205Ma544 (Joint), Bribeed, Accepteds and Briberys

(b) Fraud;

C. Acceptance of bribe

(d) Offering of bribe;

2. D. 00, Professor

3. D. Part 00, Professor

4.(d) Yang 00, Professor

Attorney Kim Kim - (Defendant 00)

Attorney Hong Hong-soo (Defendant 1, 200, 200)

Each fine shall be punished by 5,00,000 won.

50,000 won for each day when the above fine is not paid by Defendant 1, 100, 100, and 200

The above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of time.

With respect to the demotion of the defendant, 40 days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

25,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 500.

Defendant 5 was employed as professor of the above university around February 1, 1998 to 000 university, and was employed as professor of the above university from September 2, 2003 to May 31, 2005; Defendant 100 was a person who was employed as professor of the above university around March 2003; Defendant 1 was employed as professor of the above university; Defendant 1 was employed as professor of the above university around September 2004; and Defendant 1 was employed as professor of the above university.

1. Defendant 50

(a) From 00 to 000 university at the same time in a golf practice range, etc. located at a 00-si on December 2002;

under the name of the honorarium in receipt of a solicitation to be employed in a number of times;

around February 2003, around 00 00:3 million won, around 00 Do-dong, around 00 Do-dong, and 00:00 Do-2 around April 2000 Do-dong, around 00 Do-dong, 2000

Public duties, such as being delivered KRW 15 million at the office of the head of the department and 000,000 at the above university located;

to accept a bribe equivalent to 18 million won in total with respect to the duties of the Board;

B. At around March 2004, at the above 000 University 000 and the office of the chief of the department, the same division from above 00.

300 gold 300 as a honorarium in receipt of a request to the effect that it may be employed in

receipt of a bribe in connection with the official's duties, and

(c) From August 2004 to 00 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 -00 -00 - from the above 00 - from the above -

In other words, a request is made to the effect that a professor of culture can be employed as a professor of culture.

Receipt of a bribe in connection with the duties of a public official under the pretext of a honorarium of 4 million won;

(d) Supply business in the course of rendering research services awarded by industry-academia-research cooperation groups at 000 universities;

A request for excessive material costs, etc. in connection with a body, and the price for goods paid by the above university to the supplier;

The defendant shall obtain the research funds by means of re-returning the excess difference of the funds.

At the above 000 university around August 2004, ‘00 media', the requesting company, is the above-mentioned industry-academia-research conference.

Driving of drivers and pedestrians who have applied for solar batteries, which has been ordered to the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperation Group;

In carrying out research services for the development of stability devices for each Si’s visual board, the fact is that the supplier is the supplier.

00 Confirmation of supply, even though it was not supplied with some machinery, such as machinery, from 00 et al.

As if all equipment and materials equivalent to 1.1 million won are supplied in writing, tax invoice, etc.

100,000 won shall be paid to the above 00 et al. by stating false facts:

on August 16, 2004, 309,500 won corresponding to the portion not supplied from the above 00

and from that time to February 25, 2005, the entry in the list of offenses in the attached Form from that time as well as the use thereof.

The sum of 3,727,700 won in the same manner over five occasions, such as in this case, shall be obtained by fraud;

2. The same 00 :

1-A. At the date, time, and place described in subsection 1-a. At the same time, the notice shall be given to 00,000 won

(1) give a bribe in connection with the official duties of such public official;

3. Defendant Part 00

§ 1-b. It shall deliver KRW 3 million to the above 000,000 at the time and place described in the paragraph, as stated therein.

giving a bribe in connection with the duties of a public official;

4. The same amount of 00 :

SECTION 1-C. 4 million won shall be delivered to the above 000,000 won at the date, time, place, and

A bribe was given in relation to the official duties of a public official.

