Defendant 1 and six others

The type and leather, the completion of the seeds and specifications, the background of the indictment, the completion of the Kim Jong-tae, and the transformation of a vessel;

Law Firm Dun et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Articles 1, 2 and 5 set forth in the holding, for three years and six months, by a fine of seven million won for the crimes of Article 5 set forth in the holding, by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the defendant 2, by imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant 3, by one year for the defendant 4, by two years and six months for the defendant 4, by a fine of ten million won for a fine of ten million won, by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Article 5 set forth in the holding, and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the defendant 6, and by eight months for the defendant 7.

Where Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 200,000 into one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishments against Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 shall be suspended.

The amount of KRW 1.9 billion from Defendant 1, KRW 60 million from Defendant 2, KRW 40 million from Defendant 3, KRW 74,800, and KRW 600 from Defendant 4 shall be collected respectively.

【Criminal Power】

Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in January 13, 2012 at the Seoul Central District Court on January 5, 2012 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement).

On May 10, 2013, Defendant 3 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Seoul Central District Court for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the sentence became final and conclusive on January 4, 2014.

[Specific Crime]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

Defendant 1, while serving as the chairperson of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6 (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” from the second name to the date of the second name), who was commissioned by ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) on October 18, 2010 as an “investment inducement adviser” and was in charge of investment attraction activities, including the establishment of investment attraction policies, the discovery of investment companies, the promotion of investment attraction, and the introduction of investment inducement hub, and related affairs related thereto, against the investment inducement activities and advisory services.

Defendant 2 is a person who is engaged in artificial fishery at Jeju.

Defendant 3 is a person engaged in the printing business under the trade name, ○○ Printingdong-gu, Daejeon.

around October 2010, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, with respect to a project to create a public-private partnership and tourism complex (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△△”) that is promoted by a private business entity on the lease of 5,100,000 square meters from ○○○○ Island ( Address 1 omitted), externally, Defendant 1 is an “investment inducement adviser” in charge of investment attraction activities with the delegation of ○○○ Do, which is an investment company’s participation and publicity. The fact is that Defendant 1 is taking advantage of the fact that Nonindicted 5, 2, and 3, with the overall planning company (PM) of the above project taking advantage of the fact that Defendant 1 is a close part of the Do governor’s 5,000,000 square meters in front of the above project, and Defendant 2, with the knowledge of Defendant 3’s participation in the business operation of the model complex and the right to participate in the business from Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 3, in consideration of its establishment and execution.

Accordingly, at the end of October 2010 or at the beginning of November 2010, Defendant 3 recommended Defendant 5 (Counter-board (Defendant 4) to participate in the investment attraction advisory officer and to participate in the ○○○ Do Tourism Complex development project through this person, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) to Defendant 2 and Defendant 1.

In addition, Defendant 2, while emphasizing the friendly relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 5 ○○○○○○○○○ by accompanying Defendant 1 along with Defendant 3 to the place in which Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) urged Defendant 1 to participate in the pertinent model complex project, Defendant 5 (Party 4: Defendant 4) led Defendant 5 (Party 4) to strengthen the participation of Defendant 1 in the project of the pertinent model complex.

According to the above roles of Defendants 2 and 3, around November 2010, Defendant 1 stated to the effect that, at the center of Nonindicted Company 6 in the building of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, Defendant 3, along with Defendant 4, can exercise influence over various investment attraction affairs of ○○○○○○○○ as an “investment inducement adviser”, Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, at the center of Nonindicted Company 6 in the building of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul. In addition, Defendant 1 guaranteed the business rights of “the business rights of the Drama set, game experience center, soil products sales store, restaurant, etc.” within the first model complex among the entire project, and that, to this end, Defendant 5 (SO: Defendant 4) will lease the reserved land from 00 million won and resolve all kinds of authorization and permission issues, such as building permission.

Accordingly, on December 28, 2010, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 1 billion to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, 201, in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 1, to the account in the name of the Si/Gun/Gu bank operated by Defendant 1, and on January 27, 2011, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 100 million to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s non-indicted 10, Nonindicted Co. 10, 11, and the account in the name of the Si/Gun/Gu bank, in the name of the Si/Gun/Gu bank, KRW 150 million, in each of the above non-indicted 9, 10, and 11 on February 10, 2011.

As a result, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 conspiredd to give and receive a total of KRW 2 billion on three occasions about the good offices and solicitation of matters belonging to public officials' duties.

2. Violation of the Commercial Act, false entry into public electronic records, etc., and non-public electronic records, etc., with Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 (2014 high-class 474, 2014 high-class 616);

Defendant 6 is a person engaged in the construction execution business.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 6: (a) established Nonindicted Company 7 with the capital of KRW 500 million as the representative director; and (b) entered into an agreement with ○○○ and △△△△ (MU) as a general planning agent for the △△△△ business; (c) decided to resolve the said company’s incorporated capital by means of lending the bonds.

(a) Violation of the Commercial Act;

위와 같은 모의에 따라 피고인 6은 2011. 2. 16. 서울 서초구에 있는 ◎◎은행 ◁◁지점에서 이름을 알 수 없는 사채업자로부터 5억 원을 빌려 주금납입계좌인 자신의 딸 공소외 12 명의의 ◎◎은행 계좌에 공소외 7 회사 주금납입금 명목으로 입금하고, 위 은행으로부터 잔고증명서(주금납입금 보관증명서)를 발급받은 다음 서울 서초구에 있는 서울중앙지방법원 상업등기소에서 공소외 7 회사에 대한 설립등기신청을 하였다.

In addition, upon the completion of the registration of incorporation of Nonindicted Co. 7 on February 17, 2011, Defendant 6 had the said corporate bondholder withdraw the above KRW 500 million using the passbook and password of Nonindicted Co. 12 issued in advance in the previous year.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 pretended to pay KRW 500 million for Nonindicted Company 7’s shares in collusion.

(b) Any false entry, false entry, and electromagnetic records; and

On February 16, 2011, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 conspired to enter false facts in the commercial electronic registration electronic data processing system, which is a public electronic record, by submitting through a certified judicial scrivener the relevant documents necessary for the registration of incorporation of a stock company, such as a certificate of deposit of subscription money, to the effect that the full amount was deposited to Nonindicted Co. 7, a registered public official who is not aware of the same facts as described in the above paragraph (a) was paid out, even if the subscription money for Nonindicted Co. 7 was paid out, in advance. On February 17, 2011, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 had the registered public official enter false facts in the commercial registration electronic data processing system, which is a public electronic record, into the commercial registration electronic record, and thereafter exercised it by having the said public official keep the commercial registration electronic data processing system, which is a public electronic record stating the false facts.

3. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and attempted fraud by Defendant 3 (at-law 2014, 542)

Defendant 3 was arrested at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 18, 201 as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement: Defendant 4) in a de facto marriage relation of Defendant 5 (party 4) by using the fact that Defendant 5 (party 4) may be decided as unrestricted, and Defendant 5 (party 4) received money in return for Defendant 5 (party 4) from Nonindicted 2, the victim, who was a de facto marital relation of Defendant 5 (party 4), who was a de facto marital relation of Defendant 5 (party 4), in order to release Defendant 5 (party 4) from Defendant 4).

이에 따라 피고인 3은 2011. 4. 19. 오전경 피해자 공소외 2에게 “▲▲지청장으로 근무하다가 최근에 변호사 개업한 친구가 ■■지검 차장검사를 잘 아는데, 최 회장을 불구속 처리해주는 대가로 1억 원을 약속할 수 있느냐”며 변호사를 통해 ■■지검 차장검사에게 청탁하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)를 석방시켜 줄 수 있다는 취지로 말하면서 그 대가로 1억 원을 요구하여 피해자 공소외 2로부터 승낙을 받았다.

그 뒤 피고인 3은, 사실은 자신이 피해자 공소외 2를 대신하여 수원지방검찰청 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사를 선임한 사실이 없고, ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 위 사건을 수임하여 대전지방검찰청 차장검사를 만난 사실도 없으며, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에 대한 구속영장이 2011. 4. 19. 21:44경 대전지방법원에 청구된 상태였음에도 불구하고, 2011. 4. 19. 오후 무렵 피해자 공소외 2에게 전화하여 “▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검에 들어가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔다”는 취지로 거짓말하고, 다시 같은 날 23:00경 피해자 공소외 2에게 전화하여 “피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에 대한 구속영장 청구 여부가 아직 결정되지 않았다. 구속영장 청구 여부 결과가 자정이나 되어야 나올 것 같다”는 취지로 거짓말을 하면서 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 석방이 될 경우 이를 성사시킨 대가로 피해자 공소외 2로부터 1억 원을 받아내려 하였으나, 위와 같이 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에 대한 구속영장이 청구되면서 피해자 공소외 2가 그 사실을 알게 되는 바람에 그 뜻을 이루지 못하였다.

As a result, Defendant 3 promised to receive money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or mediation with respect to cases or affairs handled by public officials, and at the same time, attempted to acquire KRW 100 million by deceiving Nonindicted 2 of the victim.

4. Defendant 4’s breach of trust, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), and acceptance of bribe (2014,616);

(a) Property in breach of trust;

Defendant 4 was commissioned as a member of the Private Capital Inducement Committee from December 20, 2008 to December 19, 2012, Defendant 4 was in charge of deliberation on the promotion plan of the private capital inducement of ○○ Do, various support, including the scale and method of support for investment enterprises, etc., and other matters related to the private capital inducement submitted by ○ ○ Do Governor in connection with the inducement of private capital.

Defendant 4 was planned to deliberate on the business plan proposed by Nonindicted Company 7, a general planning company (PM) in relation to the △△△△△ business, and thus, Defendant 4 was obligated to deliberate on the feasibility of the business and the feasibility of the business plan as a member of the private capital inducement committee in an objective and fair manner.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 4는 그 임무에 위배하여, 2011. 1.경 제주시 (주소 2 생략) ⊙⊙빌딩 8층 사무실에서, 공소외 7 회사를 총괄기획사로 내세워 배후에서 사업을 추진하고 있는 ○○도 투자유치자문관 피고인 1로부터 공소외 7 회사의 사업제안이 2011. 2. 11.경 개최되는 민자유치위원회에서 긍정적인 심의결과를 얻고 이후 개최되는 추가 회의에서도 계속해서 좋은 방향으로 검토될 수 있도록 도와달라는 취지의 부정한 청탁과 함께 1,000만 원을 교부받은 것을 비롯하여, 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 2011. 1.경부터 2011. 3.경까지 피고인 1로부터 같은 명목으로 4회에 걸쳐 합계 2,500만 원을 수수하고, 2011. 4.경 액수를 알 수 없는 돈을 수수하였다.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.;

피고인 4는 2011. 7. 18.부터 2014. 5. 22.까지 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 국내외관광객 유치 및 마케팅 사업, 내국인 면세점 설치·운영 등 ▷▷관광공사의 업무 전반을 총괄하였다.

피고인 4는 2011. 1.경 위 가.항 기재와 같이 피고인 1이 추진하고 있는 △△△△△△ 사업을 도와주는 과정에서 위 사업 중 제1지구 시범단지 내 ‘드라마세트장 및 카지노체험관’ 사업 부문의 인수를 추진하고 있는 건설업자 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)를 알게 됨을 기화로, 2011. 3.경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 위 사업이 성공할 수 있게 계속 도와달라는 취지로 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 운영하는 공소외 22 회사가 시행하여 건축한 김포 (주소 3 생략) 소재 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 1채를 피고인 4의 아들 공소외 13이 거주할 수 있도록 무상임차 형식으로 제공받기로 약속하였다.

이에 따라 피고인 4는 2011. 5.경 피고인 4의 아들 공소외 13을 위 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 (동 호수 생략)(42평형)에 입주시켜 거주하게 한 후, 2011. 7. 18. ▷▷관광공사 사장에 취임하게 되자 2011. 7.경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 마치 위 아파트를 임대차보증금 2억 원에 전세로 임차한 것처럼 허위 전세계약서를 요구하여 교부받고, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 관광객 유치 등을 통해 위 사업이 성공할 수 있도록 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 계속 도와달라는 취지의 청탁과 함께 위 아파트를 계속 제공받기로 한 다음 2014. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 13을 위 아파트에 무상으로 거주하게 하였다.

이로써 피고인 4는 2011. 7. 18.부터 2014. 4. 30.경까지 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 ▷▷관광공사 사장의 직무와 관련하여 위 아파트 (동 호수 생략)의 차임 합계 49,800,600원 상당의 이익을 수수하였다.

C. Acceptance of bribe

피고인 4는 2012. 6.경 제주시 (주소 4 생략) ◈◈ 오피스텔 621호에서, △△△△△△ 사업이 무산된 상황에 처한 피고인 1로부터 ▷▷관광공사에서 직영으로 관리하고 있는 제주 ◐◐단지 내 내국인 면세점에 공소외 14 주식회사 명의로 화장품 매장을 입점시켜 영업을 할 수 있도록 해 달라는 취지의 부탁을 받고 이를 도와주는 대가로 위 회사의 지분 20%를 제공받기로 약속하였다.

Accordingly, around June 21, 2012, Defendant 1 changed the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 15, the △△△△△△△△ Co., Ltd., which owned 100% of the shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7, to Nonindicted Co. 14, and Defendant 1 paid the total amount of KRW 250 million including the capital increase of KRW 60 million equivalent to KRW 20 million in total, which was offered to Defendant 4, from KRW 50 million to KRW 300 million. In that process, Defendant 4 acquired 20% of the shares of the said company from Defendant 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 16, the seat of Defendant 4.

이로써 피고인 4는 피고인 1로부터 ▷▷관광공사 사장의 직무와 관련하여 공소외 14 회사의 주식지분 20%를 수수하였다.

5. Acceptance of evidence in breach of trust and offering of bribe by Defendant 1 (2014 Gohap616)

(a) Property in breach of trust;

As stated in the above 4. A., Defendant 1 offered KRW 25 million in total four times from January 201 to March 201, 201, along with an illegal solicitation, to Defendant 4, who is a private capital inducement committee member, as described in the above 4.4. A., Defendant 1 provided money with which the amount cannot be known on April 201.

(b) Offering of bribe;

피고인 1은 위 4.의 다.항 기재와 같이 ▷▷관광공사 사장인 피고인 4에게 그 직무에 관하여 공소외 14 회사의 주식지분 20%를 공여하였다.

