[2] Whether the "support for the business of selecting a contractor" of a rearrangement project entity under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is subject to the general authority of its officers and employees, and the number of money and valuables related thereto constitutes bribery (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that a crime of acceptance of bribe is established not for a third-party bribery provision, but for the reason that it can be deemed that the said money actually reverts to an executive or employee, in case where an executive or employee of a rearrangement project deemed as a public official receives a remittance of money under the name of a rearrangement project entity, on the ground that there is a common understanding

[4] Whether an officer or employee of a rearrangement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents constitutes an "interested person" subject to the prohibition of acquisition and provision of property or property benefits by illegal solicitation under Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

[5] The case holding that a construction company's act of offering promotional products related to the selection of a redevelopment project project contractor is not a legitimate act that does not go against social norms

[2] Article 24(3)6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “the selection of a contractor shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting of the association” (Article 24(3)6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents), and that a specialized maintenance business operator shall receive support for the business of selecting a contractor from an association or provide advice related thereto (Article 69(1)4 of the Act). Although the maintenance business operator cannot be deemed to actually take charge of the business of selecting a contractor before the association is established, “the duties” as referred to in bribery shall include all duties of public officials, such as those under the legal and general authority, even if they do not take charge of future duties or actual duties, and thus, “the support for the business of selecting a contractor” refers to the general authority and authority of the employees of a rearrangement business entity, and even if it depends on the future conditions or is unclear, it is necessary for a contractor to accept money and valuables from the promotion committee or association to the extent that it interferes with the competition between the contractor’s or association’s.

[3] The case holding that the crime of acceptance of bribe is established not for the crime of giving third-party bribery, but for the reason that it can be deemed that the said money actually belonged to an executive or employee, in case where an executive or employee of a rearrangement project deemed as a public official receives a remittance of a loan in the name of a rearrangement project body, on the ground that it

[4] Since a rearrangement project entity under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is in a position to be entrusted with the task of supporting the selection of a contractor from a future partnership (project owner), its officers and employees shall be subject to the prohibition of acquisition and grant of property or property gains by illegal solicitation under Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on

[5] The case holding that a construction company's act of offering promotional products related to the selection of a redevelopment project project contractor is not a legitimate act that does not go against social norms

A. Defendant 1’s imprisonment for two years, Defendant 2, and Defendant 9’s imprisonment for one year and six months, Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, respectively, shall be punished by a fine of 20,000,000 won, Defendant Kook Construction Co., Ltd., Defendant Co., Ltd., Defendant Co., Ltd., 200,000,000,000 won, Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., M&C Development, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and CambC, Co., Ltd., Ltd.

B. The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 120 days per defendant 1, and each one day per defendant 2 and 10 shall be included in the above punishment.

(c) However, from the date of the conclusion of this judgment, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years against Defendant 1, and for two years against Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

D. Defendant 2 was ordered to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines to Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3.

2. The prosecutor's appeal on the part of innocence other than the part of innocence reversed in paragraph (1) is dismissed.

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Defendants 1, 2, and Coul construction (State)

① As to the offering of a bribe by Defendant 1 and 2

Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “In the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, the officers of the association and the representatives and employees of the specialized maintenance and improvement business operators (in the case of a corporation, referring to the officers and employees of the corporation) shall be deemed public officials.” Defendant 1 and 2 did not pay the loan or service expenses to the officers and employees of the specialized maintenance and improvement business operators, but did not pay the loan or service expenses to the corporation (hereinafter “specialized maintenance and improvement business operators”), and the officers and employees of the specialized maintenance and improvement business enterprise who did not enter into a contract with the promotion committee approved by the administrative agencies, are not deemed public officials. The payment of the loan or service expenses by the above defendants to the rearrangement business operators

(2) As to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 2

The term "interested person" under Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter referred to as the "Building Industry") refers to a person corresponding to the contractor or a person entitled to exercise a substantial influence over the selection of the contractor. Since Defendant 1, 2, and the rearrangement project entity that received the loan or service cost does not constitute an interested party, and there is no unlawful solicitation regarding the receipt of the loan or service cost in this case, it does not constitute a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

In addition, since the facts charged for the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the provision of promotional items are not specified with interested parties, the prosecution should be dismissed, and even if not, it is a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.

Furthermore, there was no perception of illegality against the above Defendants at the time of receiving or providing promotional materials.

(B) Defendant 3

(ju)A loan of KRW 168,00,000,000 to the Committee for the Promotion of Housing Redevelopment Project in Zone 2-1, Busan, Busan, as security, to raise funds for the company's officers, not to receive the above money with respect to the duties of the officers of the rearrangement project.

(C) Defendant 4, 5, 9, and Defendant (State) C&C

(Common Claim) ① The Defendants, the representative director, obtained the corresponding financial benefits on the sole basis of the fact that the respective loans from the Coul Construction (State) are not a bribe in relation to duties under the Information Provision Convention, but ② the above loans were exempted from the duty to raise funds to the company.

(4) Defendant 4) is only a representative director in the form of two L&C (ju), and there was no participation in the instant crime.

(D) Defendants 6, 7, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 100, 100, 200

(1) The time when an executive officer or employee of a rearrangement project is deemed a public official is after being appointed as a manager of the rearrangement project in the relevant redevelopment zone, etc.

(6) Since the loan was used as operating funds, etc. of the city of the Republic of Korea, the above defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of bribery, and the above defendant did not directly manage the above company, and did not participate in the crime of this case.

(E) Development of Defendant 8 and Defendant (State) MM industry

( state)MM industry development entered into a contract with the Committee of Promotion for Provisional Name and for the establishment of an association in the area of Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon, but it was later notified by the head of Daejeon Dong-dong that it is impossible to implement a housing redevelopment project, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the project is on the job relationship.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below on the remaining Defendants except for Defendant 1, 2 and Defendant 1’s Coul construction (jun) is too unreasonable.

