto. around August 2006, Defendant A received KRW 50,000 won in total five times as indicated in Table 1 of the crime committed a total of around February 12, 2008, from Qa Hospital’s office in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P, and from Qa Hospital’s office in charge of the 2 team patrol of the N District, Defendant A received the N District 50,000 won as a superior in charge of personnel management, evaluation, or occupational convenience from around 50,000 won to around February 29, 2008.

A person shall be appointed.

Accordingly, Defendant A accepted a bribe of KRW 2.5 million in relation to his duties.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) Defendant A was aware of the fact that the operation of the illegal general affairs system was being conducted within the district; (b) it appears that there was a need to pay to Defendant A to a certain extent even with the district council members; (c) the district council is the highest commercial company within the district council members in the evaluation of their duties; and (d) the general affairs received separate money from the operators of illegal businesses, such as L, in addition to the amount regularly paid every month, in addition to the amount paid every month, since each general affairs received regular payments from the operators of illegal businesses, they received a certain amount of money under the pretext of the value of rice culture, which appears to have been given to the superior even after paying the specified amount of money as the team operation cost; and (d) it was likely that the Defendant made the liability for the crime of offering a bribe to Defendant A; and (d) there was no possibility of any false statement.

(3) Judgment of this Court

(A) As to the part as set forth in Nos. 1 2 through 5 of the above crime sight table

① From March 2006 to February 2008, the 70th day of the examination on each of the statements made by the prosecution to the effect that the defendant A paid money more than four times from March 2006 to February 3, 2008, and the defendant A knew that it was a bribe received from the owner of the business, which was known to the same effect as the third day of the court below's decision and this court's third day of the trial. However, this court does not have any fact of delivering money, such as the value of rice culture, etc. to the defendant before and after 2006 and 207, to the effect that the defendant made a false statement to the same effect as this court's testimony during the 0th day of the trial. The reason why the court's testimony to the effect that the defendant had been delivered to the prosecutor's office was inconsistent with the former Act's testimony and punishment for the purpose of delivering the false statement to the defendant during the 0th day of the trial.

At the fifth trial date, testimony has been made in a relatively clear and clear manner despite the warning of repeated punishment for perjury.

D. In light of the above 0’s statement contents and the degree of attitude of statement, etc., it is difficult to view that each of the statements made on the 5th trial date of this court is credibility, contrary to the fact that the content of testimony is credibility.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that each statement made on the 0th day of the investigation agency, the court of the court below, and the third day of the court of the first instance as to this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence as to this part of the facts charged. Thus,

(B) As to the part on the list No. 1 of the above crime list 1, this part of the crime is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or suspension of qualification for not more than ten years pursuant to Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 249(1)4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations has five years, and it is evident that the prosecution of this case was instituted on May 18, 2012 after five years have passed since the criminal act was completed).

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, and the part as stated in No. 1 of the above list of crimes should be judged not guilty on the ground that the defendant A's assertion on this part is with merit.

B) Acceptance from M

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant A received KRW 500,000,000,000 from a slope M, who was in charge of the NA patrol 4 team general affairs at the NNA’s office in Gangnam-gu P, Seoul, from August 2007 to February 2008, the sum of KRW 500,000,000,000, in two times, to the effect that “I are superior in charge of personnel management, appraisal, or business convenience as a superior, who is in charge of overall affairs of the Ndistrict patrol 4 team.” Accordingly, Defendant A received a bribe in relation to his duties.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, based on the following facts: (a) although the date and time of the crime are not specified and only about six months have been stated, this part of the facts charged is not specified; (b) that Defendant A received KRW 1,500,000,000 from the time when M 4 was in charge of the general affairs of the patrol team, and that the total amount of KRW 5,000,000,000,000 from the time when M 4 was in charge of the management team was in charge of the district register; and (c) it is difficult to deem that there is a hindrance to Defendant A’s exercise of the right to defense because it is possible to specify the act in accordance with the aforementioned time and amount of money and valuables.

(3) Judgment of this Court

(A) Whether the facts charged are specified or not, and a certain date and time is not specified for about six months, but in light of the nature of the crime in this part, it appears that the above mentioned facts can be distinguished from other facts. Since it is possible to specify the act based on the above time situation and amount of money and valuables, it is difficult to view that there is a particular obstacle to Defendant A’s exercise of the defense right.