6. Offering of a bribe by Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) (Defendant 2014 Gohap616)

피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 위 4.의 나.항 기재와 같이 ▷▷관광공사 사장인 피고인 4에게 그 직무에 관하여 위 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 (동 호수 생략)의 차임 합계 49,800,600원 상당의 이익을 공여하였다.

7. Fraud by Defendant 6 (2014Gohap668)

피고인 6은 2008년경 ◎◎은행 대출금 5,000만 원, ♡♡카드 카드대금 485만 원, ☆☆은행 대출금 1,500만 원을 변제하지 못하여 신용불량자로 분류되었고, 2007년 종합소득세 879,640원, 2009년 종합소득세 1,997,700원을 납입하지 못하였고, 2011. 6.경 공소외 17에 대한 7억 5,000만 원 등 9억 5,000만 원의 비금융권 채무를 부담하고 있었으며, 소유하고 있는 특별한 재산도 없었고, 일정한 수입도 없는 등 경제 상태로 보아 타인으로부터 돈을 빌리더라도 이를 변제할 의사나 능력이 없었다.

On February 25, 2011, Defendant 6’s representative director and the ○○○○ Governor concluded an agreement with each other on the mutual understanding that the investment and support should be faithfully performed with respect to the △△△△△△ business. According to Article 1 of the aforesaid agreement, “Nonindicted Co. 7 shall be incorporated before December 31, 201, with a special purpose company (Main SPC) that directly implements the △△△△△ business, and a special purpose company shall be required to participate in the production of a drama for public relations with a construction company with investment ability, a financial company, and a production company that can produce a drama for public relations.”

In order to establish a special purpose company under the above provision and promote the above project, capital of KRW 100 billion should be raised. According to the implementation plan prepared by Defendant 6, the equity capital is KRW 20 billion and KRW 80 billion. However, around June 201, Defendant 6 failed to raise one percentage of funds and the possibility of raising funds is not high, Defendant 6 attempted to enter Nonindicted Company 21 into a construction company with investment capacity under subparagraph 1 of the above Convention, but Defendant 6, who failed to raise funds at all, was in fact difficult to enter Nonindicted Company 21 as a contractor, even though the premise for concluding the construction contract with Nonindicted Company 21 for the progress of the above project was “financing accompanied by the implementation of the project,” and it was virtually impossible to do so as to implement the △△△△ business as it was impossible and specific means to secure funds within the near time and was not held.

Therefore, Defendant 6, among the △△△△△△ business, did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to operate the item development, trademark, street development, marketing, publicity agency, and entertainment agency business in the complex among the △△△△△△△ business, and Defendant 6 was unable to proceed with the △△△△ business by December 31, 201, in view of Defendant 6’s ability to pay back the investment money to the victim Nonindicted 18, even though Defendant 6 did not have the intent or ability to return the investment money to the victim Nonindicted 18, as he could have granted some business rights. However, Defendant 6 was willing to use the investment money acquired by deceiving Nonindicted 18 from the victim Nonindicted 18 for private purposes, such as personal debt repayment, etc

Defendant 6 at the office of Defendant 6 located in Seocho-gu, Seoul on June 29, 2011, Defendant 6 (hereinafter “Defendant 6”), and the victim Nonindicted 18 (hereinafter “Defendant 6) provided the victim Nonindicted 18 with the right to operate an item development, trademark, street development, marketing, public relations, and entertainment agency business in the complex among the above businesses. Defendant 6 provided the party with the right to operate an item development, trademark, street development, marketing, publicity, and entertainment agency business in the complex. The principal is guaranteed. If the business is not carried out by December 31, 2011, Defendant 6 provided the false statement to the effect that “on the same day, the principal will be returned immediately if it is not carried out by the date of December 31, 2011,” and then, Defendant 6 received KRW 100 million from the victim Nonindicted 19, a high school line of the victim Nonindicted 18.

Accordingly, Defendant 6 was delivered KRW 100 million by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 18.

8. Defendant 6 and Defendant 7’s fraud (2014Gohap821)

Defendant 6 is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 7, and Defendant 7 is the person in charge of raising funds of Nonindicted Company 7.

On February 25, 2011, Nonindicted Company 7 and the ○○○○ Governor concluded an agreement with each other on the mutual understanding that they will faithfully perform investments and support for the △△△△ business. According to Article 1 of the said agreement, “Nonindicted Company 7 shall be established before December 31, 2011, and a special purpose company (Main SPC) that directly implements the △△△△ business shall be established, but a special purpose company shall participate in the production of dramas for public relations with the construction company with investment ability and the financial company.”

In order to establish a special purpose corporation under the above provision and promote the above project, Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 have to raise capital of KRW 100 billion at the time, but they have failed to raise funds. Although Defendant 1 and Defendant 7 attempted to enter Nonindicted Company 21 into a construction company with investment capacity under subparagraph 1 of the above Convention, it is practically impossible to implement the project as planned by the △△△△△△△△△△ because it is difficult to enter Nonindicted Company 21 as a contractor because the premise for the conclusion of the construction contract with Nonindicted Company 21 was “financial resources necessary for the implementation of the project,” the premise for the conclusion of the construction contract with Nonindicted Company 21 was not “financial resources to be raised,” and thus, it is practically impossible to enter Nonindicted Company 21 into the market. In addition, even if Defendant 6 received investment funds from the victim Nonindicted 20, it is difficult to sell the sales right of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ business.

그럼에도 피고인 6, 피고인 7은 2011. 3. 18. 11:00경 서울 종로구에 있는 지하철 3호선 경복궁역 부근 ‘▒▒’ 일식집에서, 피해자 공소외 20에게 “제주시 애월읍 일원에 미래형 복합관광단지 조성사업과 관련하여 2011. 8.경 일부 오픈을 하는데 5,000만 원을 투자하면 상가 6곳을 분양해 주겠다”고 거짓말을 하여 이에 속은 피해자 공소외 20으로부터 5,000만 원을 교부받았고, 2011. 11. 11.경 피해자 공소외 20으로부터 중도금 명목으로 5,000만 원을 교부받았다.

As a result, Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 conspiredd to induce the victim Nonindicted 20 and received KRW 100 million over two occasions.

[1 Facts at the time of sale - 2014 High 474, 2014 High 542]

1. The respective legal statements of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

1. The defendant 5 (the defendant 4)'s legal statement;

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor concerning the defendants 1, 2, and 3 in the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution

1. [List of Evidence 2014 senior 474, 2014 senior 542] Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 22, Nonindicted Co. 7 globalized Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 23, and Nonindicted Co. 7, prior to the alteration of the model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of the public model of

1. [Preparation of Investigators after the 3rd Exposure of recording books (2014 high-class 474, 2014 high-class 542 evidence list]

[2 Facts at the time of sale - 2014 High 474, 2014 High 616]

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 6

1. [List of Evidence 2014 high-priced 474] List of Certified Copy of Corporate Register (Evidence 2014 high-priced 474), documents for application for incorporation registration of a stock company, documents for application for establishment registration of a stock company, registration license tax payment certificate, non-indicted 7 stock company, certificate of incorporation, list of shareholders or investors, stocks acceptance certificate, balance certificate, certificate, written consent to issue of stocks, written consent to the reduction of the period of the promoters' general meeting, minutes of the meeting of promoters, inspection report, report on establishment of a company, minutes of the board of directors, inspection report, statement of taking office, certificate of personal seal impression and resident registration etc., letter of delegation, power of attorney, statement of transaction related to the company capital of non-indicted 7 company except for investigation report 2014-45-11, 11-1, 11-2 reply to the written request;

[No. 3 Facts at the time of sale - 2014Gohap542]

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 25

1. [Attachment 2014 high-priced 542 Evidence List] A report on the progress of the execution of detention warrant in the detention case by the head of the Gu, the investigation report, and the defendant 5 (the defendant 4) (the defendant 4), the copy of the arrest warrant by the defendant 5 (the defendant 4), the copy of the arrest warrant by the defendant 5 (the defendant 4), the copy of the arrest warrant by the defendant 25 (the defendant 4), the copy of the release order by the defendant 25, and the hearing of the statements by the defendant 3

【Nos. 4, 5, 6 at the time of sale - 2014, 616】

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4);

1. [ 2014고합616 증거목록] 수사보고【○○도민자유치위원회 위원 명단 등 확인】, 민자유치위원회 위원 명단, 민자유치위원회 회의개최 결과 통보, 민자유치위원회 회의 결과 및 회의록, 피고인 4 녹취록 1(2011. 1. 8. 제주 크라운호텔), 피고인 4 녹취록 2(2011. 1. 16. ○○도지사관사), 수사보고【공소외 13 실거주지에 대한 공소외 22 회사 자료 첨부】, 중간 관리비 정산내역서, 미분양 세대별 처리 계획표, 관리비 일반수납현황, 수사보고【피고인 4 ▷▷관광공사 사장 임명 및 취임일자 확인】, 수사보고【피고인 4가 피고인 1로부터 교부받은 2,500만원 수표 정리 보고】, 피고인 1 다이어리 사본, 공소외 14 주식회사 법인등기부 등본, 주주명부, 주민등록초본, ☆☆은행 잔액·잔고증명서, 수표사본, 수사보고【아파트 전세금 월세 환산금액 산정확인 등】, 공문서 사본(한국감정원), 경기도 평균 월세이율 적용 월세환산액 산정내역, 피고인 4 재산등록 및 변동신고 자료, 수사보고【피고인 4, 피고인 1에게 면세점 관련자료 제공사실 확인】, 입점신청서, 입점거래조건 확인서 사본, 제2차 면세점 운영위원회 개최 결과 보고서 사본, ▷▷관광공사 사장 명의의 제2차 면세점 운영위원회 개최 보고서 및 결과 보고서 사본, 거래약정서 사본, ▷▷관광공사 명의의 화장품(▤▤) 브랜드 입점관련 최종 통보의 건 사본

[Article 7 at the time of sale] - 2014 Highis668]

1. The defendant 6's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 18, 17, and 19

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant 6 by the prosecution (including the part concerning the statement of Defendant 18);

1. [List of Evidence] Agreement, development project implementation plan, business partnership agreement, cashier's checks, cashier's checks, transcript of register of register, response to investigation, financial data and investigation report (net 19)

[Article 8 at the time of sale] - 2014 Highis821]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 6 and the defendant 7

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 28

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendants 6 and 7 in the suspect interrogation protocol (including the statements made by the defendants 20);

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol against Defendant 7 (Defendant 7 against Defendant 7)

1. [Statement of Evidence 2014 High Gohap821] Convention (Evidence No. 4), deposit certificates without passbook, promotion plans for development projects for future-type complex tourism complexes, convention (No. 8), newspaper articles, details of account transactions, investigation report (Presentation of a certificate of cashier's checks)

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. [Attachment of Criminal Decision 1 related to Defendant 1, 2011Kahap123, 2011Kahap123, investigation report and investigation report, confirmation of criminal records, etc. committed by Defendant 3, etc.], Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s 2012No. 8184, printed out of the summary agreement supporting the case, Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s 2012 Gohap6488, Seoul District Court Decision 2012 Gohap648

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

○ Articles 628(1) and 622(1) of the Commercial Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

Article 228(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 228(1) and Article 30 (Entry in Fraudulent Records, etc.)

Article 229, Article 228(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 228(1) and Article 30

○ Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of giving rise to breach of trust)

○ Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of offering of bribe)

B. Defendant 2

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 3

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

○ Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

○ Articles 352 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant 4

○ Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of taking property in breach of trust)

○ Article 2(1)3 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (the fact of acceptance of bribe from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) and the concurrent imposition of fines)

○ Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (a point of acceptance of bribe from Defendant 1)

(e) Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4);

○ Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act

F. Defendant 6

○ Articles 628(1) and 622(1) of the Commercial Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

Article 228(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 228(1) and Article 30 (Entry in Fraudulent Records, etc.)

Article 229, Article 228(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 228(1) and Article 30

○ Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against Nonparty 18)

○ Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (in whole, the fraud against Nonindicted 20)

G. Defendant 7

○ Articles 347(1) and 30(General Provisions) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Article 40 and Article 50 (Punishment of Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Attempted Fraud)

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), each violation of the Commercial Act, each of the crimes of false entry into public electronic records, etc., each of the crimes of uttering of false entry into public electronic records, etc., the crime of giving rise to breach of trust, attempted fraud,

○ Selection of each fine for the crime of offering of a bribe

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

○ The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the crime of violation of the Commercial Act, the crime of false entry into public electronic records, etc., the crime of uttering of false entry into public electronic records, the crime of giving rise

B. Defendant 3

○ The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the former part of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the former part of Article 39(1)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

○ Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, violation of the Commercial Act, violation of the Commercial Act, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, crime of false entry in public electronic records, etc., crime of uttering of false entry in public electronic records, etc., crime of giving rise to breach of trust,

B. Defendant 3

○ The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment as to Crimes of Attempted Fraud Other Than Punishment)

C. Defendant 4

○ Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of each of the crimes above to the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the largest penalty)

D. Defendant 6

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment as to Non-Indicted 20 with the largest penalty) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant 4: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4): Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant 6, Defendant 7: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendants 1, 2, and 3

b. The latter part of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

B. Defendant 4

○ The latter part of Article 357(3) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

【Claim concerning Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3)】

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant 1’s KRW 2 billion received from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) is only the cost necessary for the promotion of the project, not the cost for solicitation or mediation related to the authorization and permission.

B. Even if the above KRW 2 billion can be seen as compensation for the solicitation or mediation related to authorization, the above solicitation or mediation is merely for the authorization or permission of Defendant 1’s business promoted by Defendant 1, and such solicitation or mediation does not constitute an arrangement under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

C. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 merely introduced Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) on the basis that Defendant 1 introduced investors, and Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 received money in return for the solicitation or mediation related to the authorization. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 did not have conspired to have divided the consideration for the solicitation or mediation related to the authorization, as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

(a) Whether to pay for the solicitation or arrangement related to authorization or permission;

1) Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a crime established by receiving money or other valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of a public official. As a general sense, the term "mediation" means an act of helping a party to deliver a certain matter belonging to the duties of a public official to the public official, to promote convenience, or to make a decision in the direction that the party wants by exercising influence upon the public official's request or influence on a certain matter. In this case, the duties of a public official are included in lawful duties, and there is no need to specify the other party to mediation or the content of such duties, and if money or other valuables are received under the pretext of mediation as above, the above crime is established regardless of which mediation is actually conducted.