(b) Swords;

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) The portion not guilty

In order to satisfy the requirements for business relationship and compensation required for bribery in the duties of officers and employees of a rearrangement business entity, the court below did not recognize business relationship with respect to the portion of innocence in the decision of the court below on the premise that "the receipt of money and valuables must be made in relation to the support of the business related to the selection of the contractor or the consultation related thereto, or the act related thereto or the act in practice or in fact related thereto," and did not recognize the business relationship with respect to the portion of

(B) The non-guilty portion

The money paid to the rearrangement project entity only for the rearrangement zone that failed to take place in several weeks, and in light of other cases, the money granted to the rearrangement project entity is the property by illegal solicitation at the same time as a bribe to the Defendants, the representative of the rearrangement project, and even if not, the above Defendants borrowed money from the Coul Construction (ju) to gain at least 9% proprietary benefits equivalent to the annual interest rate of 9% per annum, which is the agreement at the time of the monetary loan loan contract between the affiliates of the Coul Group, although the above Defendants did not regard the entire money given as property by bribe or illegal solicitation, and did not additionally collect the money after the lower court determined that only the non-financial gains and non-financial gains from the receipt of the services as property by bribe or illegal solicitation, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of all the circumstances, the imprisonment of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor (as to the part of not guilty of the orders as to the sequence 9,30 as stated in the annexed Table 1. List of Crimes in the original judgment)

A. On the nine occasions (Defendant 1, 2, and 6) set forth in attached Table 1. List of Offenses

(1) Judgment on the main facts charged

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, even though it is recognized that the Corul Construction (ju) lent KRW 50 million to the Sinul City on April 13, 2005, it cannot be deemed that the residents of the said area had performed the duties as a manager of the rearrangement project, and that the said loan was not paid with respect to their duties, and that the said charges were acquitted.

(B) Judgment of the court below

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above zone was established as a tentative name promotion committee at the request of some residents from October 2005, when a considerable period of time has elapsed since the above lending date, and (i) from the beginning of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city, and (ii) drawing up a letter of performance that "not claiming the required expenses" was involved in the above zone (Evidence No. 1-4, 73 pages) and the above loan was immediately repaid only one week after the lending (Evidence No. 1-3, 145, 2006, and 00,000 won, 50,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won, more than the above loan of the city of the city of the city of the 2.0.

Therefore, the court below was just in finding the defendant 1, 2, and 6 not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the above facts charged as to the offering of bribe in the amount of KRW 50 million on April 13, 2005, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery). The court below's decision is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

(2) Judgment on the conjunctive charges

For the first time in the trial, the prosecutor: (a) lent KRW 50 million to Defendant 6 on April 13, 2005; (b) granted 9% interest per annum to Defendant 1 and 2; and (c) granted Defendant 6 as a bribe the financial interest equivalent to the above 9% interest; and (d) granted Defendant 6 received it; and (c) granted Defendant 6 granted it.

As seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the city of 50 million won as of April 13, 2005, the above 50 million won was carried out or to be carried out in the redevelopment area of the Socheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Busan, and thus, this part of the conjunctive charges is also a case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, even if the court below acquitted the above Defendants, and added this part of the charges in the first instance court where the prosecutor filed an appeal, it is identical to the conclusion of the court below, and thus, the prosecutor dismissed the appeal by the prosecutor without being acquitted of this part of the conjunctive charges and dismissed the appeal by the prosecutor.

B. As to the sequence 1. 30 attached Table 1. [Attachment 30]

(1) Judgment on the main facts charged

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge the redevelopment project of the area redevelopment project of the area redevelopment project of the area of the area of the area of the 1-4 of the Jimanimani Mandi and the relationship to business as of May 16, 2006, which was paid to (200 million won from the (ju) Jimani Jinna from the (ju) Jini Jini Construction (ju)

(B) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the offering of 200 million won was paid to J. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s.s.s. S.s.s. S.s.s.s.s. S.s.s.s.s.s. S.s.s. S.s.s.s.S.s.s.s.s.s.S.s.s.s...s.s.s.......s........s..........s..................s.......................

(2) Judgment on the conjunctive charges

A prosecutor preliminaryly applied for the amendment of an indictment to the effect that “Defendant 1, 2, and Corresponding Construction (States) lent KRW 200 million to Goman-man on May 16, 2006, thereby granting 9% financial gains equivalent to the annual interest to him/her as a bribe, and granting property gains by illegal solicitation,” and the party members permitted this.

However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above loan was paid in relation to the redevelopment project of the area No. 1-4 of the Jinjin-si, Jindi's House No. 1-4, and therefore, this part of the conjunctive charges should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts. However, even if the court below acquitted the above Defendants of this part of the primary charges and added this part of the charges to the conjunctive charges at the trial in which the prosecutor filed an appeal, the conclusion of the court below is identical, and thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed without finding innocence of this part of the conjunctive charges.

3. Ex officio determination

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor.

A. As to the guilty portion of the Defendants [except for the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the provision of promotional products by Defendants 1, 2 and 2

The court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged that the defendants provided and received money as a bribe and provided and acquired property by illegal solicitation at the same time as a bribe, without going through the amendment to the indictment, and the defendants provided and received financial benefits or benefits from the receipt of services as a bribe, and provided and acquired financial benefits by illegal solicitation.

However, in order to recognize facts constituting a crime different from the facts charged as stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment, the court must only be within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, and there is no risk of causing substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do913, Apr. 14, 2005, etc.).

