The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around 2003, the Defendant sold land owned by the Defendant to E in Ilyang-dong, Busan-si, and D located in the said land (miscellaneous land). E extended a farm warehouse constructed in the said land (miscellaneous land) to an office and a freezing warehouse without obtaining permission from the competent authority and used it as an freezing and freezing warehouse. On around 2008, when a public official in charge of the Ildong-gu, Busan-gu, the competent authority, was controlled by an unauthorized extension, the Defendant got the land category of the said land C to be changed to the food processing factory site.

Around April 2008, the Defendant received 20 million won as entertainment expenses from E in the land located in the above C, stating that “The alteration of the purpose of use is ordered by requesting a public official of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the household,”

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables on the pretext of solicitation or mediation for the affairs handled by public officials.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s change of the purpose of use of the farming warehouse building, including the land in Ilyang-dong, Busan-si C (hereinafter “instant land”) and the illegally extended parts on the ground thereof, in the food processing plant, is not accepted as the public official’s solicitation or solicitation.

3. Determination

A. The evidence of criminal facts must be presented by the prosecutor in criminal proceedings, and even if the defendant's indictment is unreasonable and false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant, and criminal facts should be proved by the judge to have a high probability to recognize it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991).

Some of the defendant's prosecutor's statements and E's statements are made as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

(1) First, ..