In addition, whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a public official's good offices and a money received as a result of a public official's duties shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the relevant good offices, whether there is a friendship relationship between a broker and a beneficiary, the degree of profit, the details and timing of receipt of profit, etc., and it is sufficient that there is a quid pro quo relationship among the money received as a result of good offices and the money received as a result of a whole. Furthermore, if the nature of the quid pro quo as a result

Meanwhile, the criminal intent that received money and valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the official duties of a public official is a requirement for criminal facts, and there is a strict proof in order to acknowledge such fact. However, in a case where the defendant acknowledges the fact that “the receipt of money and valuables,” but denies criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective element are bound to prove by indirect facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of the object. What constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis capacity based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6570, Sept. 12, 2013).

Even if there is an implied existence between a recipient of money or other valuables or benefits with respect to a matter pertaining to a public official’s duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3940, Jul. 12, 2013, etc.).

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant 1 is also deemed to have included the name of mediation for various kinds of permits and permits related to the business, such as the Do Governor△△△△ Project, carried out within Zone I among the △△△△ Project, in the name of Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) to which KRW 2 billion was received from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4)

A) Guide plan for △△△△ business

① Defendant 1, who was born through ○○○ Island, was greatly successful in the project for transfer admission after around 1987. Defendant 1 was commissioned as the investment attraction adviser in charge of investment-related advisory affairs, such as the establishment of investment attraction policies, discovery of investment companies, and promotional activities necessary for investment attraction, after Nonindicted 5 was reappointed to ○○ Do Governor on October 18, 2010.

② Defendant 1: (a) had a private business entity leased a total of KRW 5.1 million in Jeju-si ( Address 1 omitted) from ○○ Island; and (b) had the private business entity selected a complex tourism complex by attracting a total of KRW 1.60 billion, and sought a reimbursement for △△△△△△ project.

(3) The △△△△△△△ project consists of Zone I (Exchange District), Zone II (Mea District) and Zone Three (Gat District). Zone I is a project district in which tourists are invited, focusing on cultural contents, such as Darmaries and casino experience centers. Zone II is a project district in which Chinese and Japanese capital create a space where their own culture is theme to attract tourists, and Zone Three is a project district in which tourists are invited by shopping center, such as scenic items.

④ The role of the entities participating in the △△△△△ business is as follows. PM management is a company in charge of planning △△△△△△ business, preparing a △△△△ business operation plan, concluding MaU with ○○○, and attracting investors and SPC organized companies. Main SPC is an executing company with overall business rights, and is in the form of a consortium in which the first financial company, the first company, the first company, the construction company, and the fourth manufacturer, etc. are participating. Mub PC is an executing company with various business rights in each individual district. The dial, the casino experience center, and the casino experience center (hereinafter referred to as “business including casino experience center”) are created among individual districts, taking them on the background of the dial-based casino business operation, and taking them on the background of the dial-based casino business, and then taking part in the business operation of the △△△△△△△△△△△△’s business operation for the purpose of experiencing the casino from the above general casino. The core of the PPC is the main entity of the PPC.

⑤ Defendant 1 promoted △△△△ business on the ground of the company with the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 7. On December 6, 2010, which was the early stage of the implementation of the foregoing business, Defendant 1 changed the trade name of Epiz Co., Ltd. to Nonindicted Co. 7 and carried out the business as a PM company on the ground of Defendant 6’s representative director. On February 17, 2011, prior to the conclusion of MOU between PM and ○○ Island, Defendant 1 changed the trade name of the said company from Nonindicted Co. 7 to Nonindicted Co. 7 global global, and was newly established, and carried out the business as a PM company on the ground of Defendant 6’s representative director. Nonindicted Co. 7 changed the trade name to Nonindicted Co. 29 on June 19, 2012. Not only the first Nonindicted Co. 7 established but also Defendant 17 operated the said company.

B) The process that Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) was involved in the △△△△△ business

① At the end of October 2010, Defendant 1, a branch of Defendant 2, emphasized the friendship relationship between himself and Nonindicted 5○○○○○○○○○○○, and the possibility of success in the △△△△△△△ business accordingly, and the investors were introduced. Defendant 2, a branch of Defendant 2 around that time, introduced Defendant 3 with the △△△△△△ business and Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 around that time explained Defendant 1’s friendship with Nonindicted 5○○○○○○ and the possibility of success in the △△△△△△△△△ business.

② At around that time, Defendant 3, a person who had a friendship for more than seven years at the Daejeon regional friendship group, was running real estate enforcement business (Defendant 4), emphasized the friendship relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 5 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University, recommended Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) to participate in the △△△△△△△△△△△. Accordingly, Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4)

C) The circumstances at the time when Defendant 1 was transferred from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) on December 28, 2010 to KRW 1 billion.

① Even after Defendant 1’s arrival, Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) did not decide on whether to participate in the △△△△△△△ business. On November 29, 2010, Defendant 1 entered Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 3, a de facto marital relationship, with Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4), into ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, and visited Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) as a person related to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ business. At the time, Defendant 1 introduced Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) to the Do governor at the time, and had an interview between Defendant 5 (FOE) and the Do governor.

② On December 28, 2010, Defendant 1 met at the president of the △△ Institute located in Seocho-gu Seoul on December 28, 2010, Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3. In that place, Defendant 1 expressed his or her influence on public officials to Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4).

- It is necessary to see the idea that the project can be proposed, because it is not possible to take charge of the fact-finding branch? ‘I't see that I't have the jurisdiction?' (No. 4 pages of the recording dated December 28, 2010).

- Defendant 5 (Man-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-

③ In addition, Defendant 1, as of the same day, explained Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) about the most core of the projects included in the △△△△△△ business, which is the casino, and explained in detail about the claimed casino business (No. 10-12 pages of the same record).

④ Since then, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) drafted a letter of commitment on December 28, 2010, stating that “Defendant 1, with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, promises to guarantee the investor’s preferential status on the condition that Defendant 1 would receive strategic investment in a project led by Defendant 1 in connection with a public-private project in ○○ Island,” with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 several times of revision.”

⑤ Defendant 1 stated, “A large amount of security shoulder,” and signed his signature on December 28, 2010. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) said that “Apony account, regardless of who was the president’s own account, is required to be deposited immediately,” and Defendant 1 deposited KRW 1 billion in the said account through a person who informs Nonindicted Company 8’s account and an employee.

④ Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) continued to make a statement emphasizing the pro rata relationship with ○○ Do Governor, the influence of public officials, and the degree of interest in △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ in a meal site, which was after the deposit of KRW 1 billion.

- Korean branch agency has been aware that, “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am on this project.” Thus, I am not only the branch agency, but also the public officials now have a high degree of understanding of this project (39-40 pages of the same record).

- 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)의 “지금 관련 과에서는 다 분주하게 움직이고 있겠네요.”라는 물음에 대한 답변으로서 “아니야. 이제 내가 일은 못하게 하고 있지요. 왜냐하면 1월 중순에 인사이동이 있어요. 서기관급 이상. 그러니까 지금 어설프게 해 놨다가 …… 여기서 서울 작업들을 하고 있지요”(같은 녹취록 62쪽).

- 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)의 “그러면 이제 회장님 방침이기도 하지만 도지사님 방침이시겠네요?”라는 물음에 대한 답변으로서 “그렇죠. 다음 주는 …… 구체적인 스케쥴들이 나올 것이지요. ○○도 제안서를 내면서 ○○도 지사님이 정한 각 부처들 불러서 싸인해야 돼요. 설명을, 일단은 그쪽 뭐, 난제가 큰 오래 걸리는 게 아니니까 인사 끝나고 하면 이제 확실하지 않겠어요? 뭐, 편하게 일할 수 있는. 그 전에도 많이 이렇게 딱 하면 될 수 있도록. 물밑작업을 계속 하는 것이지요. …… 그런 개발 권한은 도지사에게 다 몰려 있잖아요”(같은 녹취록 62~63쪽). 등

7) As can be seen, Defendant 1 made an interview with the ○○○ Do Governor on the part of Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) puts emphasis on the friendship relationship with the ○ Do Governor and the influence of the public officials at ○ ○ Do, and emphasizes the possibility of success of the business such as △△△△△△ and the casino visitor, Defendant 1 made an undertaking to guarantee the priority of investors to Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). Accordingly, Defendant 1 was remitted KRW 1 billion from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4).

D) The circumstances at the time when Defendant 1 was transferred 1 billion won from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) on January 27, 2011 and February 10, 2011

① After remitting KRW 1 billion to Defendant 1 as above, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) obtained the copy of the register of the house in which Defendant 1 was located in order to examine Defendant 1’s financial status, etc. according to Nonindicted 2’s advice. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) was subject to seizure due to delinquency in the payment of taxes on the said house, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) was able to make an additional investment.

② On January 8, 2011, Defendant 1 met Defendant 5 (Defendant 4): Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, as well as Defendant 4, who was a private capital inducement member at the same time, was present at the seat. Defendant 1 continued to make a statement showing the friendly relationship and influence with the public official of ○○○ Island including the ○○ Do governor.

- 피고인 1은 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 “지사님은 제 말을 하면 뭐 콩으로 메주 쑨다고 해도 일단 믿으니까.”라고 말하였다(2011. 1. 8.자 녹취록 13쪽).

- Defendant 3 stated that “we should open a person on the elements.” Defendant 1 stated that “I do not know about the matter. I do not know about it now. I do not know about this matter.” Defendant 2 stated that “I have first known about the public officials, so I need to do so, and I am off the phone. I am off the phone. I am off the phone.” Defendant 1 stated that “I am off the phone. I am off the phone. I am off the page 6 pages of the recording).”

③ On the other hand, at the same day, only Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4), Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) and Defendant 2 divided conversations on the premise that both Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) and Defendant 2 would be used as part of the street funds. In particular, Defendant 2 said to the effect that only Defendant 1 did not receive money from others, and that money should be paid in a timely manner before the proposal for the project is submitted.

- Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) stated that Defendant 2 stated, “We need to take a sense that Defendant 2 has a significant progress of this project, and that Defendant 1 has a significant fluence of business promotion expenses, and that Defendant 5’s business operation expenses are well-grounded in a public figure, if we look at a low level (Defendant 1). Although it is not to help anywhere within the country, if it is difficult to do so even if it is difficult to do so, it is between each other when it is difficult to do so, and if it has a nature that it has a little character of being able to do so, it is necessary to look at the back of a low level of test.” (Article 62, 63 pages).

- 이에 피고인 2는 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 “하여간 초창기에, 이거는 그대로 말씀을 드릴게요. 내가 한 다발씩을 현찰로 계속 매주 가지고 내려왔었어요. 갈 때는 빈손으로 올라가서. 어찌 됐든 간에 지금까지 그렇게 닦아놨어요. 지금 실제 모든 지사님 사용 그거는 아마 지금 저쪽에서 다 이걸 댈 겁니다. 지사가 절대 믿고 뭘 할 사람은 저 사람(피고인 1)밖에 없어요. 그건 내가 장담을 해요. 누구한테 함부로 돈을 받겠어. …… 어찌 됐든 간에 저 사람은, 막말로 돈이 많이 필요한 상황이에요. 어차피 서울 쪽에도 지금 기계는 돌아가고 있는데. 그림 그리고 막 하고 있지 않습니까. …… 거기도 들어가는 돈이 있고, 하여간 꽤 많이 들어가 있는 상황에 있거든요. …… 내일 하는 얘기는 지사님한테 보고 형식이라. ‘지금 일이 이만큼 됐으니까 언제 그걸, 제안서를 내면 되겠습니까.’ 그 얘기는 지사는 이거 바뀌고 난 다음에, 인사개편 하고 난 다음에 우리는 넣자고 했는데 지사가 뭐 그럴 필요 없다고 하더라는 거야. 그거 관계없다고. 그런 정도까지 얘기가 다 된 상황이거든요. …… 그런데 제안서 들어가고 난 다음에 사실은 돈을 이렇게 받는다는 것은 의미가 없어. 제안서가 들어가고 그 정도 되면, 그 정도 되면 실제 뭐 막말로 거의 그때 정도는 거의 돈이 필요 없어. …… 지금 상황이 굉장히 타이트하게 흐르고 있으니까 제안서 들어가기 전에, 전에 자금도 얼마 정도 들어가야 되거든. …… 그러니까, 아니 이건 이것이 된다고 생각했으면 내가 볼 때는 지금부터는 시원하게 해야 될 그런 입장이라 이 말이에요.”이라고 말하였다(같은 녹취록 65~68쪽).

④ On January 16, 2011, Defendant 1 visited the Do Governor and interviewed with Defendant 5 (SOE: Defendant 4), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, along with Defendant 3. In that place, Defendant 1 asked ○○○○ Governor to see that Defendant 5 (SOE: Defendant 4) was able to work for ○○○○○, along with Defendant 5 (SOE). The Do Governor asked ○○○ Governor to see that he was able to work for ○○○, and the Do Governor stated that “All powers and responsibilities are held by Defendant 1’s Chairperson” (a record of recording as of January 16, 201).

⑤ After the above interview with the ○○ Governor, Defendant 1, at the ○○○○○ Office, took the name of the staff in charge of the affairs related to the △△△△△△△△△△, and made a statement to the effect that the ○○○○ Governor is primarily promoting the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ project.

- The words "three departments which are important for the first day, one is the department in charge of information related to the licensing business, authorization and permission," and a statement that any staff should be posted to the department (16-19 pages of the same recording).

- “지사님도 이 자체가 공약도 공약이고 ○○도의 미래를 결정짓는 중요한 프로젝트라고 인정하고 있기 때문에 지사님이 이 프로젝트를 위해서 이번에 편제까지 바꿨어요”(같은 녹취록 29쪽).

- “Isk-sk-sk-sk-sk-sk-sk-kn-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-

④ On January 21, 2011, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) discussed whether they met at the building of the Seocho-gu Seoul △△△△△△△△△△△△△, to a certain extent, the share of core PC was recognized. At the time, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) discussed whether the term “business promotion expenses” is “business promotion expenses,” and Defendant 2 discussed whether the sound money, such as street funds, should be considered in calculating the share of the company, by using the term “lier money,” and the term “lier money,” and the sound money, such as street funds, should also be considered in calculating the share of the company. (A) On January 21, 2011, Defendant 1 claimed that KRW 100,000,000,000, paid to Defendant 1 as “general business promotion expenses” should also be considered.