(B) Whether the crime of bribery was established

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are that Defendant A, who is the N District Register, received a bribe in relation to his duties after receiving KRW 1 million from the M of the same District Register to the effect that “as a superior in charge of personnel management and rating or business convenience as a superior in charge of the district group,” and thus, if Defendant A was to be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, it should be recognized that Defendant A received the above KRW 1 million in relation to his duties as a superior in charge of the district group in relation to M. And M was already promoted. Since M was already promoted, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A received the above KRW 1 million from Defendant A in relation to his duties (the first instance court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, and that Defendant A received part of the bribe from Defendant A in the course of receiving the bribe from Defendant A as a general manager in relation to his duties, even after collecting all evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

There may be room for recognizing the fact that he received the above one million won from M with knowledge of the circumstances that he will deliver part of it to himself. Thus, the crime of receiving a bribe from the owner of the business can be established in relation to his duties such as regulating the owner of the business.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, Defendant A's ground for appeal on this part is well-grounded.

2) Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A) Determination of the credibility of L’s statements

(1) Compatibility of L’s statements

(가) L은 피고인을 처음 알게 된 경위에 관하여, "2007. 2. 중순경 피고인 B이 다른 경찰관 한 명과 함께 정복을 입고 S 주점으로 찾아와 웨이터에게 사장이 누구냐고 묻기에, 당시 업소에 있던 내가 인사를 하였더니, 피고인 B은 '내가 N지구대에서 근무한 지가 꽤 되었는데, 내 이름을 못 들었는가 보지? 내가 깐깐한 사람이라고 소문이 났을 텐데 … 내 자식 나이가 거의 서른인데, 나도 나이를 먹을 만큼 먹었다. 앞으로 L 사장이 잘 하면 서로 좋을 것이 아니냐'고 말하였다. 그래서 그 때 피고인 B과 전화번호를 교환하였고, 그 뒤 N지구대 총무 중 누군가에게 '형님, B이라는 사람이 찾아왔는데, 이 사람 뭐예요?'라고 묻자 그 경찰관은 '엄청 빡빡한 사람이야. 말이 안 통하니 네가 이해를 해 줘라'라고 말하여, 총무도 아닌 피고인 B에게 별도로 돈을 주게 되었다"는 취지로 진술하였고, 금품 교부 당시의 구체적인 정황에 관하여는, "2007. 3. 초순경 T주차장에서 피고인 B을 만나, 1만 원권 100장을 묶은 것을 악수하듯이 건네주었고, 그 다음달 초순경부터 2007. 12. 하순경까지 매달 T주차장에서 같은 방법으로 피고인 B에게 100만 원씩 주었으며, 2007. 9. 추석과 2008. 2. 설날 며칠 전에도 굴비 세트와 함께 같은 방법으로 100만 원씩 주었다. 그런데 2008. 2. 초순경 피고인 B이 나에게 급히 300만 원이 필요하다면서 3개월치를 미리 달라고 요구하여, 1만 원권 100장을 고무줄로 묶은 다발 세 개를 건네주었고, 그 후 피고인 B에 대하여 2008. 5.경 인사발령이 났는데 모른 척 하고 5월분 월정은 주지 않았다"는 취지로 진술하였다.

(B) The contents of L’s above statement are very specific and consistent with Defendant B’s situation, specific circumstances and amount of money at the time of delivery of money and valuables to Defendant B. It is consistent from the investigative agency to the court below’s decision.

(2) The existence of objective facts or circumstances consistent with L’s statements

(A) AG, which had been in accounting at the marina business place called L's 'AS', stated at the prosecutor's office that ‘AG keeps the amount of KRW 10,000 or KRW 100,000 in the credit cooperative located at the above business place by the L's request and delivered L with KRW 1,00,000 in the unit of KRW 8). AH, who had been in accounting at L's 'S' and 'U', has been in the public prosecutor's office under the direction of L, and delivered the cash of the above entertainment business place to AG or L by combining it with KRW 1,00,00 in the unit of KRW 9).

