2012Gohap190(combined)(b) accept acceptance of bribe.

2012Gohap262(combined).In case of breach of trust taking property

2012Gohap281(combined). Bribery

(e) Misappropriation;

(f) Bidding interference;

2. D. (f) B

Attorneys E, Law Firm F, Attorneys G (Defendant B)

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 630,000 won into one day.

A penalty of KRW 240 million from Defendant A shall be additionally collected.

From April 21, 2009 to March 15, 2012, the Defendant has overall control over the management of equipment to control various electronic signals related to the operation of the said power plant while serving as the head of the first power plant at the Mine Nuclear Headquarters, the Mine Nuclear Headquarters, the first power plant team leader of the said power plant, and has been in charge of the management of equipment to control various electronic signals related thereto.

1. Receipt of money and valuables from the representative director of the I Co., Ltd. J;

around April 21, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for sealed device supply equivalent to KRW 1.65 billion with the J, which was ordered by the said H Team, and received cash KRW 100 million from J, around May 3, 201, for convenience in the course of supply in the future.

Accordingly, the defendant received KRW 100 million in relation to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

2. On March 25, 2011, L, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) as a supplier of money and valuables receiptN from LL M, a nuclear power plant subcontractor, entered into a purchase contract for the replacement of the main 12,000,000,000,000 won, which is the amount of KRW 649,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, around March 29, 2011.

On October 2010, the Defendant, at the time of concluding the contract with LO M, entered into the contract as it is with the consent of 200 million won or more higher than the reasonable price, and received KRW 80 million in return.

Therefore, around May 201, the Defendant received KRW 40 million in cash from the above M at the 0 restaurant in Young-gun, Young-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and received KRW 40 million in cash from the 2nd Gyeongnam-gun Pcafeteria on September 201, 201 where the above delivery and services were completed. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 80 million in connection with the duties of the officers and employees of the market-based public corporation deemed public officials as public officials. “The Defendant is the representative director of Q, a corporation developing the nuclear measurement and control system development system, and is the person who takes charge of the overall business of the said company.”

1. Defendant A

A. Acceptance of bribe around May 201

Q around March 7, 2011, there was a continuous transactional relationship with the above H Team working for the Defendant, such as entering into a contract for purchase of goods, such as control and surveillance devices, etc., in an amount equivalent to KRW 1.2 billion in total of the contract amount ordered by the H Team of the First Power Station of the Mine Nuclear Headquarters of the Republic of Korea.

around May 201, the Defendant received five million won in cash from B, along with the solicitation that the case of the above contract for the execution of the contract and the various conveniences of the supply and service contracts expected in the future, at the R cafeteria of Young-gun, Young-gun.

Accordingly, the defendant received 500,000 won in relation to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

B. Acceptance of bribe around January 2012

Q around August 23, 201, around 201, made it possible for Q to enter into the said contract by entering into a continuous transaction with the above H Team, such as entering into a service contract for the protection of the nuclear reactor and the process control system maintenance, which is equivalent to KRW 357 million for the contract amount ordered by the above H Team with the above H Team. At the time of entering into the said contract, the Defendant had a continuous transaction relationship with the H Team, but at the time of entering into the said contract, adjusted Q technology evaluation scores at will. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 15 million for the duties of executive officers and employees of the market-type public corporation, which is deemed a public official, at the time of entering into the contract. Accordingly, around January 23, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from B, along with a solicitation that the case of entering into the said contract and for various conveniences at the time of supply and service contracts expected to be delivered in the future. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the Defendant.

C. Acceptance of property in breach of trust in around 2010

around 2010, the Defendant received 1 million won, 2 million won, 2 million won, 2 million won, and 2 million won in total on four occasions, together with illegal solicitation from Q representative director B, who had continued transactional relations at the Defendant’s office, to receive various conveniences in future supply and service contracts expected in the future.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired 7 million won in receipt of the above illegal solicitation as to his duties.

2. Defendant B

(a) Offering money and goods to A;

1) Offering of bribe around May 201

The Defendant issued KRW 5 million upon requesting the provision of convenience to the above A around May 201, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1(a).

Accordingly, the defendant granted 500,000 won to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

2) Offering of bribe around January 2012

The Defendant issued KRW 15 million upon requesting the provision of convenience to the above A around January 2012, as described in the above 1-B.