- “회장님 이 사업을 진행 하면서 어떻게 보면 업무, 포괄적 업무추진비란 게 있잖아요. 그거 저번 날 제가 연말에 댄 것처럼 그런 성격의 돈인데 그러면 그것도 제 입장에서는 제 개인 자금이 되었든, 법인 자금이 되었든 간에 법인 자금에 사업에 대한 거거든요? 그러니까 왜 그게 하여튼, 거기에 대한 어떤 뭐랄까, 그러면 그거에 대한 거를 어떻게 할 것이냐, 그거에 대한 처리 방법이 나와야 할 것이고”(같은 녹취록 23쪽).

7) Accordingly, Defendant 1 was aware of the basic consent post, and even though the three minutes were adjacent to it, I would like to do so (24 pages of the same recording), Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) demanded that Defendant 1 make and make a statement about it. Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) use the word “non-funds” in discussions in other ways, and divide conversationss on December 28, 2010, on the premise that Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 5) was a voice money used to promote the business of KRW 1 billion.

- Defendant 5 (Fol: Defendant 4) said, Defendant 2, “I would like to be included in the establishment fund of a juristic person which is a strategic investor who has made a preliminary investment, and would have made a monetary call, and I need to do so.” Since Defendant 2 told Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) that “I would like to do so so so, I would like to do so? I would like to do so in the so-called “I would like to do so? I would like to do so? I would like to do so, I would like to use the word “I would like to do so,” and discussed whether I would recognize shares by continuously using the word “I would like to do so.”

- In addition, Defendant 2 said, “I do not keep these parts of this project back to the present situation?” (The 58 pages of this record).

④ Meanwhile, Defendant 1 did not receive additional money from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) even after the date, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) was met on January 26, 201 as Daejeon where Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) resides. Defendant 1 promised to give money to Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) before the date to ○○○ Do governor. In that place, Defendant 1 said to the effect that Defendant 1 promised to give money to Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) before the date.

- If there is an error in communication, it is necessary to see what kind of personal for example, and what kind of error would have occurred? The first example is related to the past. It may be related to the election. The second example is hot and several times may be related to the project. The second example is related to the project now. But if there is any problem? The problem is what kind of the promise? The problem is. The problem is only what kind of the promise is, and what kind of it is, I think, I would like not only to 3, but also to 6, if it is impossible to do so. However, it is not possible to 1, 00 if it is possible to 3,00,000, 1,0000, 1,0000,0000,0000 won.

- The right to take the initiative in “??? The form ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

- At this end, “The possibility of success within the country's leading is high, and there is a part of this part of this amount of money to be paid to a certain extent, and there are some parts related to this project that have been made a promise to do so. At all times, we now now now have been the subject of this project, what is the special, oral, and is not only the nature of the fact, but also the special, but also the one billion won that has already been the subject of the betting. It is obvious that the person who has already not been able to believe that it is? It is the example whether it is the case? It is low, because the person who has already been the subject of this project has been abandoned the promise? This is because of the fact that there is a part of the promise to pay the money to a certain extent.”

9) In addition, Defendant 1 made it possible for ○○○○ Governor to make ordinances to decide whether to grant permission on the grounds of good morals and other subjective reasons, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) would be able to secure the right to operate the casino experience center exclusively (No. 10-12 pages of the same recording).

④ Defendant 5 (Franchising: Defendant 4) said that some of the following day will be paid to Defendant 1, and that the remaining funds will be paid within 10 days after the end of the New Year’s Leave (No. 81 side of the record). After the end, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) transferred KRW 100 million to the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 9’s late January 27, 201, the following day, with Defendant 1’s non-indicted 10 million, KRW 150 million to the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1’s non-indicted 10,000, KRW 150 million, and KRW 40 million to Defendant 11’s non-indicted 11’s non-indicted 11’s non-indicted 20,000,000 won to Defendant 260,000 won in total, and Defendant 160,000 won in each of the two separate accounts.

① As above, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 emphasized friendship and influence between public officials, including Defendant 1 and ○○○ Do governor, as in the previous case, and on the other hand, they have to enter a voice-raising fund to public officials, including ○○ Do governor, as well as public officials, including Defendant 1 and ○ Do governor. Accordingly, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) paid additional KRW 1 billion to Defendant 1.

E) The circumstances after Defendant 1 received a total of KRW 2 billion from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4)

① Around 2012, Defendant 1 was in conflict with Defendant 5 as the business of the △△△△△△△△△△△ was in conflict. At the time, Defendant 1 discussed the issue of his employee Nonindicted 30 and Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4), and presented a note as to the sum of KRW 2 billion received from Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4), and stated “Name : Business reserve fund (one within the scope of one).”

② As to the meaning of the above money within this Court, Defendant 1 officially stated that the project executor has decided to perform the project, and the project preparation fund has been stated until before the official account is made.

However, Defendant 1 responded to the prosecutor’s inquiry as to the meaning of the above inter-faced money, which is ordinarily used for voice expenditure, to the effect that Defendant 1 made an erroneous statement in that sense. In addition, on January 21, 2011, Defendant 2 expressed the expression “oman’s money” at the building of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Private Teaching Institute in dialogue with Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). This appears to have been used for a similar purpose after hearing the expression “oman’s money” from Defendant 1. In light of these circumstances, Defendant 1 appears to have been expressed as “oman’s money” to have been used for a similar purpose.

③ On the other hand, Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) signed a loan agreement on March 30, 201, and Article 7(3) of the said agreement provide that “A (Defendant 1) shall secure business rights by obtaining approval from the relevant agency before December 31, 201 in the name of the Co., Ltd., with the approval of the relevant agency until December 31, 201 in the name of the Co., Ltd.” In addition, Defendant 1 prepared a loan agreement with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) on May 30, 2012, which was subsequent to the occurrence of the dispute with Defendant 5 (Counter-Party: Defendant 4). In light of the above, Defendant A (Defendant 5: Defendant 4) obtained the right to manage the management right on December 28, 2010, and the right to guarantee business operation of Co., Ltd. and Defendant 1 (Defendant 4: the right to receive money from Defendant 5).”

(f)Indivisibility;

① Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 asserted that the aggregate amount of KRW 2 billion received by Defendant 1 from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) is not the cost of public official’s good offices, but the cost of performing the project. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) also stated that Defendant 1 was considered not only to have arranged money to Defendant 1 but also to have been used as funds necessary for the project.

② According to the foregoing, in addition to the conciliation act, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) remitted to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 billion won, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) also included the nature of the fund necessary for the promotion of the business. However, the above KRW 2 billion is indivisiblely combined with the nature of the consideration for the conciliation act and the fund necessary for the promotion of other businesses. As such, the entire conciliation act is inseparably in nature as consideration for the conciliation act.

(b) Whether it constitutes another person's business;

1) Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "mediation of matters falling under the duties of a public official shall aim at another person's business other than the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do357, Jun. 11, 2002; 2010Do2554, Apr. 29, 2010). Thus, where the defendant concludes a partnership agreement with another person and conducts business activities against a public official to achieve common objectives in the partnership relationship with another person, it cannot be deemed as referral for another person's business. However, if the partnership agreement is merely a type or appearance that facilitates the defendant's arrangement, it shall be deemed as mediation for another person's business other than the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4644, Aug. 23, 2013).

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 1’s business, such as the casino visitor center, etc., whose business license was guaranteed by the permission and permission obtained by Defendant 1, is the business conducted by Defendant 5 (Defendant 4), and Defendant 1 cannot be deemed as having a business relationship with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). Accordingly, Defendant 1 can be acknowledged as having arranged for another person’s business.

A) Defendant 1’s business to guarantee Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) to Defendant 5

① From the point of time when Defendant 1 received the first money on December 28, 2010, Defendant 1 had a friendly relationship with and influence over Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) including the ○○○○ Governor. Defendant 1 provided Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) with a concrete explanation related to casino business, while having a key point among various projects of △△△△△△△△△ business. Defendant 1 provided Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) with a letter of commitment stating that “Defendant 1 promised to guarantee the preferential status of investors on the condition that Defendant 1 would receive strategic investments in the project under the leading supervision of Defendant 1 in connection with the public-private project under the ○○○ Island.” In addition, Defendant 1 provided a concrete explanation related to the casino business continuously on January 8, 201.

② On January 16, 2011, Defendant 1 explained Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) more specifically explained the plan of △△△△△△ business. On January 26, 201, Defendant 1 explained that Core PC first obtained a temporary license to attract tourists and publicize the core business, such as a drama photographing and casino experience center, and that some of the profits accruing from the business start in the form of investing in Main SPC (Attachment 24, 25, 30, 31 of the recording day of January 16, 201). Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) guaranteed Core PC’s business rights to Defendant 5 (FO). Defendant 1 told Defendant 5 (FOE: Defendant 4) to the effect that he/she will exclusively use the recording day of Defendant 1’s casino business, etc. by enacting municipal ordinances ordinances (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 16”).

③ As can be seen, Defendant 1 continued to guarantee Defendant 5 (Defendant 4)’s business, including casino experience center, which is a key business in the △△△△△ business, from among the △△△△ business on December 28, 2010. Accordingly, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) established Nonindicted Co. 1, a Co., Ltd., which is Co., Ltd., conducting the business of installing game experience centers and operating the said facilities, the drum experience center, and related facilities. Ultimately, Defendant 1’s business that Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) guaranteed Defendant 5’s business rights, can be deemed as the business of casino experience center, etc., which is first implemented within the △△△△△△△ business.

④ Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 asserted that the first implementation of the casino experience center and other projects in the said district by designating Jeju-1 district, which is part of Zone 1, as a model complex, was a way to enter into an MOU between Nonindicted Company 7 and ○○○ on February 25, 2011. As such, Defendant 1 was unable to make a promise to guarantee the above-mentioned casino experience center and other projects at the time of receiving a total of KRW 2 billion from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). However, as shown in the record of January 16, 2011, Defendant 1, as seen above, was first carried out in Zone 1 and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4), was first carried out in Zone 1 to enter into a casino experience center and other projects within Zone 1, and, based on the premise that Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4), the core project was carried out within Zone 10,000,000, 16,000.

⑤ Even if Defendant 1 had the title of arranging various kinds of licenses and permits, such as approval of the entire business of △△△△△, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed Defendant 1. As seen earlier, Defendant 1 is a de facto manager of △△△△△△△ business, who is in charge of planning of △△△△ business, attracting investors and Madin SPC participating companies, and the △△△△△△△ business operator is a Main SPC. Furthermore, Defendant 1, as an investment attraction advisory officer commissioned by ○○○do, acknowledged Defendant 1 as having no intent to participate in the △△△△△△△ business on the ground that preferential time is likely to occur.

B) Whether Defendant 1's business activities, such as casino experience centers, are carried on together

① 피고인 1과 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 2011. 3. 30. 카지노체험관 등 사업을 운영할 Core SPC 설립과 관련하여 다음과 같은 내용의 확약서를 작성하였다. ㉠ 피고인 1과 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 자본금 20억 원의 회사를 피고인 1 49%, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4) 51%의 지분비율로 하여 설립한다. ㉡ 피고인 1과 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 유상증자가 종료되었을 때를 기준으로 피고인 1 25%, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4) 26%, 기타 투자자 49%의 지분비율을 유지하기로 한다. ㉢ 회사의 대표이사는 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 지명한다. 피고인 1은 이사회의 의사결정권을 포기하고 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 위임장, 인감증명서를 첨부하여 위임한다. ㉣ 피고인 1은 2011. 12. 31. 전까지 카지노체험관 등 사업에 관하여 Core SPC 명의로 관계기관의 승인을 받아 사업권 확보를 보장한다. ㉤ 카지노체험관 등 사업의 정상화 시점인 3년 동안은 피고인 1이 영업총괄키로 하며 피고인 1은 의사결정시 반드시 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)와의 협의를 거쳐 운영키로 한다. ㉥ 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 법인 설립 최초 자본금인 20억 원의 조달을 완결한다. 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 피고인 1에게 회사의 설립을 위한 투자금액의 조달을 위하여 9억 8,000만 원을 대여해준다. 단, 피고인 1은 동 대여금을 2011. 12. 31.까지 상환하는 조건으로 별도 대여약정서를 작성한다. ㉦ 피고인 1은 법인 설립 후 유상증자를 통한 자금 조달 의무 및 관계기관 승인을 통한 사업권 확보 의무를 불이행하였을 경우, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 법인 설립 후 유상증자를 통한 자금 조달 의무 및 법인 설립 당시 최초 자본금 조달 의무를 불이행하였을 경우, 상대방은 계약을 해지하고 투자금 및 손실금을 청구할 수 있다.

② On the same day, Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 980 million from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) and made a loan agreement with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) to the effect that Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) will pay interest in addition to the bank interest rate until December 30, 2011.

③ According to the above letter of undertaking on March 30, 201, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4): (a) separately invested KRW 2 billion in Nonindicted Co. 1 on March 31, 201; (b) Nonindicted Co. 31 was appointed as the representative director from among the children of Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) remitted KRW 980 million from the account of Nonindicted Co. 22 to the account used by Defendant 1; (c) Defendant 1 transferred KRW 440 million from that of Defendant 1 to Nonindicted Co. 32; (d) KRW 440 million from that of Nonindicted Co. 2; and (e) KRW 150 million from that of Nonindicted Co. 32; and (e) KRW 50 million from that of Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares to Nonindicted Co. 32; and (e) KRW 100 million from that of Nonindicted Co. 250 million to the account under the name of Defendant 25 billion in total.

④ As such, at the letter of undertaking dated March 30, 201, Defendant 1 decided to exercise overall control over the business for three years, including casino experience centers, and held part of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 under the name of tea. However, Defendant 1 refused to operate core PC on January 21, 201, while Co. 5 (Defendant 4) operated it together, Co. PC was the company of Defendant 5 (S: Defendant 4) and Co. PC was the company of Defendant 5 (S: Defendant 4) and the company of management adviser until the casino experience center’s business is settled (No. 19,20 pages), and the investigative agency consistently stated to the same effect. In addition, Defendant 1’s statement to the effect that there was disagreement between Defendant 21 and Defendant 4 on the reason that it held 49% shares in the casino experience center as above, and Defendant 2’s share was divided into Defendant 1’s share to Defendant 214 and Defendant 14.