Summary of Evidence

【No. 1-A and each fact of No. 2 of the Decision】

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the trial records in the first and second trial records;

1. The entry of part of the defendant in the second and fourth trial records;

1. Statement of a witness in part of the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by a witness red 00 in the fourth trial records;

1. Examination protocol of each prosecutor's suspect about the defendant's lectures and 00;

1. A written statement prepared in Kim 00, South 00;

1. A copy of the bankbook (Gang00), a copy of the account, and a copy of the documents for examination of teaching and employment (Down00);

【No. 1-B and each fact of No. 3 of the Judgment】

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the trial records in the first and second trial records;

1. The entry of part of the defendant in the second and fourth trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness red 00 in the fourth trial records;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 50 and letter 00;

1. A copy of a bankbook (G00), a check tracking report (financial transaction statement, check copy), teaching and employment examination document;

Copy (T. 00)

[Judgment No. 1-C. and each fact of Decision No. 4]

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the trial records in the first and second trial records;

1. The entry of a part of the defendant in the second and fourth protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by a witness red 00 in the fourth trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect about 50,000;

1. A copy of the bankbook (GG00), and a copy of the document for examination of professors and employment (Y00);

[Judgment No. 1-D.]

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the trial records in the first and second trial records;

1. The entry of a part of the defendant in the second and fourth protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by a witness red 00 in the fourth trial records;

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's respective arguments

1. The portion of delivery and receipt of KRW 15 million between Defendant 50 and 00

A. The assertion

On April 2003, 200, after Defendant 1 was appointed as professor, Defendant 500, Defendant 100, Defendant 200,000 won when Defendant 1 was more likely to cause damage due to typhoons to Defendant 00. Accordingly, Defendant 100 won was set up and lent KRW 15 million which he/she can lend, and Defendant 100,000 won cannot be deemed as the payment for the recruitment of professor.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., if the above defendants delivered or received the above money for consumption loan, it is ordinarily difficult to understand that they directly delivered or received the above money from the prosecutor's office in cash, and the above defendants did not prepare a loan certificate, and there was no interest and time limit for payment for more than two years from the time of delivery or receipt of the money, and there is no doubt that the above defendants' statement was made at the prosecutor's office's office's office's 0-day time for delivery or receipt of the above money. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above defendants' statement was made at 0-day for the above time after the above 0-day time for delivery or receipt of money. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above defendants' statement was made at 0-day and 0-day time for delivery or receipt of money for the above 0-day time for delivery or receipt of money. Thus, it is difficult to see that the above defendants' statement was made at 00-day and 0-day time for delivery or receipt of money.

2. The portion of giving and receiving money and valuables between Defendant 50 and 00

A. The assertion

around December 2003, Defendant 50 told 00 of 100, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

(b) judgment;

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the above defendants did not prepare a loan certificate between the above defendants, and interest and maturity did not have been determined, and Defendant Part 00 did not have the address to borrow money from others due to economic circumstances, such as when they were registered as bad credit holders at the time. The above defendants decided to increase the number of 40 to 50 persons at 000 universities and 00, which were issued and received money from the above defendants, and the employment of new professors was already determined inside the above departments since the number of 40 to 50 persons was determined at around March 204. Defendant Part 0 was working as an instructor of the above departments since 200, and Defendant Part 0 was qualified as an instructor of the above departments, and Defendant Part 0 was not able to obtain a doctor’s degree at the time of February 2, 200, and Defendant Part 0 was not able to have a sufficient interest in the above new professors’ recruitment, and Defendant Part 0 was not able to receive money from the prosecutor's office.

3. The portion of giving and receiving money and valuables between Defendant 50, 200

A. The assertion

The money that Defendant 200 delivered to Defendant 50 is not KRW 4 million, but KRW 3 million, and the said money also cannot be deemed as a bribe because it was lent to Defendant 500. The said money also cannot be deemed as a bribe. Since Defendant 200 received the notice of final success in teaching after July 30, 2004, it is difficult to recognize relevance between Defendant 50 and Defendant 50 with respect to the employment of professors.