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the act of giving and receiving funds as a bribe and the act of offering and acquiring property benefits by an illegal solicitation at the same time as the act of offering and receiving financial benefits by an illegal solicitation is included in the facts charged of giving and receiving the funds themselves as a bribe and at the same time giving and acquiring property benefits by an illegal solicitation. The act of giving and receiving the funds charged and the act of offering financial benefits recognized by the court below is bound to change the contents and form of the crime and defense act corresponding thereto. It is deemed that a trial was conducted to some extent as to whether the funds were borrowed in the trial procedure of the court below, but it is merely that a trial was conducted by exercising the right of defense by predicting the fact that the funds were received as the object of the trial, and it is not sufficient to view that there was a sufficient exercise of right of defense in relation to the above part. Thus, it can be deemed that the act of offering, receiving, and acquiring financial benefits without any changes in the indictment is a substantial disadvantage for exercising the right of defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty ex officio without going through the amendment process of the bill of indictment with regard to the offering of a bribe equivalent to financial gains. In this regard, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether there is a substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defense right, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the amendment of the bill of indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the prosecutor issued an application for the amendment of the bill of indictment with regard to the offering of a bribe equivalent to financial gains in the conviction as preliminary charges

B. As to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the provision of promotional products by Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 2

This part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged by the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the court below cannot maintain this part of the judgment below.

C. As to the offering of bribe as of April 13, 2006 and the non-guilty part on the charge of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

In the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to add the offering of bribe equivalent to the financial interest in the above part of the verdict of not guilty as the preliminary charge, and since this court permitted it, this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant 1 and 2's offering of bribe and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as of April 13, 2006, and the part of the acquittal as to the defendant's violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as of April 13, 2006 as to the defendant's coul construction (the defendant's coul construction) are reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows. The prosecutor's appeal as to the part of the judgment of the court below as to the non-guilty other than the part of the acquittal as above is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30(the offering of bribe) of the Criminal Act; Articles 95-2 and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry)

B. Defendant 3 and 7: Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act (the acceptance of bribe)

(c) Defendant 4 and 5: Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of acceptance of bribe)

(d) Defendant 6, 8, 9, and 10: Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 95-2 and Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry)

(e) Defendant 2: Articles 98(2), 95-2, and 38-2 (Crimes of Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1 and 2: Each Criminal Code Article 40 and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of the Bribery and the Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry; and Punishment of Punishment on the Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry with heavier punishment)

Defendant 6, 8, 9, and 10: Each Criminal Code Article 40 and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of the Bribery and the Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Punishment provided for in the heavier Punishment of Bribery)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each of the crimes of acceptance of bribe, each of the crimes of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by Defendants 1 and 2, shall be punished respectively.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Construction of joint-use harassments by Defendants 1, 2, and 2: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment and concurrent-use crimes stipulated in the crime of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to a grant in relation to the riverside area in the original city with the largest punishment)

B. Defendant 4 and 5: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code (the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe on August 18, 2005, with heavier punishment)

1. The inclusion of the number of days pending trial (as against Defendant 1, 2, and 10);

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (as to the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. As to the order of provisional payment (as to Defendant 2's construction (ju), (ju), development of (ju), IMM industry, (ju), KIKOC, and Camamb City maintenance (ju);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(a) Legal fiction time of public officials;

Article 84 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “In applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, the executives and employees of a cooperative (referring to the executives and employees in the case of a corporation) and the representatives and employees of specialized maintenance business operators (referring to the executives and employees in the case of a corporation) shall be deemed public officials. After the executives and employees of a rearrangement business entity have completed registration with a Mayor/Do Governor (the Minister of Construction and Transportation before it was amended by Act No. 8125 of Dec. 28, 2006) by satisfying the standards for certain capital, technical human resources, etc., they shall be subject to Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act when they accept a bribe in relation to their duties even before they are selected as specialized maintenance business operators by the Promotion Committee, and such executives and employees shall not be subject

Furthermore, while executives of the promotion committee are not the subject of the bribery charge, it is reasonable to be the subject of the bribery charge by executives and employees of the improvement company who assist the affairs of the promotion committee. However, it is not reasonable to designate executives of the promotion committee as the subject of the bribery charge.

(b) Job relationship and compensation;

(1) Article 24(3)6 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “the selection of a contractor shall undergo a resolution by the general meeting of the association (Article 24(3)6), and that a specialized maintenance business operator shall provide assistance or advice related thereto from the association to the selection of a contractor (Article 69(1)4).” The maintenance business operator cannot be deemed as practically responsible for the selection of a contractor before the association is established. However, the term “duty” in the crime of bribery includes all duties that a public official, such as a public official, who is under the general authority and authority of the law, shall take charge of official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3105, Jun. 29, 2007). The term “support for the selection of a contractor” refers to the general authority and authority of an employee of a maintenance business entity, and thus, the term “support for the selection of a contractor” is subject to the general authority of an employee of the maintenance business entity, and even if it is uncertain or uncertain whether specific duties are performed in the future.

In addition, borrowing operating funds from a promotion committee or a contractor can be accepted to a certain extent in light of the detailedness of the promotion committee or the partnership, but in light of the fact that the partnership should select a contractor by means of competitive bidding (Article 11(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, borrowing operating funds from a person who wishes to be a contractor is likely to undermine the integrity of duties related to the selection of a contractor and undermine the general social trust in the fairness of a rearrangement project, as well as to hinder fair competition between those who want to be a contractor and a contractor, it is necessary to strictly regulate monetary transactions between a rearrangement project owner and a person who wishes to be a contractor.

(2) Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged as to the degree of promotion of the rearrangement project at the time when the loans are paid from Defendant Culul Construction (ju) to each rearrangement project entity, the role of the rearrangement project entity, etc. (main part is examined differently).

(A) Defendant 3 (No. 1, 3)

On October 21, 2003, Defendant 3 entered into a business agreement with the committee for promotion of the zone 1 in Busan Metropolitan City. From February 6, 2004, Defendant 3 subsidized expenses to the said committee. From Defendant Culul Construction (ju), Defendant 3 loaned KRW 100 million on April 23, 2004 and KRW 68 million on June 22, 2004, respectively.