⑤ Moreover, Defendant 1, as an investment attraction adviser commissioned by the ○○○○○○○, voluntarily recognized that there was no intent to participate in the △△△△△△ project on the grounds that preferential time costs may arise. Also, even in the △△△△ project plan prepared by Defendant 1 himself, Defendant 1 is the business management officer, and the business management officer is the main agent who performs the role of coordinating and mediating conflicts between the public and the public, as well as each business entity, due to the characteristics of the △△△△ project, which is a public-private joint venture project, and is indicated as the business operator’s status.

6) Ultimately, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have a business relationship with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) with respect to Nonindicted Co. 1, who carries out the business, such as a casino visitor.

C. Whether Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 conspired

1) In relation to co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy is established (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do636, Apr. 23, 199, etc.).

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 conspired with Defendant 1 and received KRW 2 billion from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) as a broker for various kinds of permits and permits related to business, such as casino experience centers, in collusion with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4).

A) Roles performed by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

① Defendant 2 was granted the position of the chief of the headquarters in the △△△△△ business, and was engaged in the business of attracting investors. In that process, Defendant 2 introduced Defendant 3, who is a senior executive, to Defendant 1; Defendant 3 also was granted the position of the chief of the external cooperation headquarters in the △△△ business from Defendant 1, and was engaged in the business of attracting investors.

② In that process, as seen in the above 2. A. 2. 2. b., Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 suggested Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) to participate in the △△△△ business and the casino experience center, by emphasizing the friendly relationship between Defendant 1 and the ○○○○○ Governor. In addition, as seen in the above 2. c. and d, Defendant 1, as seen in the above 5. (Ga. 2. 2) and Defendant 3, as seen in the above 5. (Ga. 4) and Defendant 4, together with Defendant 5 (Ga. 4, Defendant 4) and Defendant 5 (Ga. 4).

③ Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, upon Defendant 1’s request, consulted on the share relationship between Defendant 5 (SPC: Defendant 4), used the term “non-funds”, and divided the conversations on the premise that the money paid to Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) to Defendant 1 was used for an audio purpose (Article 2(a)(2)). In particular, Defendant 2, who called Defendant 1, sent cash to a public official for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and the ○○○○ Do governor requested Defendant 5 (Party 4: Defendant 14) to pay cash in the street name (Article 2(a)). In addition, Defendant 3 also delivered Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s opinion on the amount of “business promotion expenses” to guarantee business, such as casino experience, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 4’s major decision on the share of Co-Defendant 1, including Co-Defendant 2, Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”).

B) Money and shares distributed to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

① Defendant 1 promised to pay to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 part of the money received from Defendant 5 (SOE: Defendant 4). Accordingly, on December 28, 2010, Defendant 1 received KRW 1 billion from Defendant 5 (SOE: Defendant 4), and on December 29, 2010, paid KRW 30 million to Defendant 2 and KRW 20 million to Defendant 3. In addition, Defendant 1 received KRW 40 million on January 27, 2011 from Defendant 5 (SOE: Defendant 4) and KRW 600 million on February 10, 201, and transferred KRW 50 million to Defendant 2’s account on February 11, 201, Defendant 200 KRW 300,000 to Defendant 3 million.

② Defendant 1 decided to distribute part of the share in Core PC, which was to be guaranteed by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 from Defendant 4, to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3. Accordingly, at the time of the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, Defendant 5% of the share to be guaranteed by Defendant 1 came to be owned by Defendant 2. Defendant 3 agreed to receive half of the share granted by Defendant 2, but did not actually transfer.

C) Joint recruitments between Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

① As such, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 perceived that the money received from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) was a price for an act of arranging duties performed by a public official, such as street funds, to a public official, and had Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) encourage and persuade Defendant 1 to pay money to Defendant 1. Part of the money paid by Defendant 5 (Party D: Defendant 4) was distributed.

② Therefore, it may be deemed that there was an express or implicit conference on the fact that Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 received money as a consideration for the intermediary act as above. Meanwhile, according to each recording as seen earlier, Defendant 3 also played the role of representing the interests of Defendant 5 (PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP) in response to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

【Claim concerning Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Fraud (Defendant 3)】

1. Summary of the assertion

가. 피고인 3은 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 검찰에 체포되었다는 소식을 듣고 지인인 공소외 33을 통하여 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사를 소개받아 공소외 2에게 소개시켜주려고 하였으나 공소외 2가 이를 거절하여 더 이상 관여하지 않았다. 따라서 공소사실 기재와 같이 위 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 잘 안다거나 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔다는 등의 말을 한 사실이 없다.

나. 설령 피고인 3이 공소외 2로부터 1억 원을 받기로 약속하였더라도, 이는 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사에 대한 선임료일 뿐, 알선행위에 대한 대가가 아니다.

2. Determination

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정에 의하면, 피고인 3은 공소사실 기재와 같이 ■■지검 차장검사 등 공무원에게 청탁하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)를 불구속처리해주겠다는 명목으로 공소외 2로부터 1억 원을 받기로 약속한 사실이 인정된다.

A. The credibility of Non-Indicted 2’s statement

① 공소외 2는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)의 체포와 관련한 당시의 정황에 관하여 다음과 같이 진술하고 있다. ㉠ 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 2011. 4. 18. 오전에 체포된 이후 법무법인 ◆◆에 출근하다시피 하기 시작하였다. 체포된 다음날인 2011. 4. 19. 아침에 피고인 3이 전화하여 어디에 있는지 물었다. 법무법인 ◆◆에 있다고 했더니 15분, 20분 만에 법무법인 ◆◆의 회의실로 찾아왔다. ㉡ 피고인 3은 자신의 친구가 ▲▲지청장으로 있다가 변호사로 개업하였는데, ■■지검 차장검사를 잘 알고 있으니 그 변호사한테 일을 맡기면 좋겠다는 식으로 이야기를 했다. 이에 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 도움이 될까 해서 응하였다. ㉢ 돈에 대해서 처음에는 계약금과 성공보수로 나누려고 하다가, 누군가와 전화 통화를 하고 들어오더니 ‘그냥 성공보수 1억을 책임지고 줄 수 있겠냐’고 하여 그러겠다고 하였다. ㉣ 같은 날 저녁 무렵에 피고인 3이 전화하여 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 올라가는 중이라는 얘기를 하였다. ㉤ 같은 날 밤 11시 조금 지난 시점에 피고인 3이 전화하여 ‘아무래도 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)의 구속 여부(최초 진술) 또는 구속영장 청구 여부가 자정이나 돼야 결과가 나오겠다’고 이야기하였다. 이미 같은 날 21:44경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 구속(최초 진술) 또는 구속영장 청구되었다는 사실을 알고 있었기 때문에 피고인 3에게 화를 내며 전화를 끊었다.

② As can be seen, Nonindicted Party 2 consistently states that, after Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) was arrested at the prosecution on April 18, 201, Nonindicted Party 2 received phone calls from Defendant 3 or made phone calls from Defendant 3 on April 19, 2011, and Defendant 3’s oral statements from Defendant 3.

③ However, on April 19, 201, at the time of the first statement at the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 2 stated that at the night, Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4) was detained, and thereafter, the phone call from Defendant 3 was the same as that of Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4). Thereafter, Nonindicted 2 was called “the request for a warrant of detention” rather than that of Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4) at night on April 19, 201, and it was called “the request for a warrant of detention” by Defendant 3 (the Defendant 4) that the request for a warrant of detention against Defendant 5 (the Defendant 4) should be self-determinationed. Defendant 3 changed his statement from Defendant 3 that it would be the same as that of the request for a warrant of detention against Defendant 3 (the Defendant 4). For this reason, Defendant 3 impeachmentd the credibility of Nonindicted 2’s statement.

However, at the time, Nonindicted Co. 22’s regular director was arrested together with Defendant 5 (Defendant 4). On April 19, 201, Nonindicted Co. 25 was released as the revocation of arrest. On the other hand, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) was requested for a warrant of detention and was detained following the examination of the quality of the warrant. Accordingly, it is highly probable that Nonindicted Co. 2, other than a legal expert, was detained in a continuous state of arrest at the request of the warrant of detention. Therefore, the reversal of the above statement does not affect the credibility of Nonindicted Co. 2’s statement. Rather, if Nonindicted Co. 2 makes a false statement for the purpose of undermining Defendant 3’s mother, it appears that it was called “request for a warrant of detention” rather than “detention” from the beginning to avoid such misunderstanding.

④ 공소외 2는 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4) 사건과 관련하여 선임한 다른 변호사를 통하여 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 간 사실이 있는지 확인해보기도 하였다. 공소외 2가 2011. 4. 19. 오후 또는 저녁 피고인 3으로부터 ‘▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검에 들어가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔다’라는 얘기를 듣지 않았다면, 공소외 2는 위와 같이 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔는지 여부를 알아보지도 않았을 것이다.

⑤ At around 23:00 on April 19, 201, Nonindicted Party 2 testified that Nonindicted Party 3’s phone calls from Defendant 3 to determine whether to arrest (the initial statement) or request a detention warrant should be made, and there is credibility.

즉, 공소외 2가 피고인 3을 모해할 목적이었다면 2011. 4. 19. 오전경 들은 ‘■■지검 차장검사를 잘 아는 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사를 통해 불구속처리해주겠다’는 취지의 발언 및 2011. 4. 19. 오후경 이루어진 ‘▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔다’는 취지의 발언만으로도 충분하고, 위와 같은 23:00경의 발언까지 지어낼 필요는 없는 것으로 보인다.

In addition, Defendant 3 was aware of the time during which Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) was arrested from Nonindicted 2, and it was necessary to decide whether to request a detention warrant within 48 hours when the suspect was arrested (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2014-Type 25302, 30320, 36314 pages 6772). Accordingly, Defendant 3 said to the effect that, in order to receive KRW 100 million promised from Nonindicted 2, it would be decided whether to request a detention warrant or whether to request a detention warrant from Nonindicted 2 around the day following the day on which Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) was arrested.

B. The credibility of Defendant 3’s statement

① 피고인 3은 검찰에서의 최초 진술 당시 다음과 같이 진술하였다. ㉠ 2011. 4. 19. 오전 공소외 2에게 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 검찰 내 신망이 두터운데 선임하겠느냐고 물었으나, 공소외 2가 이미 변호사를 선임해놓았다고 하여 더 이상 관여하지 않았다. 위 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사를 잘 안다거나 ■■지검 차장검사를 만나고 갔다는 취지의 말은 하지 않았다. ㉡ 성공보수 얘기는 아예 한 적도 없고, 이제 막 개업을 했기 때문에 선임료가 좀 비쌀 것이라는 취지의 말은 하였다. ㉢ 공소외 2에게 밤 11시 이후 전화한 사실은 있으나, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 어떻게 되었는지 물어 공소외 2로부터 영장이 떨어졌다는 얘기를 들었을 뿐, 자정이 되어야 구속영장 청구 여부가 결정될 것이라는 취지의 말도 하지 않았다.

② 피고인 3은 검찰에서 두 번째 조사를 받으면서 공소외 2, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)와 대질을 할 때에는 다음과 같이 진술하였다. ㉠ 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 체포되었다는 소식을 들은 후 2011. 4. 19. 오전 친구인 공소외 33에게 아는 검찰 출신 변호사가 있는지 물어보았고, 공소외 33으로부터 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 있다는 답변을 들었다. ㉡ 그 직후 공소외 2에게 전화하여 검찰 내에 신망이 두터운 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사를 아는데 선임할 것인지 묻자, 공소외 2가 생각해보겠다고 하였다. ㉢ 이후 공소외 33으로부터 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 사건을 맡겠다고 하였고, 선임료가 5,000만 원에서 1억 원 정도 된다는 얘기를 들었다. ㉣ 그 후 법무법인 ◆◆로 가서 그곳에 있는 공소외 2를 만났다. 공소외 2가 알아서 결정하는 것이기 때문에 변호사 선임 이야기는 따로 하지 않았고, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에 대한 걱정을 하다가 나왔다. ㉤ 그날 오후 공소외 2에게 전화하여 아까 이야기한 변호사 어떻게 할 것인지 묻자, 공소외 2는 이미 선임되어 있는 변호사로 알아서 하겠다고 하였다. ㉥ 이에 공소외 33에게 전화를 걸어 선임하지 않겠다는 의사를 전달하였다.

③ 그러나 피고인 3은 법무법인 ◆◆로 가서 공소외 2를 만나기 전 공소외 33으로부터 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 사건을 맡겠다는 의사를 표시하였다는 점과 선임료의 액수를 들었음에도 공소외 2에게 그와 같은 얘기를 하지 않았다는 것은 선뜻 납득이 가지 않는다. 또한, 피고인 3의 진술에 의하면 자신을 별로 좋아하지 않는다는 공소외 2가 전날 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 체포되었고 이로 인하여 법무법인에 방문해있는 상황에서 피고인 3을 만나 변호사 선임 얘기는 전혀 하지 않고 단순히 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에 대한 걱정만을 하였다는 진술도 설득력이 없다. 한편, 위 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사는 수사기관과의 통화에서 피고인 3을 알지 못하나 공소외 33은 잘 알고 있는 사이이고, 오래되어 정확히 기억나지는 않으나 공소외 33으로부터 대전 또는 청주 사건을 선임할 것인지 문의를 받았으나 거리가 멀어 수임하지 않겠다는 답변을 하였다고 진술하고 있을 뿐이다.

④ 피고인 3은 이 법정에서는 당시 공소외 33으로부터 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사가 ■■지검 차장검사와 동기라는 점과 위 변호사가 1억 원을 요구하였다는 점을 들었다고 진술하고 있다.

⑤ As such, Defendant 3’s statement before and after is not consistent, but also its own persuasive power.

C. Whether a KRW 100 million belongs to Defendant 3

Defendant 3 asserts that even if there was a fact that Defendant 3 told Nonindicted 2 to demand KRW 100 million, it is a lawyer’s fee, and Defendant 3 did not receive money in return for intermediary activities.

However, Nonindicted 2 stated that the payment of KRW 100 million to Defendant 3 is the money that Defendant 3 gave to Defendant 3, and that it is not necessary to participate in either the whole or part of the money, whether Defendant 3 or the attorney’s fee.