(B) L makes a statement to the effect that it would normally be paid on a regular basis to police officers of the District Armed Forces through the general affairs. However, there was a police officer demanding a separate amount of money for personal reasons, and 10) it would be likely that a police officer would incur losses, such as handling or controlling the reporting duty, according to the principle, if requested by the police officer.

(C) The statements made by AG and AH on the source and preparation process of the money to be delivered to Defendant B et al. are consistent with the contents of L’s statement, and there are other circumstances consistent with L’s respective statements, such as (i) the transfer of Defendant B following a personnel announcement on May 2008; (ii) there was a negotiation on acceptance of cosmetic operated by L between Defendant B and Defendant B on acceptance of cosmetic, and (iii) when he was hospitalized, the Defendant B was able to face with the injury and injury; (iii) there were various police officers, other than Defendant B, stated the fact of offering of bribe to police officers; and (iv) there are various circumstances consistent with L’s respective statements, such as the fact that most police officers recognized the acceptance of bribe from L.

(3) The absence of circumstances for L to make a false statement

L은 원심 법정에서, 자신이 십자인대 파열로 인하여 2007. 8. 16.부터 일주 일간 V병원에 입원하였을 당시 피고인 B이 처와 함께 병문안을 왔던 사실, 피고인 B이 L의 마사지업소에 조선족 교포를 소개시켜 주면서 취업을 알선한 사실, 피고인 B과 함께 건전 마사지업소의 인수를 알아보기 위해 함께 매물을 보러 다닌 사실, 피고인 B의 권유로 주식에 투자하기도 한 사실 등을 언급하면서 '처음에는 피고인 B이 깐깐한 스타일이었는데, 차후 개인적으로 만났을 때에는 정이 많은 것 같다고 느꼈다'고 진술하고 있는바, L과 피고인 B과의 관계 등에 비추어 L이 피고인 B에게 뇌물을 주었다는 내용으로 허위의 진술을 할 만한 사유가 보이지 아니한다.

(4) As to the Defendant B’s assertion on the credibility of L’s statements

(A) Defendant B asserts that there is no credibility of L’s statement since: (a) Defendant B did not receive any solicitation from L; (b) T parking lot, the place where L was given a bribe to Defendant B, is not an appropriate place for delivering a bribe; and (c) there was a large number of illegal acts of L themselves.

(B) However, the defendant Eul stated to the effect that "the defendant Eul personally requested the money for a different personal request, and the defendant Eul paid money to the effect that "the defendant Eul would incur losses by handling or controlling the reported business in accordance with the principle." The defendant Eul should be deemed to have received money from the defendant Eul's implied L to the purport that the defendant Eul received money from other police officers in the N District of the Gangnam Police Station, such as M,O, X, W, and AC to the effect that the convenience in regulating entertainment taverns is changed, and the defendant Eul received money from L at night, and L also made a statement that the other police officers in the N District of the Gangnam Police Station, such as M,O, X, AC, etc. receive money from L at night, and L also made it possible for the defendant Eul to receive money as in the above place. It is true that the defendant Eul was punished for offering a bribe, etc., and it is difficult to say that the defendant Eul's statement is not credibility merely because it is not acceptable to accept the above part of the defendant's statement as above.

B) Determination on the assertion that the statute of limitations should be discharged upon expiration of the statute of limitations

(1) Defendant B asserts that Defendant B should be acquitted pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the statute of limitations has expired with respect to the crimes committed before early May 2007, among these facts charged.

(2) However, the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime is initiated from the time when the last crime was committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009; 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002); and Defendant B’s act of bribery to this part constitutes a single and continuous crime committed repeatedly through the same act during a certain period under the criminal intent, and such act constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime begins from the beginning of February 2008, which is the last day of the crime, and thus, the statute of limitations for a prosecution against Defendant B was not expired with respect to this case where it is obvious that a prosecutor instituted a public prosecution on May 18, 2012.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion on this part is without merit.In relation to the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the prosecutor

1) Determination as to the assertion on Defendant A

A) First, on June 2007, Defendant A received KRW 2 million from the first police officer on June 2007 (11)

As the court below properly explained, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., L gives a certain amount of bribe to the police officers belonging to the Gangnam Police Station and did not receive the money from the second and the last day of the second and the last day of the last day of the last day of the last day of the last day of the last day of the last day of the second day of the last day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day of the second day.

