The number of days of detention prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 82 days for Defendant 1, 41 days for Defendant 3, and 17 days for Defendant 6 shall be included in the above punishment.

However, with respect to defendants 6, 2, 3, 4, and 7, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of 11 copies of the fixed amount of the seized cashier's checks (one million won), five copies of the cashier's checks of new banks (one check number: Rab0643165, Rab02643168, Rab02643170, Rab02643171, Rab02643174), one copy of the cashier's checks (No. 2), 10,000 (No. 3) shall be forfeited from Defendant 1, respectively.

9,500,000 won from Defendant 1, and 5,500,000 won from Defendant 6 shall be collected respectively.

1. In collusion with Defendant 2, 3, or 4:

The ordering person, contractor, subcontractor or interested person of a construction work shall not acquire or provide property or property gains by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion or execution of a contract for construction work. In selecting the contractor for a reconstruction improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents which was enacted on December 30, 2002, the method of open competitive bidding should be used, despite the fact that, around March 30, 2004, he did not obtain the designation of a rearrangement zone and approval of a project plan for a reconstruction improvement project, he entered into a provisional contract on the reconstruction project in the form of a negotiated contract with Defendant 1 who is the head of a reconstruction improvement project association (title omitted) in the form of a private contract with Defendant 3. On July 2, 2005, in the form of competitive bidding at the General Meeting of Members, in order to provide convenience to enable Defendant 5 stock companies to make a fixed contract for construction work at the same time and to make a smooth payment for the construction cost.

Defendant 3 promised to provide Defendant 1 with a separate amount of KRW 1 through 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

2. Defendant 5 Company:

Defendant 2, 3, and 4, who is the representative or employee thereof, commits a violation as described in paragraph 1 above with respect to the defendant's business;

3. Defendant 1

A. On the same date, time, place, etc. as mentioned in paragraph (1) above, Defendant 3, 4, etc. entered into a provisional contract in the form of a free contract to enable Defendant 5 to take orders for the said reconstruction construction work at Defendant 5 Stock Company, and, in turn, received KRW 100 million in cash with a solicitation to the effect that the construction work may be ordered in the manner of competitive bidding, and that the construction work may be ordered smoothly, and received at the same time and at the same time, received goods by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion or execution of the contract for the construction work;

B. On June 15, 2005, at the end of Gangseo-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), Nonindicted 2, who entered into a project implementation vicarious execution contract with the said rebuilding improvement project association, received the right to select the subcontractor of some construction works from Defendant 5 Special Metropolitan City (the construction project association), from Defendant 5 Special Metropolitan City, and made the construction contract with the said reconstruction association under the name of the above reconstruction project association, he received a bill of KRW 5 million cashier’s checks and received a bribe in relation to his duties, and received a bribe.

다. 2005. 9. 5.경 강릉시 옥천동 소재 상호불상의 다방에서, 그 무렵 피고인 6을 통하여 소개받은 피고인 7 운영의 공소외 4 주식회사를 위 재건축아파트의 샷시시공업체로 선정해 주고 그 대가 명목으로 3,000만 원을 요구한 다음, 위 일시경 피고인 6으로부터 100만 원권 수표 10장 합계 금 1,000만 원을 건네받은 것을 비롯하여, 2005. 8. 일자불상경 강릉시 옥천동 (이하 생략) 소재 재건축조합 사무실 부근 상호불상 커피숍에서 피고인 6으로부터 위 재건축사업 중 철거공사 등 일부 공사의 하청업체를 선정할 수 있게 해달라는 등의 청탁과 함께 금 250만 원을 건네받고, 2005. 9. 중순 추석 무렵의 일자불상경 금 200만 원을 건네받아, 그 직무에 관하여 합계 금 1,450만 원의 뇌물을 수수하고,

4. Defendant 6:

2005. 8. 29.경 강릉시 이하불상지에서, 그 무렵 위 (명칭 생략) 재건축정비사업조합의 조합장인 피고인 1에게 피고인 7 운영의 공소외 4 주식회사를 소개해 주어 위 재건축아파트의 샷시시공업체로 선정되게 한 다음, 피고인 1로부터 위와 같은 업체선정에 대한 사례비 명목으로 3,000만 원을 달라는 요구를 받고 이를 피고인 7에게 전달하여, 위 일시경 피고인 7로부터 피고인이 사용하는 공소외 5 명의의 우체국 계좌로 금 2,000만 원을 송금 받아 피고인 7이 공무원인 피고인 1에게 뇌물로 공여하려는 금품인 정을 알면서도 이를 교부받고,