또한, 피고인 3 역시 공소외 2에게 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사의 연락처를 알려주지도 않았고 공소외 2 역시 이를 알려고 하지도 않았다. 피고인 3은 공소외 2에게 사건에 관한 구체적인 내용을 묻지도 않았다. 따라서 피고인 3이 공소외 2에게 단순히 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사를 소개해주고 선임료 명목으로 1억 원을 받으려고 했던 것으로 보이지 않는다. 오히려 피고인 3은 공소외 2로부터 1억 원을 받은 후에 그 전부를 취득하거나 그 중 일부를 ▲▲지청장 출신 변호사에 대한 선임료 및 성공보수 등으로 지급하려고 했던 것으로 보인다. 후자의 경우라도 [특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)죄 관련 주장] 2. 가. 1)에서 본 법리에 비추어, 피고인 3이 받으려고 했던 돈은 불가분적으로 알선행위에 대한 대가로서의 성질을 갖는다고 볼 수 있다.

【Claim on the Crimes of Misappropriation (Defendant 1)】

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1 does not regularly pay money to Defendant 4, an expert in a tourism development project, in return for seeking advice on new forms of overseas investment attraction through the creation of a large-scale cultural tourism complex, or paid in return for illegal solicitation.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust, the term “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient to say that it goes against social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining this, the contents of solicitation and the amount of consideration related thereto, forms, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be comprehensively considered, and such solicitation does not necessarily require that it is explicitly expressed (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6987 Decided December 11, 2008).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 1 is recognized as having provided Defendant 4 with a total of KRW 25 million from January 2011 to March 201, 201 in return for the illegal solicitation that Nonindicted Company 7’s proposal for △△△△△△△ Project, which is substantially operated by Defendant 4, would obtain a positive result at the Private Investment Inducement Committee, and having provided money, the amount of which is unknown on April 201.

① According to Article 225 of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju-do and the Development of Free International City, in order to deliberate on a plan for promoting the inducement of private capital and support activities for the inducement of private capital, Article 5 of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the inducement of private capital provides that the Private Investment Committee shall establish the Private Investment Committee, and accordingly, Article 5 of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the inducement of private capital shall deliberate on the matters referred to the Committee by the Governor in connection with the inducement of private capital. Defendant 4 was the private investment member of ○○do from December 20 to December

② On January 16, 2011, Defendant 1, along with Defendant 5 (FOM: Defendant 4), Defendant 4, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, stated, “If the competent department makes a comprehensive review opinion and the branch office NOMDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

③ On January 21, 2011, Defendant 1 submitted a △△△△△△ project proposal in the name of Nonindicted Company 7, which he operated. The Private Investment Inducement Committee held a meeting to gather opinions on the proposal of the project on February 11, 2011.

④ On February 11, 2011, Defendant 4 made a statement to the effect that △△△△△ business was advocated at the above conference. In addition, Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 30, the representative of Nonindicted Company 7 and Nonindicted Company 7, were present at the above conference. Before the above conference was held, Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 30 had prepared questions and answers to be made at the above conference in the form of a warning.

⑤ Defendant 4 recognized the money received from Defendant 1 as compensation for an illegal solicitation. Defendant 1 also stated that Defendant 4 was a private capital inducement member, and Defendant 1 also expressed that there was an aspect of money in the sense that it is well help and delivery in relation to the Private Capital Inducement Committee.

【Evidence of Bribery due to Provision of Shares (Defendant 1)】

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1’s offering of shares in Nonindicted Company 14 to Defendant 4 is not for having a Korean duty-free shop store store, but for having Defendant 4 assisted in the distribution network of South Asia for Nonindicted Company 14 to enter the East Asian market, and it does not correspond to the duties performed by Defendant 4.

2. Determination

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정에 의하면, 피고인 1은 ▷▷관광공사 사장인 피고인 4의 직무에 대한 대가로 공소외 14 회사의 지분 20%를 준 것으로 인정된다.

① ○○도 ◐◐단지 내 내국인 면세점은 ▷▷관광공사에서 직영으로 관리하고 있다. 피고인 4는 2011. 7. 18.부터 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 위 면세점의 입점 및 관리 업무를 총괄하는 지위에 있었다.

② 피고인 1은 2012. 5.경 △△△△△△ 사업이 무산될 위기에 처하자, ○○도 특산물 감태의 추출물인 ▤▤을 원료로 한 화장품 사업을 시도하면서 위 내국인 면세점에 입점을 추진하였다.

③ 피고인 4는 2012. 5. 9.경 피고인 1의 요청에 따라 ▷▷관광공사 직원으로부터 ‘지정면세점 확대 인테리어도면’ 파일을 이메일로 받아 이를 피고인 1에게 송부해주었다. 또한, 피고인 4는 2012. 5. 21.경 피고인 1의 요청에 따라 ▷▷관광공사 직원으로부터 ‘브랜드 입점현황(월별) 120401 기준’ 파일과 ‘2012 COSMETICS FORWARDING PLAN 20120520' 파일을 받아 이를 피고인 1에게 송부해 주었다.

④ On June 21, 2012, Defendant 1 changed the trade name of Nonindicted Company 15, a Main SPC, to Nonindicted Company 14, and increased its capital from KRW 50 million to KRW 300 million. Defendant 1 entered 20% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 14 in the name of Nonindicted Party 16, who borrowed Defendant 4’s name, thereby giving 20% of the said shares to Defendant 4.

⑤ 2012. 7. 27. ▷▷관광공사와 공소외 14 회사 사이에 공소외 14 회사가 위 면세점에 입점하는 내용의 거래약정서가 체결된 후, 공소외 14 회사가 위 면세점에 입점하였다.

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the provision of apartment free of charge and the assertion concerning the offer of bribe (Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4)】

1. Summary of the assertion

가. 피고인 4의 아들 공소외 13이 김포시 (주소 3 생략) 소재 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 (동 호수 생략)(이하 ‘이 사건 아파트’라고 한다)에 입주한 시점은 2011. 4. 25.으로서, 피고인 4가 ▷▷관광공사 사장에 취임한 시점인 2011. 7. 18.뿐만 아니라, ▷▷관광공사 사장 모집공고일인 2011. 5. 31.보다도 전이다. 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 피고인 4에게 무상으로 이 사건 아파트를 제공한 2011. 4. 25. 이익 제공 행위가 종료된 것이므로, 피고인 4가 공무원의 지위를 취득한 이후 새로운 이익 제공 행위가 있는 것으로 보기 위해서는 새로운 행위로 평가될 수 있을 정도의 상황 변경이나 범의의 표동으로 볼 수 있을 만한 의사의 갱신이 있어야 하나, 그와 같은 상황 변경이나 의사의 갱신이 없었다. 따라서 뇌물수수죄 및 뇌물공여죄가 성립한다고 볼 수 없다.

B. Defendant 5 (Counter-board: Defendant 4) has a clear and abstract expectation that Defendant 4 would maintain a good relationship with the business of △△△△△△△ and offered Defendant 4 with a benefit, and thus does not have a specific relationship with his specific duties.

C. Even if it is recognized as a bribe, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) provided an apartment without fixing a period to Defendant 4, and thus, the amount received cannot be determined at the time of committing the crime. As such, the amount received ought to be deemed as an economic profit with which the amount cannot be known. The amount received should be deemed as an economic profit with which the bank as to the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, rather than an amount equivalent to the total rent

2. Determination

A. Whether to accept a bribe

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정에 의하면, 피고인 4는 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 2011. 7. 18.부터 공소외 13이 이 사건 아파트에서 퇴거한 무렵인 2014. 4. 30.경까지 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 이 사건 아파트의 차임 상당의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 인정된다.

① On January 8, 2011, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) introduced Defendant 4, who was a member of the private capital inducement committee, at the time when Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 met. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) divided the dialogue with Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 on January 16, 201, after visiting ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the part of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4. As seen earlier, it was argued that Nonindicted Company 7’s business proposal was carried out in advance with a scenario so that it can pass through the deliberation of the Private Capital inducement Committee.

② 피고인 3은 2011. 3. 말경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 피고인 4의 아들이 유학을 마치고 여의도에 직장을 잡았는데 집을 마련해주지 못하여 고민하고 있다면서, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 김포시 (주소 3 생략)에서 시행한 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 중 공실로 남아 있는 아파트를 분양될 때까지 살게 해주면 어떠냐고 제안하였다.

③ Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) consented, and around April 201, on condition that the sale of the instant apartment was carried out, Defendant 4 leased the instant apartment without compensation, on condition that it would be returned at any time. Nonindicted 13 moved in the instant apartment around May 201, and moved out around May 2014. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) stated, as above, that “Defendant 4 was an expert in tourist development through ○○ ○○ Do-ro, and was a member of the private capital inducement committee, and provided convenience to Defendant 4 with a expectation that it would be helpful for the instant apartment project.”

④ 한편, 2011. 5. 31.경 ▷▷관광공사 사장의 모집공고가 이루어졌다. 피고인 4는 2011. 7.경 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 내정된 후 2011. 7. 18. ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임하였다.

⑤ 피고인 4는 2011. 7.경 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 내정된 후 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임하게 되었다면서 공직자재산등록을 위하여 형식적으로 이 사건 아파트에 관한 전세계약서를 피고인 4의 처 공소외 34 명의로 작성해달라고 요구하였다. 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 이 사건 아파트에 관하여 전세계약일을 2011. 4. 21. 임차인을 공소외 34, 전세보증금을 2억 원으로 한 전세계약서를 작성하여 피고인 4에게 보내주었다. 피고인 4는 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 후 이를 기초로 위 전세(임차)권을 재산으로 등록하였다.

④ At the time when Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) provided the apartment of this case to Defendant 4 without compensation, Defendant 4 was in the position of inducing private investment, and Defendant 4’s above statement made on January 16, 201 by Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4: Defendant 4) provided the apartment of this case to Defendant 4, in light of the reasons that Defendant 5 (Party D: Defendant 4) provided the apartment of this case, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 (Party D: Defendant 4) had the criminal intent of giving property in breach of trust, at the time when the apartment of this case was provided to Defendant 4 without compensation.

피고인 4는 2011. 7.경 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 내정된 후 공직자재산등록을 위하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 이 사건 아파트에 관한 형식적인 전세계약서를 작성해달라고 요구하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 전세계약서를 받았고, ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 후 위 전세(임차)권을 재산으로 등록하였다. 이는 위 피고인들 모두 피고인 4가 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 후에도 계속 이 사건 아파트를 무상으로 제공하겠다는 사실을 인식하고 한 행위로서, 위와 같은 배임수증재의 범의는 뇌물수수 및 공여의 범의로 갱신되었다고 볼 수 있다.

(b) Whether the consideration is paid and the relationship is recognized;

1) Bribery is a public official’s process of performing his/her duties, the social trust in relation to the process of performing his/her duties, and the non-purchase of the act of performing his/her duties is protected. Since no solicitation or unlawful act is required, there is no special solicitation in recognizing the bribe of the received money and valuables. Moreover, if a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties, it is sufficient that such money and valuables were received in relation to his/her duties, and there is no need for an individual act or a quid pro quo pro quo relationship, and if a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties, it cannot be deemed that there is no relation with his/her duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is clearly recognized that there is a need for decentralization in relation to his/her personal friendly relations, and even if a public official received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties, such money and valuables shall be deemed a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6721, Jul. 26, 2002). 208.

2) 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정에 의하면, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 제공한 이익과 피고인 4가 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 수행하는 직무 사이의 대가성 및 직무관련성도 인정된다[피고인 4, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 직무관련성이 없다는 근거로 제시하는 대법원 판례( 대법원 2005. 7. 29. 선고 2004도1656 판결 등)는 구체적인 현안이 없는 사안에 관한 것으로서 이 사건과는 다른 사안에 관한 것이다( 대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고 2013도6570 판결 참조)].

① 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 위와 같이 전세계약서를 만들어준 후 얼마 지나지 않아 ○○도에서 피고인 4를 만났다. 그 자리에서 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 ▷▷관광공사 사장 취임을 축하한다고 하면서 이제 ▷▷관광공사 사장이기 때문에 애월읍 사업에 더 도움을 줄 수 있겠다는 취지로 말하였고, 이에 피고인 4는 잘 되도록 도움이 되도록 해야겠다는 취지로 말하였다.

② ▷▷관광공사는 제주도 설치 및 국제자유도시 조성을 위한 특별법 제170조 , 지방공기업법 제49조 , ▷▷관광공사 설립 및 운영 조례에 따라 설립된 지방공기업으로서, 관광 통합 홍보·마케팅, 관광 상품 및 관광 자원 개발, 관광공사 수익사업 발굴 및 추진 등의 업무를 수행한다. 따라서 ▷▷관광공사는 △△△△△△ 사업과 관련하여 국내외 관광 홍보·마케팅, 기업과 연계한 관광 상품 개발, 관광공사 수익사업으로서 지분 투자 등을 수행할 수 있다.

③ 실제로 ▷▷관광공사는 2011. 8.경 ○○도청과 함께 △△△△△△ 사업의 투자유치를 위한 사업설명회를 공동개최하기도 하였다.

(c) Acceptance of bribe;

1) 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 4는 2011. 7.경 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 내정되어 공직자재산등록을 위하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 이 사건 아파트에 관한 전세계약서를 제공받고 2011. 7. 18. ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 때부터 공소외 13이 이 사건 아파트에서 퇴거한 무렵인 2014. 4. 30.까지 이 사건 아파트의 차임 상당의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 인정된다.

Meanwhile, according to the appraisal result of the Korea Appraisal Board (Evidence 319 No. 2014Gohap616), the amount equivalent to the rent of the apartment of this case from July 18, 2011 to April 30, 2014 shall be the minimum amount of 49,80,600 won [the amount equivalent to the rent of the apartment of this case from July 18, 2011 to July 31, 2011] 546,000 won [the amount converted from the monthly rent of July 1, 201 to July 31, 201 + 1,209,00 won x (14/31 x 14/31 x x 14/31) and the amount converted from the monthly rent of April 30, 2014, the average amount of the rent of the apartment of this case shall be recognized to be at least 60,80,309,409,509].