(B) IdentityM (States No. 2,5) (No. 2,5)

On March 11, 2004, the IdentityM Co., Ltd (State), entered into a provisional contract with the redevelopment promotion committee and the maintenance and improvement project manager in the Daejeon Daejeon Daeung-2 District. The defendant was granted loans of KRW 100 million on April 27, 2004, and KRW 163 million on December 21, 2004, respectively, to the residents' general meeting of the above zone designated as the rearrangement project owner on April 9, 2005. < Amended by Act No. 7213, Apr. 17, 2004; Act No. 723, Dec. 16, 2004>

(C) (States) EPS Korea (Nos. 4, 7, 11, 16)

(1) SPS Korea (AS on February 3, 2004) entered into a provisional contract with the promotion committee under the name of the original redevelopment area of the Yongsandong redevelopment area around November 2003, and received the application for approval from the promotion committee on January 29, 2004 on behalf of the project manager, etc. around that time, performed the business of establishing the association. The Defendant was lent KRW 10 million on August 24, 2004, KRW 120 million on February 2, 2005, KRW 130 million on May 27, 2005, and KRW 300 million on August 23, 2005, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 7207, Aug. 23, 2005>

(D) Defendant 4 and 5 (No. 6,15)

On August 12, 2004, Defendant 4 and 5, a co-representative, was selected as a manager of the improvement project in the above area from the Development Promotion Committee of Zone Four Busan on August 17, 2004, and approved by the residents' general meeting on August 30, 2004. The written entrustment contract on the above promotion committee and the improvement project was prepared on August 30, 2004, and was leased from Defendant Coul Construction (ju) on January 30, 2005.

In addition, from July 2005 to July 6, 2005, the two L&C was selected from the promotion committee of the above zone as the maintenance project manager on November 16, 2005, and from August 18, 2005, it was leased KRW 300 million from Defendant C&C construction (ju).

(e) Jinjin AWC (No. 8,35 No. 5)

(1) The U.S.C. (A. 19 March 2005) had a title 3 U.S. B-05 from around April 27, 2004, for consultation about the establishment of the association, etc., sought consent on the establishment of the association from May 8, 2004, on behalf of the promotion committee around June 30, 2004. The Defendant C-M&C borrowed KRW 30 million from March 23, 2005, and June 14, 2006, respectively.

(f) Thai City Development (State No. 10) (No. 10)

On September 24, 2004, the development of Taelim City entered into a provisional contract with the reconstruction promotion committee and the rearrangement project service contract, and from April 15, 2005, the expenses of the promotion committee were paid to the promotion committee. From April 14, 2005, from Defendant Culul Construction (ju) loaned KRW 268 million on April 14, 2005.

(G) Defendant 7 (No. 12)

(1) The Cho Jong-gu Urban Rearrangement Project Group (C. 16, 2005) was the company acquired by Defendant 7 from Nonindicted 5, the representative director of which was at the time of January 5, 2005. Since March 2, 2005, the committee of promoters of the above zone and the maintenance and improvement project service contract was concluded on June 2, 2005. On October 22, 2005, the residents' general meeting was selected as the maintenance and improvement project manager, and from May 27, 2005, the loans was granted from Defendant Culul Construction (Coul).

(h) (States) caseM (No. 13,14)

(ju) The caseM entered into a rebuilding promotion committee of Daegu Bung-gun District on February 2, 2004 with the housing reconstruction promotion committee and had been performing the duties of the maintenance project manager of the above area from around that time. From the Defendant Ceo Construction (ju), the amount of KRW 30 million on July 8, 2005, and KRW 170 million on July 15, 2005, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18950, Jul. 15, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 18747, Jul. 15, 2005>

(i) LAWnb (States) (No. 17 No.

Li An Lbnb (ju around April 2004) selected as a rearrangement project manager in the Dong-si Housing Zone around November 2004, and performed the duty of requesting the designation of an improvement zone and requesting the consent letter on December 2, 2004. Around May 2005, the committee for promotion of the above zone and the committee for promotion of the improvement project were to enter into a provisional contract on the services of the improvement project. Defendant Camb (ju) lent KRW 324 million on October 13, 2005.

(j) New F&C (Nos. 18,19)

(1)New F&C (S on September 7, 2005) participated in the bidding for the selection of the maintenance company conducted by the Busan F&S Promotion Committee on November 24, 2005, and was selected as the maintenance business manager on November 30, 2005. On November 17, 2005, the committee participated in the redevelopment Promotion Committee for Busan F&S-1, and was selected as the maintenance business manager on November 26, 2005 as of November 25, 2005. The Defendant C&C was loaned KRW 400 million on November 25, 2005.

(k) (States) C&C (Nos. 20,34 Nos. 34)

On May 25, 2005, C&C (States) concluded a provisional contract on the rearrangement project with the redevelopment promotion committee under the name of the Daegu B&C area, and subsidized expenses to the Committee. Defendant C&C borrowed a loan of KRW 200 million on November 28, 2005 from Defendant C&C construction (States).

C&C and around December 2005, at the time when the redevelopment promotion committee, Daegu 4-dong redevelopment promotion committee prepared a proposal for the designation of a rearrangement zone, provided advice and suggestions about its expenses. On April 27, 2006, the committee entered into a provisional contract with the promotion committee under the title of the above zone, and again borrowed KRW 300 million on May 22, 2006, again from Defendant C&D construction (ju).

(l) A. S.M. (No. 21,28)

(ju) SM entered into a service agreement for the rearrangement project with the Daegu Namsan 2-2 redevelopment promotion committee, named around July 2005, and was leased KRW 200 million on December 20, 2005 from Defendant Culul Construction.

(ju) SM, around October 2005, was entrusted by the redevelopment and improvement project promotion committee in Daegu Bupyeong 1-2, and performed its duties. The redevelopment and improvement project was again leased KRW 300 million on April 12, 2006 from Defendant Culul Construction (ju).

(m) Defendants 8 and 2 (No. 22) development of the Korea Development Bank (No. 5)

Defendant 8’s representative director (ju) MM industry development ( September 9, 2003) promoted a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Daejeon-dong First District around September 2005, but was requested by the committee for promotion of tentative Dong-dong District 1 around October 2005 to provide services for the rearrangement project. Defendant Culul Construction (ju) borrowed KRW 200 million on December 22, 2005.