B. As to the amount, it seems that there seems to be some memorys about the time of delivery, especially when Defendant A was delivered, and it seems difficult to believe the statement made at L investigation agency about this part of this part as it is. ② There is no separate record on the time of delivery of a bribe to police officers, and there is no other record or circumstance that the cash was used for the purpose of delivery of a bribe at L when it was carried out for the purpose of delivery of a bribe, and there is no other record or circumstance that is to memory the delivery of a bribe to Defendant A by the time of delivery. In light of the fact that L’s statement at the court below, the time of delivery of money and valuables to Defendant A, such as the statement at L’s court, is likely to have been transferred rather than around June 2007, since it is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

B) In addition, pursuant to Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, the remainder of the facts charged is 12).

Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 249 (1) 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations is five years, and the prosecution of this case was instituted on May 18, 2012, when five years have passed since the criminal act was completed.

C) However, in a case where there is no evidence of guilt for part of a comprehensive daily crime, and the statute of limitations for the remaining part has expired, the part of the acquittal shall be indicated in the order favorable to the defendant, and it shall be sufficient to explain only the reasons for the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do1320, Jul. 12, 197). Thus, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the court below only indicated the part of the acquittal on the order and explain only the reasons for

D) Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Determination on the assertion on Defendant B’s part

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged (main facts charged)

The police officers belonging to the N District P in Gangnam-gu, Seoul provided information related to the regulation of "(N District 4 Team members of the N District 10 million won)" from the owners of illegal establishments, including L, as a general secretary of the patrol 4 team, including L, and received a total of KRW 10 million per month in return for the solicitation of "if the establishments are controlled, the case was closed". Defendant B received money from the police officers of the 4 patrol team on August 2007 and distributed it to the 50 million police officers of the 4 patrol team with the knowledge that the 50,000 won was received from M while the 50,000 won was received from May 1, 2008, as indicated in the list of crimes No. 5, and thereby, Defendant B received KRW 6,000,000 won in total over 12 times in relation to his duties, and Defendant B received a bribe from 30,000 won in the area of entertainment business, such as L.

B) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that, in light of the following facts: (a) the owners of illegal businesses paid an implied amount to the general directors of each team in a fixed period of time with the aim of easily making it possible to do so; (b) there was no interest in the use of the money specifically; (c) the general directors paid the money collected from various owners for the team operation expenses, such as expenses for meals, landscaping, etc.; and (c) the team members only distributed the remainder to each team members at their own discretion; and (d) the team members only received the money that they did not receive from the general directors, but did not intervene in the management of the general affairs, the size of the money and the amount disbursed, and the method of distribution; (e) it is difficult to view that the owners of illegal businesses and the team members were aware of the offering and offering of bribe and the offering of bribe; and (e) there was no evidence to prove that there was no money and valuables in relation to their duties.

C) The judgment of this Court

(1) Whether Defendant B received money from Defendant B

(A) First, we examine whether Defendant B received money and valuables from M as stated in this part of the facts charged.

(B) Since its investigation agency to this court, M has consistently been a system of general affairs at the N branch of the Gangnam Police Station N branch of the Gangnam Police Station. However, this was solicited by entertainment establishments, etc. within the jurisdiction to provide information on police crackdowns related to their operation and to stop down the case if they control, etc., and then divide the amount remaining after receiving a certain monthly amount of money from the general secretary to each team members. From August 2007 to July 2008, M was given a statement to the purport that he received KRW 500,000 per month from the general manager of the patrol 4 teams working for 17 persons from around 207 to received money from the general manager of the patrol 17 persons, and distributed KRW 500,000 to the remaining team members other than AT. B had been distributed from around August 207 to around 2058.