2) The lower court’s judgment, based on the assertion that Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) were unable to calculate the amount of bribe received, is reversed by the Supreme Court on the ground that it did not additionally collect the amount of financial profit from the loan, which is the amount of bribe, even though it should be calculated and collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2592, Sept. 25, 2008). Meanwhile, Defendant 4 received the benefits of the use of the apartment of this case, and thus, Defendant 4 cannot be deemed as the amount of money received by the bank for the deposit.

[of fraud against Nonparty 18 (Defendant 6)]

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 6 continued the △△△△△△ business and had the intent and ability to engage in the business, such as the entertainment agency business, to Nonindicted 18. In fact, Defendant 6 entered into an agreement with 24 companies participating in Main SPC, but only the last △△△△△ business was no longer generated because it did not participate in the bank. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 6 had the intent to obtain money as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is determined that Defendant 6 deceiving Nonindicted 18 as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving KRW 100 million.

A. The reasons why Nonindicted 18 gave him KRW 100 million to Defendant 6

① Defendant 6, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 7, entered into a business agreement with ○○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on February 25, 201. According to the above business agreement, Nonindicted Company 7 established a Main SPC by December 31, 201, had it participate in the construction company, financial company and public relations company with investment ability, and ○○○○ cooperate in securing a site by leasing public land necessary for the construction of the complex for the said business, and if Main SPC is not established by December 31, 2011, it is stipulated that the business agreement becomes null and void.

② From March 201 to April 201, Defendant 6 presented the above work agreement to Nonindicted 17, who was liable for the debt equivalent to KRW 750 million, and asked Defendant 6 to identify the UN Entertainment’s company participating in Main SPC.

③ At that time, Nonindicted 17 became aware of Nonindicted 35, a performance supervisor, and Nonindicted 18, the representative of Nonindicted 36 Co. 18, a performance planner, through Nonindicted 19, who is an employee, and introduced Nonindicted 18 to Defendant 6.

④ On June 29, 2011, Defendant 6 presented the documents stating the above Work Convention and the △△△△△△ Project Promotion Plan to Nonindicted 18, and explained about the △△△△△△ Project. Defendant 6 guaranteed Nonindicted 18 the right to operate the foregoing Project, such as the development of items, trademark development, marketing, public relations, agency, and entertainment agency, while requesting KRW 100 million.

⑤ Accordingly, on June 29, 2011, Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 18 drafted a business partnership agreement with which Nonindicted Company 7 entrusted Nonindicted Company 36 with the development of items, trademark development, marketing, publicity, and entertainment agency business among the △△△△△△ business. In addition, Nonindicted 18 delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant 6 through Nonindicted 19 on the same day, and Defendant 6 borrowed Nonindicted 18 with a certificate of KRW 100 million.

(b) Whether the doctor or ability to guarantee the business rights, such as the duties of the entertainment agency, exists;

① As seen earlier, according to the business agreement between Nonindicted Company 7 and ○○○○○, Nonindicted Company 7 ought to establish a Main SPC and to participate in the △△△△△ business operation plan that Defendant 6 presented to Nonindicted 18, by December 31, 2011. In addition, the documents on the △△△△△△ business operation plan that Defendant 6 presented to Nonindicted 18 include, as its equity capital, Main SPC’s KRW 20 billion and KRW 80 billion with the PF’s KRW 10 billion with the total amount of KRW 10 billion. Accordingly, Nonindicted Company 7 should attract construction and financial companies, which can prepare at least 20 billion with its equity capital, as its equity capital, as its Main SPC participation company, and accordingly, the △△△△△△△ business operation is carried out, and accordingly, the △△△△△△△ business operation right is guaranteed to Nonindicted 18.

② However, at the time of June 29, 2011, it appears that the contract was concluded that the participation in the Main SPC was not concluded. Even based on the data submitted by Defendant 6, Nonindicted Company 7 received a letter of intent or agreement from 24 companies from September 1, 2011 to December 28, 2011, and most of them expressed their intent to participate in Maain SPC in relation to specific business activities. Among them, the letter of intent to participate in the construction company or the agreement required by the above business agreement is only intended to participate in Main SPC in the future when the △△△△△△△△△ business is being carried out, or there is no specific disclosure of the construction company’s investment plan. Moreover, the agreement of the financial company merely appears to have an intent to invest in the future △△△△ business by creating the fund in the future.

③ Moreover, Nonindicted Co. 7 did not have capital stock as a company established by advance payment and did not have any specific human organization, and thus did not have the ability to carry out the business of attracting investors, including the company participating in Main SPC.

④ Ultimately, as of June 29, 201, when Nonindicted 18 received KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 18, Defendant 6 deemed that Nonindicted 18 had no intent or ability to guarantee business rights, such as item development, trademark development, marketing, publicity, and entertainment agency, among the △△△△ business, to Nonindicted 18.

(c) Whether the person has an intention or ability to return KRW 100 million in the absence of the project;

① Even if Defendant 6, at the time of June 29, 2011, had an intention or ability to guarantee Nonindicted 18’s business rights, such as the development of items, trademark development, marketing, publicity, and entertainment agency, etc., Defendant 6 had no intention or ability to return KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 18 in the event that the △△△△△ business is not run, so the same holds true that Defendant 6 may be aware of the intention to obtain fraud.

② In other words, in a case where a person who was invested at the time of an investment agreement uses the investment fund for the investment project that explained the intent or ability to return the principal within a certain period even if he/she was paid the investment fund from an investor and explained it to the investor, if the investor makes a false statement as if he/she were to return the principal within a certain period, it may constitute a fraudulent act as a requirement for fraud, in view of the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the relationship between the investor and the investor, the transactional situation, the investor’s experience, knowledge, character, occupation, etc., and if the investor has made an investment entirely believed and made an investment in the principal return agreement, it shall be determined as to whether the investor had the intent to acquire the investment fund from the victim as at the time of the investment agreement (see, e.g

③ As seen earlier, Defendant 6’s business right, such as the entertainment agency’s business right, based on the cycle of guaranteeing Nonindicted 18, is premised on △△△△△△. According to the business agreement between Nonindicted Company 7 and ○○○○○○, in a case where the establishment of Main PC by December 31, 201 and the establishment of Maain PC is unable to participate in the construction company, financial company and public relations, the foregoing business agreement becomes void. In addition, Defendant 6 drafted a loan certificate after receiving KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 18 on June 29, 2011. Accordingly, if Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 18 did not proceed by December 31, 201, it appears that Defendant 6 agreed to return KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 18.

④ 그러나 피고인 6은 2008년경 ◎◎은행 대출금 5,000만 원, ♡♡카드 카드대금 485만 원, ☆☆은행 대출금 1,500만 원을 변제하지 못하여 신용불량자로 분류되었고, 종합소득세도 납입하지 못하고 있었다. 피고인 6은 2011. 6.경 공소외 17에 대하여 7억 5,000만 원의 채무도 부담하고 있었다. 피고인 6에게는 별다른 재산이 없었고, 일정한 수입도 없었다. 실제로 피고인 6은 공소외 18로부터 받은 1억 원 중 4,000만 원을 공소외 17에게 기존 채무에 대한 변제 명목으로 지급하기도 하였다.

⑤ In light of the above circumstances, at the time of receiving the investment of KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 18, Defendant 6 is deemed to have no intention or ability to return KRW 100 million when the △△△△ business is no longer located.

【Claims regarding Fraud against Non-Indicted 20 (Defendant 6, Defendant 7)】

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant 6’s intent and ability to sell six commercial buildings to Nonindicted 20 by carrying out the △△△△△ business, but the △△△△ business was finally omitted. Therefore, Defendant 6 cannot be deemed to have attempted to acquire the same as the facts charged.

B. Defendant 7 merely introduced Nonindicted 20 to Defendant 6, and did not participate in the △△△ business or conspired to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant 6's intent to acquire the above

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is determined that Defendant 6 deceiving Nonindicted 20 and defrauded KRW 100 million as stated in the facts charged.

1) The reasons why Nonindicted 20 gave a total of KRW 100 million to Defendant 6

① 공소외 20의 어머니 공소외 27은 2011. 3.경 지인으로서 ‘★★사’라는 절의 보살인 공소외 28을 통하여 공소외 7 회사 회장의 직함으로 활동하는 피고인 7과 공소외 7 회사가 추진하는 △△△△△△ 사업에 관하여 알게 되었다. 공소외 28은 피고인 7로부터 받은 △△△△△△ 사업의 사업계획서를 공소외 27에게 보여주기도 하였다.

② Around March 18, 2011, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 stated that Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 were Defendant 7 along with Nonindicted 28. At the time, Defendant 7 explained on the above business based on the business plan, promotion plan, business agreement between Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27, the work agreement between Nonindicted Company 7 and 7, and articles related thereto. Defendant 7 stated that Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 did not express their intent to sell the shop opened first among the above business complex to Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 20 stated that the investigative agency did not accurately memory whether Defendant 7 and Nonindicted 7 were the horses on the sale of the commercial building on March 18, 2011. However, considering that Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 did not possess Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 70,000 won on March 21, 201, it appears that Defendant 710,000 won on a check, Defendant 70,510.

③ On or around March 21, 201, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 met Defendant 6 and Defendant 7. From that place, Defendant 6 or Defendant 7 opened some commercial buildings from among Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 in the △△△△△ business in the form of the building first on or around August 2011, and two commercial buildings are sold in the form of the building first, and the remaining four commercial buildings are sold in the form of 20, and the remaining four commercial buildings are sold in the form of 50,000,000 won. Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 are to pay the balance of KRW 10,000 to Defendant 6,00,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

④ Since then, Defendant 7 and Nonindicted 28 demanded that Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 pay the money for the intermediate payment on a continuous basis. After August 201, 201, Nonindicted 20 resisted to Defendant 7, Defendant 7 made an investment of KRW 200,000 to participate in Main SPC while the business was changed in a better manner to invest in Main SPC. In addition, Defendant 7 demanded that KRW 150,000,000 be invested in Main SPC because it was converted into Main SPC investment. In addition, Defendant 7 was kept in SPC form when the receipt of the investment money was being carried out, and thus, Defendant 7 remitted the money to Defendant 16,000,000 won to the effect that the money was returned at any time when the money was returned.

2) Whether there exists an intention or ability to sell the shop sales right

① As seen earlier, from January 201, Defendant 1, among the △△△△△△ business, established a plan for promoting the business, such as a casino experience center, in the first district from around January 201, in the form of a temporary building. However, even after February 25, 2011, the MOU concluded between Nonindicted Company 7 and ○○○○, Defendant 1 was unable to start the business, such as a casino experience center. Therefore, around March 21, 2011, it is deemed that the Defendants had no intent or ability to guarantee the right of the shop occupants, which was first opened to Nonindicted 20, around August 2011.

② In addition, as seen in the above [Defendant 6] 2. B. B., Defendant 6 received an additional amount of KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 20 on November 11, 2011, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to take part in the construction company, financial company, and public relations for establishing a Main SPC by December 31, 201, in accordance with the Work Agreement between Nonindicted Company 7 and ○○○do. Accordingly, the Defendants are deemed to have no intention or ability to guarantee the right to rent rent for commercial buildings premised on the △△△△△△△ business.

3) Whether there exists an intention or ability to return KRW 100 million in the absence of a project

① As seen in the above agreement entered into between Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 20 on March 21, 2011, Defendant 6 agreed to immediately return the money that Defendant 6 received to Nonindicted 20 when it is difficult to guarantee the right to shop occupants.

② However, as seen in the above [Defendant 6] 2. C., it is deemed that Defendant 6 did not have any intention or ability to return KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 20 if the △△△△△ project was not run.

B. Whether Defendant 7 conspired

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is determined that the defendant 7 acquired KRW 100 million from the non-indicted 20 as stated in the facts charged in collusion with the defendant 6.

① Defendant 7 was in the position of the president of Nonindicted Company 7, and Defendant 7 stated in this court that it is not a person in charge of raising Nonindicted Company 7’s funds. However, Defendant 7 stated in the investigative agency that Defendant 6 had the position of the representative director of Nonindicted Company 7, and Defendant 6 said that he had the position of the representative director of Nonindicted Company 7, and that he had the position of the president who was conducting the work in relation to singing.

② Defendant 7 appears to have explained Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27 for the first time on March 18, 201, about the business of △△△△△△△, and the said business to the effect that Defendant 7 would guarantee the sales right of commercial buildings in the said business complex.

③ On March 21, 2011, Defendant 7, along with Defendant 6, explained Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 27, as well as Defendant 7, about the guarantee of △△△△△△△ business and the right to shop occupants. As seen earlier, Defendant 7 provided an explanation on the continuous change of the business structure even after receiving KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 20 on March 21, 201, and urged Nonindicted 20 to make additional investments.

④ On November 11, 2011, Defendant 6 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 20,000 from Nonindicted 20, and then informed Defendant 7 of the fact. Defendant 6, on the same day, remitted KRW 13.45 million to Defendant 7 by December 8, 201, including remitting KRW 10 million to Defendant 7. Meanwhile, Defendant 6 appears to have distributed some of KRW 50 million received from Nonindicted 20 on March 21, 201 to Defendant 7.

1. Defendant 1

피고인 1은 ○○도지사와 친분이 두텁다는 점을 이용하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 ○○도지사 등 관계 공무원의 직무에 속한 사항을 알선하겠다는 명목으로 합계 20억 원에 달하는 거액의 돈을 받았다. 피고인 1은 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 돈을 받기 위하여 노골적으로 ○○도지사에게 돈을 주기로 약속하였다는 말도 하였다. 이로써 공무원이 수행하는 직무의 공정성 및 불가매수성과 그에 대한 사회 일반의 신뢰를 현저하게 훼손하였다. 또한, 피고인 1은 △△△△△△ 사업을 추진하면서 가장납입의 방법으로 회사를 설립하여, 주식회사의 자본 충실 및 거래관계자의 신뢰를 해쳤다. 피고인 1은 △△△△△△ 사업과 직접적인 직무관련성이 있는 민자유치위원인 피고인 4에게 부정한 청탁과 함께 2,500만 원이 넘는 돈을 공여하였다. 그 외에도 피고인 1은 △△△△△△ 사업이 무산된 이후 다른 사업을 추진하면서 ▷▷관광공사 사장인 피고인 4에게 뇌물인 공소외 14 회사의 지분 20%를 공여하였다. 이와 같이 피고인 1은 △△△△△△ 사업 등 자신이 추진하는 사업의 성공에만 주안점을 둔 채 각종 위법행위를 스스럼없이 저질렀다. 그럼에도 피고인 1은 자신이 사무실에 압수수색이 이루어지자 증거를 인멸하는 행위도 하였다.