(n) Nos. 23 and 29 (Nos. 23 and 29)

(ju) From January 29, 2006, Good Two (No. 29, Nov. 29, 2005) provided the necessary expenses of each promotion committee at the same time by giving the written consent for the establishment of the promotion committee to each promotion planning committee of the six thousand and eight (the subsequent alteration to the private placement1), five and seven (the subsequent alteration to the private placement2) of the resignation, and each of the seven (the subsequent alteration to the private placement2). The loans were granted from Defendant Coul Construction (ju) on Jan. 12, 2006 and May 30, 2006, respectively.

(o) SP City Rearrangement (States No. 24,25) (No. 25)

Esp City Maintenance (State on November 18, 2003) concluded a contract for the redevelopment project with the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Housing Association of Korea around November 2004, and gave advice on the process of implementing the redevelopment project. On May 2, 2006, the Committee for Promotion of Housing Redevelopment Improvement in Zone 3 in Incheon, as a name, was appointed as a rearrangement project manager by the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association of Korea.

Esp city rearrangement (ju) also obtained a written consent to establish a committee of promoters from August 2005 to Mar. 17, 2006. On Jan. 5, 2006, the committee of promoters for the establishment of the above district housing redevelopment project was selected as the maintenance project manager and entered into a service contract after it was selected as the maintenance project manager at the committee of promoters for the establishment of the above district housing redevelopment project.

SP City Maintenance (State) was respectively lent from the construction of Copulous (State) to the Defendant on February 24, 2006, KRW 200 million, and KRW 200 million on March 21, 2006.

(p) A.M.C. (No. 26,36)

AcM (ju on June 1, 2005) was selected as a maintenance and improvement project manager on August 24, 2006 by entering into a provisional contract with the residents of the above area to publicize the feasibility of the project from July 2005 to the residents of the Daejeon Busandong-2. On August 30, 2005, the agreement on the establishment of the promotion committee was obtained. On August 12, 2006, the promotion committee and administrative affairs were held. Defendant Ccop was loaned KRW 200 million on April 5, 2006, and KRW 200 million on July 3, 2006.

(q) Defendant 9, Defendant (State), and C&C (No. 27 No. 5)

On October 7, 2005, Defendant 9 was selected as a rearrangement project operator by the Ulsan-gu Steering Committee for Reconstruction of the Campdong Area, and Defendant 9 loaned KRW 300 million on April 11, 2006 from Defendant 2 to Defendant 300 million.

(r) No. 31,38) Etran (State No. 31,38)

(State) Earna (No. 19, 2003) held the promoters' competition to establish the promotion committee in the Daegu Maddong zone on January 20, 2006. From that time, it vicariously performed the duties, such as demanding a written consent to establish the promotion preparation committee, and entered into a business agreement with the promotion committee on February 10, 2006. The Defendant was loaned KRW 300,000 on May 19, 2006.

(State) Lartna, from June 28, 2006, performed the duty of demanding written consents to the establishment of the redevelopment association in the Daegu Seogu Daegu District on behalf of the redevelopment committee. On July 4, 2006, Lanna agreed to perform the duty of establishing the housing redevelopment project promotion committee and the rearrangement project entity as the redevelopment project entity. On July 28, 2006, Lanna borrowed KRW 300 million from Defendant Culul Construction (ju).

(s) No. 32 of the same crime list (No. 32 of the same crime list)

(ju)Yan ( March 18, 2004) was selected as a rearrangement project manager at the redevelopment promotion committee of Daegu Yan District on July 7, 2004. After that, the contents of the rearrangement project were changed from reconstruction to redevelopment, the said promotion committee and the rearrangement project management business management business service contract was concluded on August 25, 2006, and was leased from Defendant Culul Construction (ju) on May 19, 2006.

(t) Defendants 6 and 3 of the Republic of Korea (No. 33 of the same list of crimes)

On October 2005, Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 6 sent staff to the office from the time when the committee of promoters was established, and on February 23, 2006, prepared a statement of performance that the committee of promoters does not demand any expenses under the redevelopment project, and from Defendant Culul Construction (State) loaned KRW 100 million on May 19, 2006 from Defendant Culul Construction (State).

(u) Defendants 10 and Coam City Rearrangement (States) (No. 37,39,40, 41 No. 51)

Defendant 10, a representative director, drafted a work agreement with the committee of promoters around February 14, 2006 to the effect that the participation of the redevelopment project manager in the redevelopment district as a rearrangement project manager in the redevelopment district. Around that time, Defendant 10 dispatched staff to the committee of promoters to the committee of promoters for consent to establish an association. On July 11, 2006, the committee of promoters and the committee of promoters signed an agreement on the agency business of the committee between the committee of promoters and the committee of promoters on July 2006. Defendant 20 million won on July 7, 2006 and KRW 10 million on November 17, 2006, KRW 50 million on December 6, 2006, and KRW 200 million on February 13, 2007, respectively.

(3) According to the above facts, at the time of the payment of each of the above loans, it can be known that the rearrangement business entity entered into a contract or provisional contract with the promotion committee or the promotion committee, and performed the business of preparing the establishment of the association for the promotion of the rearrangement project, and in addition to the fact that Defendant 1 and 2 received money under the pretext of solicitation from Defendant 1 and 2 for the convenience of allowing the construction of the rearrangement project to be carried out, the act of giving convenience to Defendant Culul Construction (ju) so that the rearrangement business entity may carry out the construction is closely related to the business of the rearrangement business entity, and the amount received by the rearrangement business entity from Cululul Construction (ju) constitutes a bribe received in connection with his/her duties, and even if the rearrangement business entity was not legally able to carry out the business at the time of the selection of the contractor, it cannot be denied the relevance to business relationship.

(4)The portion of loans and service costs for LAWn City

(A) Facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below

① Relationship between Nonindicted Party 1 and (State Code Commission and (State) COSV

On June 2005, Non-Indicted 1 acquired the main code code window (former trade name: drheat) around June 2005, and acquired the representative director office from Non-Indicted 7, (main) course big around March 2006, and let Non-Indicted 8, a living partner, assign the representative director office to Non-Indicted 8, and bear the expenses of the above two companies.