(C) The purport of the statement from 1 M to this court is consistent, and each statement is not possible to find any particular contradictions among the above statements. 2) It is consistent with objective circumstances, such as that M was punished as above, the content of the statement of an entertainment business establishment including L, and the content of the statement of an AU that received a certain amount monthly from M, are well consistent with the content of the statement of an entertainment business establishment including L, and it is also consistent with the content of the statement of an AU that received a certain amount every month from M., and 3) it is difficult for M to find any circumstances that make a false statement with respect to Defendant B, and therefore,

(D) On May 17, 2008, Defendant B asserted that M had a bad appraisal on Defendant B due to the fact that the golf banks in the illegal entertainment room were released without permission due to the job attitude or the violation of the order, and that M had a bad appraisal on the part of Defendant B. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, M and Defendant B received a disposition of guidance due to the above facts, it is recognized that M were subject to the disposition of guidance, but in light of the contents of M’s above statement, attitude of statement, and the details of receipt and distribution of money as shown in each statement, it is not deemed that M was making a false statement on the grounds of the above disposition. Thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is not acceptable.

(D) Therefore, it can be recognized that Defendant B received money from M, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

(2) Whether the crime of acceptance of bribe against Defendant B is established

(A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and this court: (1) although it is not an official position in the N District of the Gangnam Police Station, there was a system of "general affairs" for each of the patrol teams; (2) it received a certain amount every month from the operators of each amusement business within the jurisdiction, and used the remainder for the team operation expenses, such as meal and congratulatory investigation expenses, etc., and distributed the team members; (3) Each team members received a certain amount of money every month from the general affairs and did not know about the specific amount of the company owner who delivered the money and the amount of the money. However, although they knew that the general affairs received money from the owners of entertainment business with a request from the owners of the above contents, each general affairs knew that they received money from the owners of entertainment business with the above contents, (3) it was possible for them to prepare for the pre-regulation of the information in advance, and it was recognized that the team members did not actively detect or detect the contents of the business without reducing the enforcement hours.

(B) In addition to the above facts, in full view of the circumstances where Defendant B knew of the existence and content of the general affairs system and recommended M to perform general affairs, it appears that Defendant B had an intent to give a bribe on a regular basis to the police officers belonging to the N District of the Gangnam Police Station N District through the single counter called "general affairs". The general affairs and team members of the Gangnam Police Station N District of the Gangnam Police Station were to receive money from Defendant B through the general affairs knowing that the aforementioned owners would offer the police control information and, if they control the business, would offer money when making a solicitation to the effect that they would cause the occurrence of the crime. Thus, it is reasonable to view that each team members, such as Defendant B, etc. did not specifically know the total receipts, receipts, and disbursements of funds, etc. The same applies to the case where each of the team members, such as Defendant B, etc., such as Defendant B, etc. did not appear to have received money from the Defendants in collusion with the main facts charged, and thus, it did not apply in full view of the facts charged as seen above.

(3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s appeal on this part is with merit.

3) Determination on the assertion on Defendant C’s part

A) As properly explained by the court below, it is difficult to believe that the defendant C acquired the driver's license on June 26, 2007 for the first time, and the defendant C, on September 2006, 1, 2006, 200: (a) the defendant C, alone, stated that he was in charge of the 3 patrol teams from July 2006 to February 2007; and (b) the defendant C refused to perform the 3 patrol teams from around 2007 to around 300, the court below found that the total amount of the patrol teams was not in charge of the 3rd team's overall trade; (c) the defendant C was not in charge of the 3rd team's general affairs since around April 207; and (d) the court below found that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the 3rd team was not in charge of the 3rd team's general affairs or was not in charge of the 3rd team's general affairs.

B) Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant C and the prosecutor, Defendant C, on behalf of the police officers belonging to the N District Unit of the Gangnam Police Station, has received money and valuables periodically for a long time while playing the so-called "general affairs" which receive bribe from the owners of entertainment establishments on behalf of the police officers belonging to the N District Unit of the Gangnam Police Station, and that Defendant C has damaged the integrity of the public official's duty due to the instant crime, etc. However, Defendant C is highly likely to criticize the instant crime. However, Defendant C is a first offender with no penalty power, Defendant C is the first offender with no penalty power, and most of the amount received by Defendant C is less than that of Defendant C because it was disbursed at the team operation cost or distributed to other team members, and the amount actually reverted to Defendant C is less than that of the amount actually reverted to the other team members. In full view of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the instant argument, such as Defendant C's age, character and conduct, etc. Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is without merit, while Defendant C's assertion on this part is justified.

