When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant served as the head of the D Military Accounting System from July 2016 to September 2017, and currently served as the head of the E office.

Defendant at the horse of March 2017, the same year

4. From the G(s) parking lot located in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area to the Seocho-gu, Gwangju metropolitan area: (a) received cash worth KRW 50 million under the pretext of requesting delivery from the D GunJ to the D GunJ so that H may enter into a government supply contract with the I and H introduction enterprises in the operation of H and the D branch; (b)

In addition, the Defendant entered into an government supply contract with D military from September 2016 to July 2017, as described in the schedule of crime (1) of the attached Table.

H et al. received a total of KRW 225 million over a total of 20 million under the above terms.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 225 million from H, etc. for the purpose of giving a bribe to J who is a public official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the prosecution to H and K;

1. Each prosecutor's statement made against L, M, N, orO;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Investigation report (verification of documents and location next to the D military finance and accounting office, and related photographs);

1. Status of a contract for purchasing D military goods;

1. A copy of each contract for goods;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by Defendant A);

1. Article 133 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 133 (1) of the same Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Since the military's confidence in the administration of D military has been significantly damaged due to the defendant's act on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the defendant shall be held liable for such damage.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all of his crimes from the investigative agency and actively cooperated in the investigation, the defendant did not actively demand the money in the process of receiving money, and his personal interest.