Residential Suwon City

[Reference domicile-si]

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

20 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

On January 9, 2014, the Defendant served as the president of the Suwon ○○ apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment complex”) located as the president of the Suwon ○○ apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as “the instant apartment complex”) and served as the president of the occupants’ representatives who integrated one complex and two complexes from August 9, 2014 to September 29, 2014.

A person who administers another person's business shall not acquire any property or benefits from the property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties.

On September 19, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 10,000,00 in cash in return for illegal solicitation at the coffee shop located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and KRW 20,00,00 in cash for the same reason at the restaurant located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which received KRW 10,000,00 in cash for the same reason.

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time and place indicated in the judgment of the defendant, the fact that the defendant received an illegal solicitation was rejected, and there is no fact that the defendant received 20 million won from son.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant is related to the selection of the operator of the child care center of the apartment of this case from Earcknum

① As indicated in the judgment up to the investigation agency and this court, ○○ consistently stated that the Defendant made an illegal solicitation with respect to the selection of the operator of the child-care center in the apartment of this case, and that the Defendant 20 million won in total was found to have taken place. Macton, when the selection of the operator of the child-care center became final and conclusive, she demanded the Defendant to return KRW 20 million to the Defendant around November 2014, and the Defendant refused this, and there was no special reason to believe the Defendant by making a false statement.

② Around August 22, 2014, 201, Kim Jong, the paper of dump son, demanded from the investigative agency to use 25 million won as the development fund, and on August 22, 2014, the knum dumsium 10 million won to the Defendant, at the time the knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum knum and knum knum knums

③ The former managing director of the apartment of this case, who recommended ○○○ to be the Defendant as the Defendant’s report, stated that the investigation agency, on September 2014, 201, transferred her phone to her child-care center amounting to KRW 20 million, and the Defendant did not contact. Moreover, Kim △△△△△△ who lent her money to ○○○, stated that she was the Defendant to pay her apartment development fund and lent her money.

④ 실제로 이◎◎가 피고인에게 1 , 000만 원을 주었다는 2014 . 8 . 22 . 10 : 54 : 13에 김△△이 1 , 000만 원을 회사 계좌에서 인출하였고 , 역시 1 , 000만 원을 교부하였다는 2014 . 9 . 19 . 10 : 06 : 22에 김△△이 1 , 500만 원을 회사 계좌에서 인출하였으며 , 이© ◎는 위 각 일자에 각 1 , 000만 원을 주식회사 = = = 로부터 현금으로 차용한다는 내용의 차용증을 각 작성하여 주었다 .

⑤ The present United States, which had been responsible for the same representative during the bidding period for a child-care center of the apartment of this case, had already been present at the investigative agency, and Gangnam, presented the marks that the Defendant had not been consulted in advance on the date of the second examination frame related to the selection of the child-care center operator, and found the marking in accordance with the marking table, and stated that the bidder's marks were defective according to the marking table, as a result of the Defendant’s marking of the frame, the bidder’s marks were 1 lanes with 2, etc., and that the previous dusts related to this bomet were the same as 2, etc., and that there was a dispute as to the origin of the marks among the same representatives. Ultimately, the occupant representative of the apartment of this case, on September 19, 2015, decided to reject the successful bid for a child-care center under the prior to the night and to publicly announce the tender for a child-care center, and at the time, the representative of this case also submitted the resignation letter on September 28, 2014.

However, in this court, the Defendant stated that he was found to have been dumped from this court’s dump on the day of the second examination frame.

6) On September 5, 2014, the Defendant informed this result of the first document examination on the tender of a child care center, which had been around September 5, 2014, to dumnasium, and sent bid data to other competitors, other than dumnasium dumnasium.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that there was no fact that transmitted the above data to ○○○○. However, the former management director Kim ① of the apartment of this case, who recommended the Defendant as Manna, was retired from office on August 31, 2014. Thus, it is difficult to view that Manna had contacted other persons related to the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment of this case outside the Defendant and received the above self-charge.

7) The defendant asserted that he refused to get a successful bid at a child-care center or the skin center in an apartment, after being asked from dives of dives of dives and dives of dives and dives of 10 times, and that he gave various advice as the president of the council of occupants of the apartment.

However, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant maintained the relationship with the Defendant even after the Defendant’s refusal to request a successful bid from the Defendant who did not have any particular ties. Moreover, if the Defendant refused to make an illegal solicitation, the Defendant is the president of the council of occupants’ representatives who should maintain fairness, and the Defendant was the president of the council of occupants’ representatives who should make an illegal solicitation. However, even after the Defendant refused to make an illegal solicitation, the Defendant was in the usual course of not only the scam scam scams but also the second scam scam scamscams.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social services;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Type 1] Acceptance of Misappropriation, Acceptance of Misappropriation, Type 1 (less than KRW 30 million)

[Special Convicted Persons] In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to veterinary materials

[Scope of Recommendation] Six months of imprisonment to one year and six months (aggravating area)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than eight months and two years of suspended sentence;

Considering the fact that the defendant, as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of apartment complex, was in a position to act as the leader of the council of occupants' representatives in apartment complex, received money and valuables for illegal solicitation in relation to the selection of a childcare center, that the amount actually acquired by the defendant is not much than KRW 20 million,000,000, and that the defendant's trust in the fairness in the selection of the operator of the facility of the apartment childcare center due to the crime in this case, and that the amount illegally acquired by the defendant was likely to cause damage to many occupants by being linked to the improper operation of the childcare center or the increase of facility usage fees.

However, considering the fact that the illegal act of the defendant did not achieve its purpose, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, the defendant's age, character and conduct, health status, family relationship, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case.

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

Lee Dong-dong