3. Conclusion

A. Defendant A

Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part of the defendant A is reversed (this court is not guilty as seen above), and pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A is reversed, and it is again decided as follows. The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal part against the defendant A among the judgment of the court below is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

B. Defendant B

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B is reversed ex officio. However, this court found Defendant B guilty of not guilty part of the judgment of the court below, and the above crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with respect to Defendant B, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, without examining the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B among the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all the arguments as follows.

Since the appeal by Defendant C is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below against Defendant C is reversed, and it is decided as follows.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant B

From July 2006, May 27, 2008, Defendant B served in the N District of the Gangnam Police Station N District and was in charge of the control of illegal entertainment establishments within the jurisdiction of the said N District and the dispatch of report 112.

A. From July 21, 2006 to May 27, 2008, Defendant B served in the N District of the Gangnam Police Station N District and took charge of the duties of regulating illegal entertainment establishments within the said N District and the duties of reporting and sending 112.

Defendant B received solicitation on March 2007, 2007, such as “S”, “S”, and “U”, from L L operating an entertainment tavern under the trade name of “S” and “S” in a T parking lot behind the entertainment tavern. The purpose of Defendant B was to suggest information related to the control of the entertainment tavern and, if the said business was controlled, request the instant case to be closed.”

In addition, Defendant B received KRW 1 million in return for the above temporary consideration and received KRW 16 million in total 14 times from the above temporary consideration to the early February 2008, as shown in Table 2 of the Crimes List as follows. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20689, Feb. 2, 2008>

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Accordingly, Defendant B accepted a bribe of KRW 16 million in connection with his duties.

B. Police officers M, who belong to the N District P in Gangnam-gu, provided information related to the control of illegal business places, including L, as the secretary of the patrol 4 team, from the owners of various entertainment bars in the jurisdiction of the N District including L, and received a total of KRW 10 million per month in return for the solicitation of "if the business places are controlled, the case was closed". Defendant B received money and valuables from M on August 2007 and distributed them to the police officers of the 4 patrol team with the knowledge of the fact that M received money and valuables as above, and received KRW 50,000,000 from May 1, 2008 to May 2008, and received KRW 6 million in total over 12 times as indicated in the list of crimes No. 5 of the daily crimes list No. 5.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

As a result, Defendant B received a bribe of 6 million won from the operators of entertainment establishments in the jurisdiction such as L in relation to his duties.

2. Defendant C. The facts constituting the crime acknowledged by this court as to Defendant C are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and such facts are cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court as to Defendant B and C is not added to the witness M’s statement in this court and investigation report (AU statement attached). However, the judgment of the court below is identical to each corresponding column against the above Defendants. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant B: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment with prison labor), comprehensively, by each delivery person.

- Defendant C: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant B);

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (a bribe from a L with a heavier penalty)

Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stated in the crime of acceptance)

1. Collection of additional dues (the defendants);

Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Forfeiture for Offenses of Public Officials

Grounds for sentencing

1. Defendant B

Defendant B received money in return for enforcement duties, etc. by taking advantage of the status as police officer. Defendant B received money in consideration of the fact that this would impair the integrity of public official’s performance of duties, and Defendant B’s criminal act is divided and not against one’s own act, it is inevitable to punish Defendant B. However, Defendant B is a primary offender with no criminal power, and Defendant B appears to have not committed an unlawful act, such as providing illegal information with respect to specific execution of duties. In addition, Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, etc., comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors revealed in the arguments of this case, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances of crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as per the order. Defendant C. 2(d) of this case’s sentence shall be determined as per the order taking into account the sentencing factors as set forth in the text

Parts of innocence

1. Defendant A

A. Part on the acceptance of bribe from 0

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as the above 2.b. 1, 1, and 1, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reason as the above 2.b. 1, 1, and 3, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The part on acceptance of bribe from M

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as the above 2.b. 1, 2.1, and 1. This constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime for the same reason as the above 2.b. 1, 2.3, and 3. Thus, not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Defendant C.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On September 9, 2006, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 24 million in total over 15 times, such as the receipt of KRW 1 million in return for a solicitation of "in the event that the said establishment is controlled," from L L, which was operating an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of "S" and "U", for the purpose of "in the event that information related to the control of the said entertainment drinking house is placed in a high seas and the said establishment is controlled," and received a bribe of KRW 24 million in total, as shown in Nos. 3 and 9 and 23 through 28 of the list of crimes.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Accordingly, Defendant C accepted a bribe of KRW 24 million in relation to his duties.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime for the same reason as the above 2.C. 2 and A, and since the amount of the bribe received by Defendant C is limited to KRW 26 million as seen earlier, this part of the facts charged premised on the fact that the amount of the bribery amount falls under KRW 50 million and less than KRW 100 million as prescribed by Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes falls under the category of crimes, and thus, not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is deemed to fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, but to be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the same Act.

