However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 2007, the Defendant stated that “D and E, who was under investigation by the Ulsan Central Police Station on charges of fraud, etc. by a criminal complaint filed by C at the time, shall find the Defendant, explain the contents of the case, and request the method of resolution, at the time, at the real estate office of the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in Ulsan Central Police Agency B, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S., the Defendant agreed with D and E.C. once, they will contact with the police and resolve it well.”

Accordingly, D and E voluntarily appeared at the police station on August 2007 after they agreed with D and E, and were investigated, and the accused and the defendant demanded D and E to require D and E to “I have to meet the secretary-general, and to promote the police officer in charge, it is necessary to pay money.” At around that time, they received bags containing KRW 30 million in cash from D in the above real estate office.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting cases or affairs handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part D and E of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant two times against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to D (including the E-statement part);

1. Each police officer's statement of D, E, G, and H;

1. One copy of investigation report (Attachment of a record of records of conversations A), recording record;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to transfer the case, list of records, written opinion

1. Article 111(1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008) that applies to criminal facts and that of which punishment is selected;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Determination as to whether the statute of limitations under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has expired

1. Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statute of limitations shall be suspended during the period when the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.”

The legislative intent of the above provision is that the offender has the jurisdiction in Korea.