Accordingly, the defendant granted 15 million won to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

3) Evidence of breach of trust in around 2010

As described in paragraph (1)(c) above, the Defendant offered the above solicitation to the above A, 1 million won, 2 million won, 2 million won, 2 million won, and 2 million won, each of which was given four times in total.

Accordingly, the Defendant provided A with KRW 7 million in return for the above illegal solicitation.

B. On October 31, 2011, at the time of the offering of money to T, there was a continuous transaction with the above H Team working for T, such as entering into a purchase contract with the 'Control and Monitoring Devices, etc.' equivalent to KRW 512 million of the contract amount ordered by the H Team at the second power plant of the Hari Nuclear Headquarters, the head of T as the team leader.

On November 201, the Defendant issued 15 million won in cash to T in addition to the case of ordinary trading transactions in front of the restaurant in the middle of the trade name in Busan metropolitan Daegu and the solicitation of various conveniences at the time of delivery and service contracts expected in the future. Accordingly, the Defendant granted KRW 15 million to the duties of officers and employees of market-based public corporations that are deemed public officials.

“2012 Gohap262 Defendant A

1. Receipt of money and valuables from U.S.;

A. On September 3, 2010, U.S. Co., Ltd., a developer of the control system facilities for the power plant from the former representative director V entered into a supply contract, “the contract amount of KRW 64 million, which was ordered by the Defendant at the H team at which the Defendant works as the team leader.”

In addition, on September 2010, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from V, who was in charge of U’s representative director, in the office of the H Team at the first power plant in the Young-gun, Hongnam-gun, Hongnam-gun, and from those who were in charge of U’s representative director, in exchange for the solicitation that the above contract will be executed and continuous purchase. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 5 million in receipt of the above illegal solicitation as to his duties.

B. Acceptance of bribe from W to the present representative director

U around January 26, 2012, around the above H team entered into a service contract for “detailed diagnosis of the main water pumps and the main water pumps 1,000,000,000 won for the contract amount of 12,570,000 won, which was ordered by the said H team.”

In addition, on January 2012, the Defendant received 5 million won from the Defendant’s above office, as well as from the Defendant’s representative director W, the case of the above contract and the request to continuously conclude the contract.

Accordingly, the defendant received 500,000 won in relation to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations.

2. Acceptance of bribe from X representative director Y;

On July 22, 2010, X Co., Ltd. supplying various power-related materials control cards, safety grade control devices, etc. to Hanwon, concluded a supply contract, such as control cards, etc., and entered into a supply contract with the above H Team around March 5, 2012, for the amount of KRW 670,210,000 of the contract amount ordered by the said H Team.

Therefore, around May 201, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the Defendant’s above office to the effect that, in relation to the Z restaurant in Young-gun, X representative director, convenience provision during the supply process, and continuous conclusion of future contracts, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s above office in January 2012, and received KRW 15 million from the above Y to the same purport.

As a result, the Defendant received a total of KRW 25 million on two occasions with respect to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials. Defendant B of 2012 high-level 281

1. Interference with bidding;

The defendant is a representative director of Q Q who supplies measurement facilities to Hanwon and is in charge of the overall business of the above company.

The Defendant, from AA, the team leader of the H Team of the Korea-U.S. 3 Power Center of the Korea-U.S.U.S. nuclear power headquarters, prepared and prepared information about the bidding ordered at the above power plant from AA, which was the team leader of the H Team of the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Energy Headquarters, and asked other companies' representatives to prepare and submit Q Q Q to the company's technical specifications and tender price, and received the successful bid.

(a) Crimes around April 2011;

On March 4, 2011, the Defendant conspiredd with AB representative director AB, a company that supplies measurement and control equipment to Hanwon, to allow Q to win a contract by submitting bid documents, such as technical specifications in the name of AB, prepared by Q, to the Young Atomic Energy Headquarters, in relation to the "computer driving support system, automatic recording,OIS, and OPT tender announcement (AD)" (AD), which was ordered at the third power plant of the above Yeongdeungpo Nuclear Energy Headquarters, at the end of March, 201. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant submitted the tender documents to the Young Nuclear Energy Headquarters located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul, and submitted the bid documents as above, and then AB submitted the bid price at KRW 907,50,00,00, Q was ultimately awarded the bid price at KRW 859,91,000, Q was ultimately awarded the bid price.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with AC to commit any act detrimental to the fairness of bidding by deceptive means.However, on May 201, the crime was committed on the same day.