Acquittaled Parts

1. From March 13, 2006 to February 29, 2008, Defendant A served as the N District Register of the Gangnam Police Station from March 13, 2006 to February 29, 2008, with overall control over the duties of regulating illegal entertainment establishments located in the above District, the duty of reporting 112, the personnel duties of police officers under his jurisdiction, etc. Defendant A received 500,000 won from the Qa Hospital in Gangnam-gu Seoul around August 2006, Defendant A received 50,000 won, as indicated in the No. 11 of the crime chart of the part concerning the crime committed by the Gangnam Police Station. Defendant A received 50,000 won from the Qa Hospital in Seoul, which was in charge of the N District 2 Team 2 Team manager, as a superior in charge of the N District 2 Team 0,000 won in terms of operating expenses. Defendant A received 500,000 won in relation to his duties.

2. Determination

The judgment of acquittal should be rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired on the grounds that the above 2.1 (b), (a), (3), and (b) were examined in the above 2.1 (b), (a) and (b). However, as long as the judgment of innocence is rendered on the facts charged of bribery as stated in the 1. A (No. 2 and 4 of the list of crimes) of the facts charged of bribery, the judgment of acquittal shall not be rendered separately.

Judges fixed-type

Judges Lee Jong-soo

The fact that the office of the head of the Gu is not necessarily on the second floor of the N District, and the rest of the office is identical.

Since it seems that the judgment can be made together, the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged are also examined.

2) The number of the list of crime sights shall be the same as that of the judgment of the court below to avoid confusion.

3) Nos. 4 as to April 16, 2012 and April 18, 2012, and each prosecutor’s office’s protocol of suspect examination (prop. 2199 and 2213 of investigation records), and each prosecutor’s office’s protocol of suspect examination (prop. 213 of investigation records), 2012.

30. Statement of statement by the prosecutor with regard to 0 (not more than 2248 pages of investigation records);

4) April 5, 2013

5) However, in light of the fact that the part of the above list of crimes Nos. 2 through 5 should be acquitted, this part of the facts charged is ordered in the disposition.

No judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced separately.

6) Testimony at the court below's decision of M

7) On March 27, 2012, the testimony of L’s prosecutor’s office (in the investigation record No. 2144 and No. 2810), and testimony at L’s court of the original instance

8) On March 27, 2012, a written statement by the prosecution against AG (investigative Records No. 249 of the Investigation Records)

9) On March 28, 2012, a written statement by the prosecution against AH (the investigative record No. 367 of the investigation record)

10) The police officers expressed that they are ‘salking'.

11) The portion mentioned in (1) Nos. 17 in the bill of indictment

12) The parts mentioned in section 1 to 16 of the list of crimes committed in the indictment.

13) In this part of the indictment, the prosecutor stated that the title of the indictment is given and received from 'M', but the method of the crime is illegal, such as L, etc., in the method of the crime.

The purport that "the business entity received a bribe in connection with its duties in response to the solicitation that it will inform the business owner of the control information."

In full view of this, Defendant B was indicted to the effect that he received a bribe in relation to his duties from (M) business owners.

The judgment of the court below also judged to the same effect.

14) The prosecutor's statement of M on May 9, 2012 (the investigation record No. 2466 of the investigation record), the court of the court below of M and each statement in this court

15) On May 2, 2012, the prosecutor’s protocol of statement with respect to AU (the investigation record No. 3051 et al.)

16) The written indictment is written as "Hamman on August 2007", but it seems to be a clear clerical error.

17) The indictment is written as "Seman on January 1, 2007" but it appears that it is obvious clerical error.