Sub-Indicted 8’s shares are 51%, 9%, 51%, 51%, 20%, 10%, and 12%, respectively, of the shares of the (ju), COSV, and 9%, respectively.

A.(PPPPPP has been managed by the accounting staff of the PPPP, and the PPP PPP has been managed by the said staff until March 2006.

(ju)The Code Commission had no record in 2005, and even in 2006, there had been no record in addition to the instant case, and there had also been no record in the (ju) SPV. The amount equivalent to the money received from the Defendant Culul Construction (ju) was mainly traded between three companies, such as the entry into the (ju) Pulcom T&T under the pretext of information provision cooperation.

(2) The details of payment, such as the rearrangement project and service costs, in Seoul Northern Zone 2.

(1) On September 15, 2005, LAW LAW entered into a provisional contract on the establishment of housing redevelopment rearrangement project in the above zone with the promotion committee and the selection of the maintenance project manager, and on February 27, 2006, it was selected as the maintenance project manager of the above zone.

(B) The Cululty Construction (State) concluded a contract for public relations planning (service amounting to KRW 120 million, and KRW 13 million in success) between the Kulul Construction (State) and the Kulul Construction (State), knowing that Nonindicted Party 1 was actually operating the Kulul Construction (State), through Defendant 2 and the director Nonindicted Party 2, etc., with the knowledge that it was in fact operating the Kulul Construction (Evidence No. 1-2, 2951). The Kulty Construction (State) concluded a contract for public relations planning (service amounting to KRW 120 million, and KRW 13 million in case of success) with the Kulcom. Defendant Culty Construction (State) selected on February 27, 2006 as the manager of the improvement project in the above zone, it would be paid more than KRW 300 million to the Kul.

B. On January 7, 2006, Defendant 1 lent KRW 70 million to Defendant 1 (ju Lbnb) Lbnb’s Lbnb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lbnb’s Lbnb’s Lb’s Lbnb’s Lbnb’s Lbnb

Chono Construction (State) paid to the Main Code Commission a total of KRW 570 million (including value-added tax: KRW 620 million on January 10, 2006; KRW 132 million on March 16, 2006; KRW 165 million on March 2, 2006; KRW 30 million on April 12, 2006; and KRW 30 million on April 12, 2006.

(3) Details about the improvement projects and the payment of service costs, etc. in the Dobong-dong zone in the original city.

(1) On July 17, 2006, LAW LAW signed a contract on the selection of the above promotion committee and the maintenance business manager on August 9, 2006, through Nonindicted 11, etc., who is an employee, to demand the consent from the residents of the Dobong-dong river area in the Seoul Metropolitan City, Nowon-si, or to seek advice on the current status of redevelopment.

(B) While the Defendant Cululty Construction (ju) discovered the first project site in the original city, through Nonindicted 12, was aware that the head of the division frequently contacted with the residents of the above area through Nonindicted 12, he was implementing the said improvement project in the said area, and around April 2006, he was fully responsible to the main code code committee for the services such as publicity and planning on the selection of the project site in the said area.

Accordingly, on May 16, 2006, Defendant Culno Construction (State) and the (State) code window concluded a contract for public relations planning services, and the service cost was set at KRW 1.4 billion, reduced to KRW 1.2 billion.

As a result, Nonindicted Party 1 attended the meeting of the committee for promotion of the above zone held on July 27, 2006 to give advice on the redevelopment project, and at the residents' general meeting held on August 20, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 also viewed the society (On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1, who is in charge of the representative director of (junbnb) joint with Nonindicted Party 1, did not attend the bidding for the selection of the manager of the rearrangement project and the residents' general meeting, but did not receive a report on the degree of progress of the rearrangement project in the above zone from Nonindicted Party 11 as a working person).

On August 9, 2006, Defendant 2 was selected as a work executor with modern industrial development and consortium in the above zone.

Under the above service contract, Defendant Culul Construction (State) paid a total of KRW 1.2 billion (including value-added tax: KRW 1.32 billion): KRW 22 billion on May 10, 2006; KRW 330 million on July 10, 2006; KRW 28.20 million on September 28, 2006; KRW 470 million on December 22, 2006; KRW 16.5 billion on December 26, 2006; KRW 1.5 billion on loans to Defendant Culbs in the above service contract; and separately stated the minutes on May 26, 2006, KRW 1.5 billion on loans to Defendant Culbs in the above service contract. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Jul. 26, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19650, Jul. 26, 2006>

(4) Improvement projects in the Daejeon Dual Zone and details of payment of loans.

Defendant 1 agreed to pay KRW 400 million as working expenses in advance at the time of requesting Nonindicted 1 to provide consultation on the order of construction for the said area at the stage of the establishment of the promotion committee through Defendant 2 around March 2006 (Evidence No. 1-2, 2906, and the case No. 2906, Mar. 27, 2006).

(C) On April 3, 2006, M&C entered into a housing redevelopment project management agreement with the promotion committee, and around that time, subsidized expenses to the above promotion committee office.

In the meantime, on May 18, 2006, the head of Daejeon District Office gave advice to the two companies about the preparation meetings (resident meetings) for the promotion of the rearrangement project in the above zone by Defendant 2 and the promotion of the redevelopment project in the above zone by Defendant 2 (Evidence No. 1-2, 1082, 1085).

Ber (Libnb’s computer files within the office of Eibnb, that “in order to obtain the approval of the Promotion Committee prior to the amendment of the Do Affairs Act with a daily subsidy of KRW 200 million from Eib, he/she has invested a large number of human resources in consultation with Eib to obtain the approval of the Promotion Committee” (Evidence No. 1-2, 1098 pages).

on April 13, 2006, Defendant Culul Construction (State) deposited KRW 200 million out of the above KRW 400 million to the account of Nonindicted Party 1 (Evidence No. 1-2, 1738) at the request of Nonindicted Party 1 (Evidence No. 1-2, 1738). When the business is delayed later, the remaining KRW 200 million was not paid.