On May 1, 201, the Defendant: (a) submitted tender documents, such as technical specifications, in the name of Q, to the Young Nuclear Headquarters in the name of the Republic of Korea, and submitted them to the Young Atomic Energy Headquarters; and (b) submitted tender documents, such as technical specifications, in the name of Q, to enable Q to be awarded a successful bid; (c) submitted the tender documents, as above, to the Young Nuclear Energy Headquarters located in the Young-gun, Young-gu, Seoul; and (d) submitted the tender documents, as described above, to the Young Nuclear Energy Headquarters, located in the Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 11, 201, and submitted the bid price of Q to KRW 178,00,000; and (c) Q, to KRW 170,99,400, KRW 179,400.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with AF to commit the act detrimental to the fairness of bidding by deceptive means.

(c) Crimes around June 2011;

On June 1, 201, the Defendant conspiredd with the above AF to allow Q to be awarded a successful bid in the manner described in the above paragraph (2) in relation to the public tender notice of “Control / land, M/ASIO, COTRAL SY (AH)” ordered at a third power plant of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Nuclear Headquarters, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 16, 201, respectively. On June 16, 2011 and around the 17th of the same month, AE Co., Ltd. submitted the tender document as above to the Young-gu Nuclear Headquarters located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 17, 2011, and Q was awarded a successful bid by submitting bid price to KRW 306,90,000, Q was ultimately a bid price to KRW 306,900,000. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with AF, committed an act detrimental to the fairness.

2. The offering of bribe to AI is a person who works for the headquarters AJ team at the Korea-U.S. headquarters from May 2005 to January 2008, and works as the team leader at the first power plant AK team at the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Headquarters from January 2008 to January 2008.

The defendant stored a kind of relationship with AI since the AI worked for the above AJ team on the ground of research and development issues, etc. Accordingly, AI has leaked to the defendant through e-mail the "in-house data sent only to the executive officers of team leader level or higher from around 2010 to March 2012", which is an internal data sent to the executive officers of team leader level or higher.

Around June 27, 2011, the Defendant: (a) asked the head of the Development Center for Personnel Management to a gift to the head of the Development Center for Personnel Management; (b) requested, and (c) issued 500,000 won or more as well as 500,000 won at the request of the Defendant’s head office in early July 201, the Defendant offered one of the convenience, such as AI’s trends before the Defendant’s house and provision of information related to Han-source. Accordingly, the Defendant provided one of the golf loans equivalent to KRW 50,00 in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of the market-type public corporation that is deemed public officials. However, around November 11, 2011, the money and valuables offered to AL was continuously traded with the above AL Team, including entering into a supply card contract with the amount of KRW 384,440,00,000, which was ordered by the 2nd of the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Headquarters.

Therefore, on March 24, 2012, the Defendant transferred the intention to provide golf loans to AL through AM, which listens to the talk that the above AL began with the golf from AM, the chief of the H team, and around that time, the Defendant ordered AL to pay the above golf loans in amount to KRW 2,80,000 from the golf products shop in the trade name of "N located in the south-gu in Gwangju," and on March 24, 2012, notified AL that on the same day, it would bring about convenience in relation to the supply and service expected by walking the phone to AL and let AL enter into the above golf loans in April 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant granted golf loans worth KRW 2.8 million to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations that are deemed public officials.

Summary of Evidence

“2012 Gohap144

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2012 type 12867 (the steam records)

1. The fifth prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the above accused;

1. Copies of the interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office four times against the above defendant;

1. Second time to J, each protocol of suspect examination of M by prosecution;

1. A copy of a purchase contract and a statement of money for entering and withdrawing;

1. Each investigation report (verification of details of telephone conversations between the suspect J and A, confirmation of the place of work of A who is the suspect, details of telephone conversations between A and donor M, etc.) 2012 high-priced190

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

(hereinafter referred to as "Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office 2012 punishment 15250)

1. Copies of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution Nos. 1, 6 and 7 against Defendant A;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused B 1 through 4 times;

