36 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On November 4, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of eight million won for a crime of acceptance of bribe at the Daejeon District Court on August 8, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 12th of the same month.

On June 14, 1996, the Defendant was appointed as a public official in Daejeon C technical service. On November 10, 2004, the Defendant transferred to a public official in office and served in Daejeon D and Daejeon E, etc. As above, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the crime of acceptance of bribe and retired ipso facto from office on November 12, 201.

1. Fraud against F and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act were detained on June 4, 201 as a crime of acceptance of bribe, and were detained in the Daejeon Prison on June 8, 201, and was prosecuted on June 24, 2011, and released on August 18, 201 upon obtaining a ruling of permission for release on bail.

On July 7, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was detained in the Daejeon Prison located in the Daejeon Seodong-gu, Daejeon, as a crime of acceptance of bribe, and was detained in the same room, at the Daejeon Prison, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant transferred money in the form of purchasing KRW 20,000,00 to KRW 21,00,00 in the form of money in the form of purchasing KRW 21,00,000,000 from the time he/she was on duty as a public official in Daejeon; (b) G president is expected to be released on bail with the help of the legal professional in the Daejeon area of Daejeon; and (c) during the process, he/she would be released from bail with the legal professional in the area of Daejeon; and (d) during the process, he/she would be able to receive money from a person related to the court through G to be released as a suspended sentence.”

However, at the time, there was a transaction of KRW 11.2 million outside of the above shares (listing on April 2010), and even if the victim purchased the above shares at a price higher than the market price, the defendant was willing to use the sale price in the repayment of the defendant's debt, etc., and there was no intention or ability to solicit the competent division through G so that the victim may be released by a suspended execution.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.