(B) According to the above facts, at the time of the payment of each of the instant service contracts and loans, the State T&C entered into a contract for specialized management of the rearrangement project with the committee in each of the above rearrangement zones (Seoul Eastern Zone 2, Daejeon East Zone) or provides residents with the consent of the committee establishment or consultation, etc. (the prime Dong-dong Zone) and received money for the preparation of the association establishment for the implementation of the rearrangement project from Defendant 2, etc. as follows, in addition to the fact that the payment of money was made under the pretext of solicitation that Defendant 2, etc. can give convenience to the project owner, etc., it is closely related to the project of the rearrangement project owner, and the loan of this case constitutes a bribe received in relation to the business of the rearrangement project owner, and even if the project owner’s selection at the time of the project implementer’s selection is not possible, it cannot be denied the payment for the job relationship.

(c) Whether the crime of accepting a third party is committed (limited to cases where the executives or employees of a maintenance business entity have transferred money to a deposit account in the name of the maintenance business entity);

In light of the fact that both the crime of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the crime of violation of trust and the crime of violation of trust, which have a structure similar to the crime of bribery, have not been punished for the act of giving property or financial benefits to a third party, the crime of offering third-party bribery may be established in a case where a public official gives a bribe to a third party in an external form with himself/herself. However, the crime of offering third-party bribery may be established in a case where there is a common sense and understanding between a public official and a third party and where it can be deemed that

In the instant case, Defendant 3, etc., the representative director of the rearrangement business entity, operated a relatively small-scale rearrangement business entity and failed to raise funds necessary for the rearrangement business and corporate operating funds, which led to the instant case. In full view of each of the instant loans, the said Defendants could continue to operate the business even if they were transferred loans under the name of the said Defendants, it can be evaluated as being directly received by the said Defendants under social norms, and thus, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established against the said Defendants.

(d) Whether to collect penalty surcharges;

In principle, Article 55(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the lender may file a claim for legal interest when a loan for consumption has been made between merchants" as a special rule on loan for consumption under the Civil Act provides that "the lender may file a claim for interest on the loan for consumption between merchants." Thus, as to whether the defendants who borrowed money from the Coul Construction (the principal) have obtained commercial legal interest and pecuniary interest equivalent to the loan principal, the above defendants are deemed to have obtained commercial interest and property interest equivalent to the above legal interest until the due date, as the above defendants are deemed to have alternatively borrowed the loan of this case, there is room to deem that the above defendants have obtained commercial interest until the due date. However, the value should be calculated. Meanwhile, according to the statement in the written contract for loan for consumption, the Culululty and the maintenance business entity may extend the due date after consultation, and it can be known that there is a dynamic situation where the maintenance business entity changes its address or it appears that it is impossible to do business together with the deadline for payment due to the change of the legal interest from the due date.

In the end, the defendants received benefits of this case without interest, which is the economic benefit that can use each of the money of this case, and thus, it is the benefit of receiving financial convenience, and it is not possible to compute the value objectively from the defendants, but it is not possible to collect it.

2. Whether to recognize a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

A. Whether Defendant 2’s officers and employees or officers and employees of a rearrangement project entity constitute an interested person

Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that "any ordering person, contractor, subcontractor or interested person shall not acquire or grant any property or property benefits by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion of a contract or the execution of construction works, and Article 95-2 provides that "any person who has acquired or provided any property or property benefits 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," and Article 98 (2) provides that "if the representative of a corporation, or any agent, employee or other employed person of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Articles 94 through 97 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual concerned shall be punished by a fine under each corresponding Article."

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the term “contractor” includes a person who wishes to be a contractor” and “contractor” as to whether an officer or employee of Defendant Cululty Construction (ju) is an interested person under the above law. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the term “contractor” falls under an interested person even if not, it is reasonable to view that the term “contractor” falls under an interested person.

Next, as to whether an executive officer or employee of a rearrangement project is an interested person, the rearrangement project owner is in the position to be entrusted with the duties of supporting the selection of a contractor from the future partnership (project owner), such executive officer or employee is the interested person on the part of the project owner

(b) Whether there was an illegal request in connection with the conclusion of a contract agreement.

The term "illegal solicitation" as provided in Article 38-2 of the Act means that solicitation goes against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith. In determining this, a comprehensive consideration of the contents of the solicitation and the amount of the property received or provided in relation thereto, form, and integrity of the business administrator, who is protected by the law, should be comprehensively considered, and such solicitation does not necessarily require explicit identification.

Therefore, in this case where it is difficult to prove whether there was an explicit solicitation or not, the loan of funds to the rearrangement project body by Defendant Culul Construction (ju) for the rearrangement project was made in mind with the selection of the work executor, or due to the loan of funds, there were circumstances to presume the existence of implied solicitation due to the concern that the rearrangement project body would be impartial from the general public in performing the work of selecting and supporting the work executor. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it appears that the maintenance project body was intended to make efforts to secure the right of execution for the rearrangement project owner, or that there was an attempt to defend the exclusion from the tender due to the restriction on the contract order of execution, even if not, in view of the fact that the loan of funds to the rearrangement project body was made through the local chapter of Culul Construction (ju) or the staff related to each branch office of Culul Construction or the rearrangement project, it appears that it was difficult to provide the project cost for the rearrangement project owner’s 4th project with the loan of funds through the loan project owner’s 4th project.

(c) Providing promotional items;

(1) Whether the facts charged are specified

The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates the time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not explicitly indicated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the above Act allowing the specification of the facts charged as above, and if it is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, the prosecution cannot be deemed unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified. In particular, the facts constituting the crime of the provision of property by an illegal solicitation corresponding to a single comprehensive crime by each redevelopment area are not specified in detail regarding the individual act of provision, but specified in the redevelopment area as the premise of the act of provision, the whole redevelopment area, the date, time, method, method, and method of the provision, and the residents of the redevelopment area that is the target of the redevelopment area.