1. A seventh-time protocol of suspect examination on T;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against AO;

1. Investigation reports (a copy of each contract concluded by Q, A, or T at the time of the employment of the head of the H team);

“2012 Gohap262

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

(hereinafter referred to as "Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office 2012 type 22513 record of evidence)

1. The first and second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the above accused;

1. A copy of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution as of June 5, 2012 against the above defendant

1. Written suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution;

1. Copies of the suspect examination protocol of each prosecutor's office four times in regard to Y;

1. A copy of a bankbook or a contract for purchasing goods;

1. An investigation report (a copy of a contract in which a suspect receives money or goods from five collaborative enterprises);

“2012 Gohap281

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

(hereinafter referred to as "Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office 2012 type No. 24041)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the above accused;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol of AI and AL;

1. Copies of the second examination protocol of suspect to the prosecution about Y;

1. Copies of the written statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution against AP, Q, R, AF, and M;

1. AM written statement;

1. Seizure records;

1. Extraction of B mobile phone mera, and organization marks of two power plants in zero 2 or more, and daily business report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (nine copies, such as attaching a copy of tender documents submitted by Q Q to bid documents, attaching a copy of the request for Q corporation card, attaching a golf seeder business number and photographs, and buying contract, etc.);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the fact of acceptance of bribe to J and the necessary concurrent imposition of fines), Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 57(1) of each Criminal Act (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, comprehensively with respect to the donor B, each of them needs to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor,

B. Defendant B: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 357(2) and (1) (a) of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 315 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act (ab)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against the Court of the largest donor J)

Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the offering of bribe to Defendant A with the largest punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act [the latter part of Article 134 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and each bribery] and Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act (each misappropriation in violation

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The range of applicable sentences: Imprisonment of up to 10 years to 45 years, and fine of up to 460 million won to 1150 million won; (b) application of the sentencing guidelines;

Each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and each bribery

[Determination of Punishment] Acceptance of Bribes, at least KRW 100 million, but less than KRW 500 million

[Special Person] Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribe and aggressive Demand

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[Recommendation Area] Special Aggravation:

[Recommendation and Punishment] From 10 to 18 years [the lowest of the recommended sentencing guidelines applied by the lowest of the applicable sentencing guidelines (the minimum of the applicable sentencing guidelines (the minimum of 10 years)] shall be applied, so the minimum of the applicable sentencing guidelines shall be determined by the applicable sentencing guidelines set by law];

[Multiple Crimes] From 10 to 18 years of imprisonment [the lowest limit is based on the sentencing criteria for the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) for which the sentencing criteria are set, since the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are related to each bribe crime for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime of misappropriation

C. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and fine of 460 million won can not freely access the supplier's employees because of its closure; there may arise a flexible relationship between the supplier's employees and the Korea-U.S. employees, and the head of the team in charge of each field of the power plant has absolute authority to conclude the contract ordering at each power plant; the Defendant abused these authority to form a flexible relationship with the specific company, to raise the supply unit price of the milked company, to inform the designated company of bid information in advance, and to force the designated company to contact with the designated company in order to realize the contract with the oil supplier, and to make a bribe that could not be seen in relation to the supply of the water supply of the water, such as implied and entering into the supply contract, and to prevent the entry of the small and medium enterprises equipped with technical power and expertise, and to prevent fair competition.

When an investigation into a bribe is commenced and detained, the Defendant attempted to manipulate and destroy evidence by stipulating the name of the company and the amount of the bribe to be taken out, etc. in order to meet the amount stated by the Defendant and the amount of the bribe to be given to the provider, etc. When the criminal investigation into the Defendant was conducted and detained, the Defendant attempted to manipulate and destroy evidence. While reflecting at the investigation stage, it did not seem that there was a very urgent level to reduce the amount of the bribe to be given and received, such as cutting off the amount of the bribe several times, etc. Furthermore, the Defendant stated that the company concluding the contract with Korea-U.S. has, as a practice, paid 2-3% case expenses of the contract amount, and transferred these practices to the designated parties. However, the Defendant requested only the Defendant to pay money in the process of determining the unit price of the bribe to the provider. Rather, the Defendant appears to have actively demanded and received the bribe from the supplier company without any justifiable reason, and the Defendant appears to have received it widely, given that there is no high moral reason to believe that the amount of the bribe was given and received more than five billion won.