However, among the 2 billion won funds received as good offices by Defendant 1, it includes the nature of funds for the promotion of legitimate business.The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the violation of the Commercial Act, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the crime of false entry in public electronic records, the crime of uttering of false entry in public electronic records, and the crime of giving property in breach of trust shall be considered at the same time in relation to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of giving property in breach of trust. In relation to the crime of offering of bribe, 20% shares of Nonindicted

In such circumstances, the sentencing conditions, including Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively determined as per Disposition.

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 in collusion with Defendant 1 that Defendant 1 is more friendship with ○○ Do Governor, and received a large amount of money from Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) in total amount of KRW 2 billion under the pretext of mediating matters pertaining to the duties of the pertinent public official, such as ○ Do Governor, etc. In order to lead Defendant 5 (Defendant 4), Defendant 2 gave a public official a cash for the △△△△△ business in order to bring about additional withdrawals by Defendant 5 (Defendant 4), and the ○○ Do Governor did not receive money from any other person than Defendant 1, and the ○ Do Governor should receive money from a person who is not Defendant 1, and should receive money from a public official in a timely manner before the project is submitted. Accordingly, the fairness and the purchase of duties performed by a public official and the public trust in society was significantly damaged.

However, among the above 2 billion won, the amount distributed by Defendant 2 is KRW 60,000,000. Defendant 2 did not have the same criminal record.

In such circumstances, the sentencing conditions, including Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively determined as per Disposition.

3. Defendant 3

피고인 3은 피고인 1과 공모하여 피고인 1이 ○○도지사와 친분이 두텁다는 점을 이용하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 ○○도지사 등 관계 공무원의 직무에 속한 사항을 알선하겠다는 명목으로 합계 20억 원에 달하는 거액의 돈을 받았다. 이로써 공무원이 수행하는 직무의 공정성 및 불가매수성과 그에 대한 사회 일반의 신뢰를 현저하게 훼손하였다. 피고인 3은 이에 그치지 않고 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 다른 사건으로 체포된 것을 기화로 공소외 2에게 자신이 아는 변호사를 통하여 ■■지검 차장검사에게 청탁하여 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)를 불구속처리하게 해준다고 속여 그와 같은 명목으로 공소외 2로부터 1억 원을 받으려고도 하였다. 피고인 3에게는 동종의 범행으로 집행유예의 판결을 받은 전과도 있다.

However, among the above 2 billion won, the money distributed by Defendant 3 is KRW 40 million. The crime of fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Nonindicted 2 was committed without achieving its purpose. Each of the crimes committed by Defendant 3 was committed and attempted. The equity should be taken into account when the judgment is rendered in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which became final and conclusive.

In such circumstances, the sentencing conditions, including Defendant 3’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively determined as per Disposition.

4. Defendant 4

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) The crime of taking property in breach of trust

The sentencing criteria shall not apply after being indicted before July 1, 2014.

2) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Bribery) and the crime of acceptance of bribe

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (30 million won or more but less than 50 million won) of the Acceptance of Bribery

【Special Convicted Person】

3) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set, a majority of the standards for handling multiple crimes shall not be applied directly, but the lower limit of the punishment shall be based on the lower limit of the sentencing range in accordance with the sentencing criteria for the crimes of violation of

(b) Determination of sentence;

피고인 4는 민자유치위원의 신분에 있던 당시 피고인 1로부터 업무와 직접적인 관련성이 있는 △△△△△△ 사업의 심의와 관련하여 부정한 청탁을 받고 2,500만 원이 넘는 돈을 받았다. 피고인 4는 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임하여 공무원으로 의제되는 신분에 있었음에도, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 자신의 아들이 거주하는 아파트를 장기간 무상으로 제공받아 약 4,980만 원 상당의 이익을 취득하고, 피고인 1로부터 ▷▷관광공사가 운영하는 면세점에 입점하는 회사의 지분을 받았다. 이로써 피고인 4는 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 수행하는 직무의 공정성과 그에 대한 사회의 신뢰를 크게 훼손하였다.

However, the defendant 4 did not have the same criminal record.

In such circumstances, the sentencing criteria shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant 4’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime.

5. Defendant 5 (Defendant 4)

피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 자신의 사업을 원활하게 수행하기 위하여 공무원으로 의제되는 피고인 4에게 피고인 4의 아들이 거주하는 아파트를 무상으로 제공하여 약 4,980만 원 상당의 이익을 공여하였다. 이로써 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)는 ▷▷관광공사 사장이 수행하는 직무의 공정성과 그에 대한 사회의 신뢰를 크게 훼손하였다. 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게는 동종의 범행으로 집행유예를 선고받은 전과도 있다.

However, the defendant 5 (the defendant 4) contributed to identifying the whole appearance of the case in cooperation with the investigation.

In such circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the age, character and conduct of Defendant 5 (Defendant 4) and the circumstances after the crime.

6. Defendant 6

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1. Crimes of violating the Commercial Act, crimes of false entry into public electronic records, etc., and crimes of uttering of false entry into public electronic records;

The sentencing criteria are not set.

2) Each fraud

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud> Type 2 (10 million won to less than 500 million won) > Basic Area (1 to 4 years)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Standards for Suspension of Execution] Irregular Reasons: Criminal records of the same kind

Positive reasons: A person who has no criminal record or heavier than a stay of execution, and efforts to recover some damage and to recover serious damage.

3) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes

In the case of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set, many standards for handling multiple crimes shall not be applied directly, but the minimum of the punishment shall be based on the lower limit of the sentencing range in the sentencing criteria for fraud).

(b) Determination of sentence;

Defendant 6 established Nonindicted Co. 7, a PM company for the promotion of △△△△ business, by means of the best payment, and reliance on the company’s capital adequacy and transactional relationship. Defendant 6 merely carried out the △△△△ business on the ground of Nonindicted Co. 7 established by the means of fictitious payment, and did not have any specific and visible business progress, but instead did not have any specific and visible business progress, by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 20 million won in total as if he would secure the business right or commercial sales store sales right. In addition, Defendant 6 did not return the investment money when the △△△△△△ business was not carried out, even if he returned the investment money to the above victims, due to the financial situation where he was liable for the large amount of the investment money. Defendant 6 had the same criminal history as the same type of fraud.

However, Defendant 6 agreed with the victims by returning a part of the investment funds to the victims and providing them with a future repayment plan. The same type of fraud criminal record is a fine.

In such circumstances, the sentencing conditions, including Defendant 6’s age, character and conduct, and the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively determined as per Disposition.

7. Defendant 7

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud> Type 2 (10 million won to less than 500 million won) > Basic Area (1 to 4 years)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Standards for Suspension of Execution] Irregular Reasons: Criminal records of the same kind

Positive reasons: Recovery of partial damage

(b) Determination of sentence;

Defendant 7, while carrying out the △△△△△ business as the chairperson of Nonindicted Company 7, Nonindicted Co. 7, the PM company, in collusion with Defendant 6, did not have any specific and visible business progress, by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 20, thereby deceiving the victim Nonindicted 100 million won, as if he had to secure the right to rent commercial buildings. Nevertheless, Defendant 7 is consistent with the defense that is difficult to obtain from the investigative agency to this court. Defendant 7 had a same criminal record of fraud.

However, the amount received by Defendant 7 out of the amount obtained by deceit is not large, and some damage was recovered by Defendant 6, who is an accomplice. The same criminal record is a criminal record of a fine.

In such circumstances, the sentencing criteria shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant 7’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime.

1. Possession of property in breach of trust due to acquisition of KRW 5 million around April 2011;

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 4 was commissioned as a member of the Private Capital Inducement Committee from December 20, 2008 to December 19, 2012, Defendant 4 was in charge of deliberation on the promotion plan of the private capital inducement of ○○○ Do, various support, including the scale and method of support for investment enterprises, etc., and other matters related to the private capital inducement that the Do Governor submits, etc. in connection with the deliberation on the private capital inducement conducted by ○ Do Governor.

In relation to the △△△△△ business, Defendant 4 was scheduled to deliberate on the business plan proposed by Nonindicted Company 7, the general planning company of the above business, and thus, there was a duty to deliberate on the feasibility of the business and the feasibility of the business plan as a member of the private capital inducement committee in an objective and fair manner.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 4는 그 임무에 위배하여, 2011. 4.경 제주시 (주소 2 생략) ⊙⊙빌딩 8층 사무실에서, 공소외 7 회사를 총괄기획사로 내세워 배후에서 사업을 추진하고 있는 ○○도 투자유치자문관 피고인 1로부터 공소외 7 회사의 사업제안이 민자유치위원회 회의에서 계속하여 좋은 방향으로 검토될 수 있도록 도와달라는 취지의 부정한 청탁과 함께 500만 원을 교부받았다.

B. Determination

1) There is evidence supporting the fact that Defendant 4 received five million won from Defendant 1 on or around April 201. The following evidence exists: ① Defendant 1’s statement on the page of April 201, “Yyang professor, this special weather report, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, and Nonindicted 425” is written: ② Defendant 1 stated the meaning of the above statement at an investigative agency as to the meaning of the above statement; Defendant 1 stated that the said nine was combined to the said nine, and that Nonindicted 4.5 million won was written to Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 37, 30, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 40, and Nonindicted 41, each of which was written to the effect that Nonindicted 300,000 won was written to the effect that Defendant 40,000 won was written to the effect that Nonindicted 4.5 million won was written to the effect that Defendant 1 provided.

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 4 received KRW 5 million from Defendant 1 on or around April 201, 201 only with the foregoing evidence. However, it is only sufficient to recognize that Defendant 4 received money from Defendant 1 on or around April 201.

① If Defendant 1 added up the amount that he had been placed in the ordinary meeting to nine (9) including the above Defendant 4, the sum totaling KRW 26.5 million does not coincide with the description that is KRW 25 million. Defendant 1 also stated in the investigative agency that he would know it well.

② As to the money paid to other persons, including Defendant 4, Defendant 1’s 201 Dialian, Defendant 1’s specified amount as “Y 1,00,” around January 201, around February 2011, i.e., “Y 50, 200”, “Defendant 45,” and “Y 5,” on March 26, 2011. However, Defendant 1 also stated that the amount of money paid to Defendant 4 and 25, including Defendant 4, was written in a lump sum with nine names and 25,000 won. Accordingly, Defendant 1 stated to the effect that the amount of money paid to Defendant 4, etc. was expressed in an investigative agency as stated in Defendant 9, including Defendant 4.

③ At around January 201, 201, Defendant 4 used the check of an amount corresponding thereto with respect to the description of “YY 1,000”; around February 2, 2011, “YY 500”; “Defendant 45” on February 26, 2011; and “YY 5” on March 26, 2011. However, it was not found that Defendant 4 used the check of an amount equal thereto.

④ As long as Defendant 1’s statement on whether Defendant 4 gave KRW 5 million to Defendant 4 around April 201, is unclear as above, the part on Defendant 4’s written statement premised on Defendant 1’s statement cannot be deemed as having value of independent evidence.

C. Conclusion

In the end, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, the innocence should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the defendant is found guilty of the crime of taking advantage of trust in general

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the acquisition of profits equivalent to KRW 54,798,800;

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 4는 2011. 7. 18.부터 2014. 5. 22.까지 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 국내외관광객 유치 및 마케팅 사업, 내국인 면세점 설치·운영 등 ▷▷관광공사의 업무 전반을 총괄하였다.

피고인 4는 2011. 1.경 위 가.항 기재와 같이 피고인 1이 추진하고 있는 △△△△△△ 사업을 도와주는 과정에서 위 사업 중 제1지구 시범단지 내 ‘드라마세트장 및 카지노체험관’ 사업 부문의 인수를 추진하고 있는 건설업자 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)를 알게 됨을 기화로, 2011. 3.경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 위 사업이 성공할 수 있게 계속 도와달라는 취지로 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)가 운영하는 공소외 22 회사가 시행하여 건축한 김포 (주소 3 생략) 소재 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 1채를 피고인의 아들 공소외 13이 거주할 수 있도록 무상임차 형식으로 제공받기로 약속하였다.

이에 따라 피고인 4는 2011. 5.경 피고인 4의 아들 공소외 13을 위 ◈◈◈◈◈◈아파트 (동 호수 생략)(42평형)에 입주시켜 거주하게 한 후, 2011. 7. 18. ▷▷관광공사 사장에 취임하자 2011. 7.경 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)에게 마치 위 아파트를 임대차보증금 2억 원에 전세로 임차한 것처럼 허위 전세계약서를 요구하여 교부받고, 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 관광객 유치 등을 통해 위 사업이 성공할 수 있도록 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로서 계속 도와달라는 취지의 청탁과 함께 위 아파트를 계속 제공받기로 한 다음 2014. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 13을 위 아파트에 무상으로 거주하게 하였다.

이로써 피고인 4는 2011. 7. 18.부터 2014. 4. 30.경까지 피고인 5(대판:피고인 4)로부터 ▷▷관광공사 사장의 직무와 관련하여 위 아파트 (동 호수 생략)의 차임 합계 54,798,800원 상당의 이익을 수수하였다.

B. Determination

검사는 이 부분에 관하여 피고인 4가 ▷▷관광공사 사장으로 취임한 2011. 7. 18.부터 공소외 13이 이 사건 아파트에서 퇴거한 2014. 4. 30.까지 이 사건 아파트의 차임 중 평균액을 기준으로 계산하여 54,798,800원[한국감정원의 감정결과( 2014고합616호 증거목록 순번 319)에 따라 계산할 경우 54,919,300원인데, 이는 오기 및 계산상 착오에 의한 것으로 보인다] 상당의 이익을 수수한 것으로 기소하였다.

However, since the amount of the accepted acceptance in the crime of bribery is a constituent element for the crime according to its degree, it is subject to strict proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2453, May 26, 2011). Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the minimum amount of the appraisal result prior to the recognition of the difference as a bribe. Accordingly, Defendant 4 can only be deemed to have received the benefit equivalent to at least 49,80,600, at least 49,800 won.

C. Conclusion

In the end, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Yong-sik (Presiding Judge)