5. Defendant 7:

2005. 8. 29.경 강릉시 이하불상지에서, 그 무렵 피고인 6의 소개로 위 재건축공사의 샷시시공업체로 선정 받은 다음, 위와 같은 업체선정에 대한 사례비 명목으로 재건축조합장인 피고인 1에게 뇌물로 제공하는데 공여할 목적으로 피고인 6이 알려준 공소외 5 명의의 우체국 계좌에 금 2,000만 원을 송금해주어 피고인 1에게 뇌물로 제공할 금원을 교부하였다.

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 10, and Defendant 4

1. Each statement prepared by Nonindicted Party 1, 10, and 11

1. Seizure records;

A. Defendant 1: Article 2(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (generally, the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 4), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (the receipt of bribe from Nonindicted 2), Article 2(2)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (generally, the receipt of bribe from Defendant 6), Articles 95-2 and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

B. Defendant 6: Article 133(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 131(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

(c) Defendants 2, 3, and 4: Each Criminal Code Article 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (the point of offering of a bribe), Articles 95-2 and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the point of granting of a property by illegal solicitation

(d) Defendant 5 stock company: Articles 98 (2), 95-2, and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

(e) Defendant 7: Articles 133(2) and (1), 131(2), 84 of the Criminal Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents;

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment against Defendant 1 on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 4 and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry] (the punishment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 4 and the punishment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with heavy punishment, each of the crimes of bribery and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and each of the punishments

1. Selection of punishment;

In the case of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 4, the punishment of imprisonment for a limited term, the crime of acceptance of bribe, the crime of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the delivery

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to Acceptance of Bribe from Defendant 4 with the largest punishment]

1. Reduction of a small amount;

Defendant 1: Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da1448, Apr. 2

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1, 6, and 3: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 6, 2, 3, 4, 7: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (Consideration of circumstances, etc. in consideration of the reasons for sentencing as follows)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant 1: the first sentence of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1 and 6: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

The crime of this case committed by the above defendant by taking advantage of the position of the head of the reconstruction association and accepting large amount of bribe twice in response to illegal solicitation related to the apartment reconstruction construction project, and the damage therefrom remains at the expense of the association members as it is. In particular, in the process of receiving a bribe of KRW 100 million from the defendant 5 corporation, it is impossible to withdraw the construction cost disbursed from the association members' contributions due to the loss of association seal impression, etc., and in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that the above company requested the delivery of the money promised in advance after entering the above company into the insolvent crisis, it is not good to the quality of such crime. However, the above defendant's punishment should be imposed more severe punishment. However, the above defendant's punishment is too late and it is against mistake, and the sentence of this case shall be imposed after discretionary mitigation in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that there is no previous sentence and no previous sentence until the crime of this case was committed.

2. Defendant 2, 3, and 4

Considering the fact that the amount of the bribe offered by the above Defendants is large amount, and the social status of the above Defendants as an apartment constructor, it is necessary to impose severe punishment upon Defendant 3 who promised to provide large-amount benefits, or upon both Defendants 2 and 4 who actually delivered the bribe after the execution of the said large amount. However, Defendant 3, as a operating manager of the stock company, promised to provide passive benefits upon the request of the head of the association, who is in need of cooperation with the association and the head of the association who has already concluded a provisional contract and made a considerable investment in a considerable amount of money, as well as upon the above Defendants 1, 2 and 4, on the ground that the implementation of the promise by Defendant 3 is delayed, and it was difficult to reject Defendant 1’s request for payment of the promised money, which was replaced by fact-finding, and that the above Defendants were able to substitute for the said Defendants, and that there was no previous order of imprisonment and execution until the execution of the sentence of this case.

3. Defendant 6, 7

The crime of the above Defendants also requires severe punishment in light of the amount of the bribe, the circumstances leading up to the delivery of the bribe, etc. However, the above Defendants are sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, such as imprisonment with prison labor, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the above Defendants both were committed during the commission of the crime in this case and are in violation of depth, and that there is no previous penalty and no previous penalty until the crime in this case is committed, and the execution thereof shall be suspended.

Judges Kim Hong-do (Presiding Judge) Kim Yang-hun et al.