In addition, recently, in Japan, the explosion accident of the 1st nuclear power plant was occurred in the Republic of Korea. On February 9, 2012, in the first period of the 1st nuclear power plant, in Korea, even though all the nuclear power plant was entirely lost, it was revealed that it intentionally concealed the accident, etc., and thus, people's apprehensions about the nuclear power plant, which is a national key facility, is greater than any time in relation to the operation of the 1st nuclear power plant. It seems that social consensus has been formed that accepting bribe in relation to the operation of the 2nd nuclear power plant, and that strict and fair supply and inspection of the nuclear power plant equipment, should be punished. If the nuclear power plant fails to eradicate the structural corruption of the nuclear power plant, such as the 1nd period of the 2nd nuclear power plant, it is important to secure the safety of the development of the power of the nuclear power plant, and if this is not possible, it is too likely to be criticized against the defendant.

Although the defendant is against the confession of his crime in this court, there is no previous conviction, and considering all favorable sentencing factors such as the defendant's legal fiction of a public official rather than the original public official, it is inevitable to sentence a severe punishment even if it is considered.

The sentencing conditions of the defendant, such as age, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, criminal record, motive and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the overall sentencing conditions.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

Each crime of offering of bribe

[Determination of type] Acceptance of a bribe, 30 million won to 50 million won

[Special Persons] Cases where active mines and the contents of a name are illegal, or where the affairs are related to illegal business operations (any person in general)

【Recommendation Area】 Special Priority Area

[Recommendation Sentence] August to April 4: [The lowest limit shall be reduced by 2/3 as it falls under the case where the type of a single crime is higher than that of the largest one as a result of the aggregate of the amounts provided for brain goods]

[Disposition of Multiple Crimes] The relationship between August and April, 4 months [the above crime with the sentencing guidelines set, the crime of giving property in breach of trust, and the crime of obstruction of bidding as provided in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act]

Since the lower limit is set for a bribe set in the sentencing guidelines.

The sentencing criteria for such a crime shall be based on the lower limit of the range of sentence

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eighteen years and six months;

The Defendant provided money and valuables to use the supply contract so that the team leader of each area of the power plant is well aware of the fact that the nuclear power plant is closed and has an absolute authority for the supply contract, and entered into a number of supply contracts through the corruption power plant employees.

In addition, the Defendant received prior information on the tender by the aforementioned act. This resulted in blocking the supply of the parts to Hanwon by the Defendant’s company as the Defendant’s company becomes practically a competitive advantage. Moreover, the Defendant’s coercion by Hanwon employees who resisted the Defendant’s company, which prevented the Defendant from entering the competitor’s company by an illegal business activity based on money and goods, rather than conducting fair competition with technical skills. The Defendant’s crime is not that of the crime, but rather, the Defendant entered into a negotiated contract three times with the Defendant’s employees who received bribe from Hanwon with the intent of receiving bribe from the Defendant, and the Defendant’s assistant companies knew of the fact that there was an illegal cooperative relationship with Hanwon employees. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assistant companies seem to have committed the act of pretending the Defendant’s competition without any inevitable treatment from Hanwon employees. The Defendant’s act of demanding the supply of parts of the nuclear power plant to a certain degree of technical cost and making it impossible for the Defendant to enter the same as the above new part even if it is not possible for the Defendant’s new supply and development.

Even if the company has any outstanding technological power, since the defendant's profits exceeding the amount provided by the defendant should be left in the supply process of Hanwon, the quality of the supplied product must be reduced to more than the amount of a bribe. Thus, the defendant's act is a serious crime that causes serious doubt to the safety of the people and the safety of a nuclear power plant directly connected with the national security and security of the nation due to the national key industry. Since it is difficult to see that the recent breakdown or accident of a large and small amount of nuclear power plant that occurred in the nuclear power plant did not result in the defendant's above crime and the illegal act of Hanwon employees who received money and valuables, it is very poor that the defendant's crime is committed, and it is inevitable to sentence the defendant or the defendant's punishment is sentenced.

However, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is led to confession, and the age, character and conduct, family environment, health attitude, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case.

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

Judges Park Jae-hoon

Judge Lee Jae-ju