(2) Whether the act was legitimate

The purpose of Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is to strengthen punishment against the act of providing property or property benefits for the purpose of obtaining orders for construction projects and to establish a transparent construction culture by securing its effectiveness. In light of the fact that the object of the promotion was limited to the residents of the redevelopment area who have the right to vote on the selection of the contractor, and that the criteria for the selection of the contractor under Article 11(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents enacted after this case prohibits the provision of commemorative goods, even if the objects indicated in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below are relatively high, it cannot be deemed as the purpose of promoting the company, and thus, the act of offering them

D. As to the recognition of illegality

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding." It does not merely mean a site of law, but it is generally a crime, but in case of a general crime, it is recognized that it does not constitute a crime as permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that it does not constitute a crime. Thus, unless an attorney-at-law consulted and consulted with defendants 1 and 2 is not a competent agency for legal interpretation, the above defendants cannot be deemed to have a justifiable reason for misunderstanding, so the above

A. Judgment on the main facts charged

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants provided or received the total amount of loans or service charges stated in the facts charged as a bribe, and at the same time provided or received property by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract agreement or the execution of a construction work as an interested party’s position in the position of interested parties. The gist of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendants provided or received the total amount of loans or service charges stated in the facts charged as a bribe.

(2) Determination on the service cost portion

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendants 1, 2, and 2 paid KRW 1.2 billion in total with respect to the redevelopment project of the Dobong-dong District Redevelopment Project in the name of the principal code code committee and KRW 570 million with respect to the Seoul Chungcheongnam-dong District Redevelopment Project in the name of the principal code committee without the intention to entrust the services to the Nonindicted Party 1 and 7.

(3) Determination on the loan portion

We examine whether the total amount of money constitutes property by a bribe or illegal solicitation by giving or receiving money under the pretext of a loan, which is a loan without the intention of return by Defendant Culul construction (ju) and a rearrangement project entity.

In light of the fact that Defendant Culul Construction did not make an effort to recover funds for a rearrangement project, such as filing a claim for return of loans with respect to a rearrangement project entity. Rather, there is room to deem that an executive or employee intended not to receive loans under the premise that such loans will be recovered. However, it is difficult to waive the above claim for return of loans only with the intent of the relevant executive or employee, such as Defendant 1 and 2, and it is difficult to give up the above claim for return of loans. Since a contract for a loan for consumption was made at the time of the transaction, as the amount of loans that are not recovered by Defendant Culul Construction has increased, it was difficult to collect part of the principal from a partial rearrangement project entity, and it is difficult to view that the constructor could not receive funds for a rearrangement project directly from a rearrangement project entity in light of the fact that, even if the construction business registration could be revoked, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant Culul Construction did not directly receive funds from a rearrangement project entity and that there is no problem in collecting funds from an association with respect to a rearrangement project.

(4) Therefore, inasmuch as the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or inasmuch as the charge of offering of a bribe, acceptance of a bribe, or violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is found among the facts charged in the preliminary charge, the judgment of

B. Judgment on the ancillary charges

Of the ancillary facts of this case, in order to recognize that the Defendants offered and received financial benefits equivalent to 9% annual interest on loans as a bribe and offered and acquired financial benefits equivalent to 9% annual interest on the loans by illegal solicitation, the Minister of Health and Welfare should be premised on Defendant Culul Construction’s declaration of intent to exempt the 9% interest on the 9% annual interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 1,2, and Defendant Culul Construction (the prosecutor, after concluding the 1, and the 1.2 billion won on the 1.2% interest on the 9% interest on the 9% interest on the 1,300,000 won on the 1,200,000 won on the 1,000 won interest on the 1.

Therefore, since this part is not a crime, or there is no proof of a criminal fact, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen earlier, inasmuch as it is found guilty of the offering of a bribe, the crime of acceptance of bribe, and the crime of violation of the Construction Industry Act relating to the profits arising from the non-financial interests among the conjunctive facts charged, the sentence of innocence

2. The part of the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the provision of promotional products by Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 2

A. Of the facts charged in this case, it is examined as to the remaining part of the facts charged as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, excluding the part found guilty as above, i.e., the remaining part of the facts charged as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which was provided to the residents of the redevelopment area in the area of KRW 9,200,00 in each corresponding column, and KRW 16,380,000 in the area of Jung-gu and KRW 15,30,000 in the area of Seo-gu and KRW 15,50,000 in the area of Seo-gu and KRW 10,50,000 in the area of Seo-gu and KRW 14,40,000 in the area of Seo-gu and KRW 14,50,000 in the area of Seo-gu, and KRW 4,00,000 in each corresponding column.

B. As evidence that the product worth KRW 80,158,00 in total was provided to the residents of the redevelopment area who are interested parties at the place indicated in the list of crimes No. 2. The list of the current status of promotional items cost prepared by Nonindicted 15, the main employee of the redevelopment area, (1-1, 2362, 2375), each tax invoice, the former sheet (1-6, 1407 pages of investigation records), and the statement of each protocol of examination of the suspect about Defendant 1, Nonindicted 14, and 15, which verify the contents of the above list.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to non-indicted 16, and the statement of non-indicted 16, the list of crimes attached to the judgment below was divided into residents on the day of the residents' general meeting, but the public relations personnel visit the residents' house to obtain necessary written resolution (Evidence No. 1-1, 836, 756, 706, 1121, 1646) and the fact that the land owner in the so-called area was 165 persons or more (Evidence No. 1-6, 640) and the number of non-indicted 16, and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 16, the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and the number of non-indicted 1 and 6 (Evidence No. 167).

C. Therefore, inasmuch as the remaining part of the facts charged, except that the amount of goods supplied is without proof of facts constituting a crime, a not-guilty verdict shall be rendered pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen above, inasmuch as the defendant is found guilty of some of the facts charged as a single crime, the judgment of not-guilty should not be rendered separately.

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

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)