(b) judgment;

In light of the following circumstances, the above Defendants did not prepare a loan certificate, interest and maturity did not have been determined, and the above Defendants did not fully pay for more than one year from the time of delivery and receipt of money. The investigation into the instant case was conducted, and the subsequent investigation was conducted on September 16, 2005, when the prosecution was instituted, it was conducted on September 16, 2005. If the above Defendants were to have paid 4 million won to 00, and if they were to have paid 4 million won to 00, it was ordinarily possible to use the method of giving, receiving, receiving, etc. credit transfer or check, and in light of the fact that the above Defendants were given and received in cash at the rest of 7th National Road No. 8000,000,000, the above Defendants did not have any reason to recognize that the above Defendants were to receive and employ the above money as a professor.

4. Determination as to Defendant 00, 00, 200 and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant 00, 00, 00, 000 and his defense counsel demanded money from the above Defendants to be collected from the above Defendants on the basis of the professor recruitment and reappointment. At the time, the above Defendants were in a position that they could not refuse the above demand of 50,00, and thus, the above Defendants, who were given money to Defendant 5, pursuant to the above 50-mentioned Gu, were deemed to be the victims of intimidation or public conflict, and thus, it is difficult to regard them as the offerer of bribe.

In light of the above facts, even if Defendant 50’s Gangwon-do threatened or duplicating the above Defendants, it is not recognized that Defendant 50 did not simply threaten or interfere with the above Defendants without the intent of performing his duties or without the relation between his duties and a quid pro quo. The above assertion alone does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of offering a bribe to the above Defendants. As seen earlier, it is in relation to the relation between the act of offering a bribe in this case and the performance of his duties, so the above Defendants and their defense attorneys’ above assertion are without merit.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 50: Article 139(1) of the Criminal Code (a) of the Criminal Code, and Article 347 of the Criminal Code

Article 1 (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment)

B. Appointment of Defendant: Articles 133(1) and 129 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 50: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the previous crime.

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 50, 100, 200: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant Audit00: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 50: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant 50

Although the above defendant has no particular criminal record, the amount received as a bribe, and the amount obtained by deceit may be considered as favorable circumstances, such as the repayment of loans to the above defendant. However, the above defendant received several bribes in relation to the duties of employing new teaching staff who must be cleanly in the status of public educational officials who are professors and the principals of the 000 university, above all, and acquired them by means of excessive appropriation of research expenses, such as material cost, etc. distributed to the department. In order to correct the error of our university education, which is customary as it is natural that giving and receiving money in return for teaching, there is a need for strict punishment against the crime of this case, even in order to correct the error of our university education, which is customary as it is, it is necessary to reverse the confession at the prosecutor's office, to deny all the crimes and not divided his mistake, taking into account the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, means and method, age, character and behavior of the above defendant, and other conditions of punishment as stated above, the above defendant shall be sentenced to 00 and the above sentencing.

The crime of this case where the above defendants offered a bribe in relation to their recruitment of professors is required to select professors with abilities and qualities in a fair and transparent manner for faithful university education. However, in light of the reality of university education in Korea, the crime of this case is not against the nature of the above defendants. However, the above defendants were first offenders. The above defendants were in a position where it is difficult for them to refuse the request of Defendant 50 who had a decision-making authority as to the selection of professors at the time of the above defendants. Despite the above acts of delivering and receiving a bribe, the above defendants' employment of professors is not objectively inappropriate; in the case of Defendant letter 00 and Yang 00, the amount is relatively small; in the case of Defendant letter 15 million won, which is a relatively larger amount among the subsidies given to Defendant 100, the delivery was made after the recruitment of professors; in addition, the above defendants' age, age, environment, character and conduct, circumstances, methods and conditions of the crime, etc., the sentence should be imposed to the above defendants.

Kimyang-hun

Kim Jong-chul

(unit: won)

A person shall be appointed.