(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.1.28. 선고 2018고합897 판결

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, by a fine of 80 million won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the defendant A shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 100,000 won converted from one day.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant B to provide community service for 80 hours.

50,023,179 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

To order the defendant A to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Reasons

Criminal facts

【Basic Facts】

Defendant A is employed as a public official of Grade 9 in the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 10, 1976, through a construction division, CLocal Land Management Office, D Local Land Management Road E and Section head on April 17, 2006, C Regional Land Management Office H head on April 8, 2008, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Head of C Regional Land Management Office on March 12, 2009, the Head of C Regional Land Management Office on February 25, 2010, the Head of C Regional Land Management Office on January 26, 201, and the Head of C Regional Land Management Office on January 26, 201, the Head of C Regional Land Management Office on July 1, 2012, the Head of C Regional Land Management Office and the Head of D Local Land Management Office on November 5, 2012, who retired from his/her service as the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on March 14, 2015.

Defendant B is the representative of P who is specialized in construction of road and bridge facilities, drainage pipes, etc.

On the other hand, Defendant A was in charge of the planning of road construction works, the selection of design service companies and construction companies, review of the adequacy of design and project, construction management and supervision, etc. at the time of working as the head of the division, the head of the F office, the director of L bureau, etc. as above.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant A

(a) Each acceptance of bribe related to the purchase of vehicles;

On September 2012, the defendant, at the closure room of the Guri-si Q, exercised influence on the above B to receive a subcontract for the road construction work, and the defendant, in the management and supervision of the subcontract construction of the KGGP, agreed to the proposal, "I want to purchase the vehicle to be paid in lieu of the full payment of the vehicle installments" in return for the solicitation, "I want to receive the proposal, "I will pay the balance and incidental expenses in addition to the installment because it is difficult to see the need for mechanisms," and then demand that B pay the balance and incidental expenses."

Accordingly, on September 13, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the employees of the Simdong Branch Co., Ltd. to purchase the U car in a discount, and registered in the name of the suspect (vehicle registration number: V) around September 11, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the Defendant had B pay the balance of the above vehicle and the amount of KRW 15,302,760 in the name of the Defendant in the family account (Account Number: X) of the World Bank in the name of the Defendant; around October 11, 2012, B paid KRW 1,202,916 in the vehicle to B from September 11, 2012 to November 12, 2012; from around 2000 to 315, 10 to 207, 200 to 310 to 314,71,71 and 47, as shown in the separate sheet; and

Accordingly, the defendant received 17,708,592 won and 28,868,087 won in relation to his duties as a public official.

B. Acceptance of bribe related to entertainment

around February 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) exercised influence on “AAA”, which is a business establishment located in the marina in Gangnam-gu Seoul Z hotel; and (b) received service fees equivalent to KRW 132,00,000 from B in return for solicitation to receive various conveniences in the management, supervision, etc. of the subcontracting project; and (c) received the payment of entertainment charges equivalent to KRW 3,446,500 in total on 15 occasions from around February 22, 2014 to June 19, 2016, as shown in attached Table 2 of the List of Crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant received 3,446,500 won as a public official in relation to his duties.

2. Defendant B

As described in paragraph (1) above, the Defendant exercised influence to obtain a subcontract for the road construction work, and paid a total of 28,868,087 won of the above vehicle from September 11, 2012 to November 12, 2012 in consideration of various conveniences in the management, supervision, etc. of the subcontract construction of the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., and issued a total of 17,708,592 won in total and three times from around October 14, 2013 to September 11, 2015 by giving a total of 17,708,592 won in total and 24 times from around September 201, 2012 to around November 12, 2012, and from around 14, 2014 to around 30,500 won in total as shown in Attached Table 1, Table 28,868,087 won in total and from around 16, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s partial statement, Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness AB;

1. Each police statement made to AC, AD, AE, T, AF, AG, AH, AI, and AJ;

1. Written statement prepared by AK;

1. Each investigation report (the receipt of fees for the golf course, confirmation of golf course membership owned by suspects B, details of P accounting related to food value offered to suspects A, discovery of evidence on suspect A's suspected divulgence of secrets in the line of duty, results of execution of search and seizure warrant applied to the financial account (number 57), details of credit card usage related to the offering of bribe by suspect B (201-2016), details of transactions paid from AL account with U vehicle installments (1-2016), details of transactions delivered to B from AL account, confirmation of market price, records of projects ordered by the department in which A had been employed, records of projects subcontracted in P);

1. Details of currency B and A, and details of receipt and reception of text B and A, and details of use of credit cards in B;

1. Each certificate of career, reply to request for cooperation in investigation affairs (promotion plan for road projects), personnel record cards (Investigation records 2128 pages), organization of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, outline of the implementation procedure for national highways and highways construction projects, AM bridge construction plan, AM bridge distribution plan;

1. Submission of data related to search and seizure (number 47), a CD (number 89), 1. A certified copy of the register (N) and the register of motor vehicles (1823 pages of an investigation record);

1. AY contract, details of payment for A vehicle, Y2 replys (A) to the second response to investigation cooperation, replys to requests for investigation cooperation (AY), details of taxation (V), issuance of deposit accounts, and a list of total tax invoices;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 129(1) of each Criminal Act; Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the fact of acceptance of bribe; Nos. 1 to 3; Table 1 to 3; Table 1 to 4 through 27; Table 2 of the List of Crimes in Annex A and Table 2 of the List of Crimes); each sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed concurrently;

B. Defendant B: Each of the Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Code (as a whole, including the offering of a bribe, Nos. 1 to 3, Nos. 1 to 4 through 27, the list of crimes in the annexed sheet of crimes, and the list of crimes in the annexed sheet Nos. 2, each of which is subject to imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (as regards the money stated in the attached Table Nos. 1 4 through 27 with the largest punishment, the weight of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe on the money);

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of offering of a bribe in relation to the money stated in the attached Table 1 Nos. 4 through 27 with the heavy penalty)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Social service order;

Defendant B: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, B pays a vehicle installment, etc. instead, and the defendant receives entertainment from B, but this is merely a receipt of a long-term relationship with B, and there is no relevance to duties and quid pro quo.

B. In particular, KRW 17,708,592 in the vehicle balance and the registration tax, total of KRW 17,708,592 in the annexed Table 1 No. 1 to No. 3 in the annexed Table 1 to No. 3 was paid by B in spite of the fact that the Defendant had not made the Defendant to pay on behalf of B, and KRW 28,868,087 in the aggregate of the installments of the vehicles listed in the annexed Table 1 to No. 4 to No. 27 in the annexed Table 1

C. Furthermore, although there is a fact that the defendant introduced B to the persons related to the construction enterprises in which he knew B, he did not exercise any official influence in the process of obtaining orders from those related to the above construction enterprises.

2. Relevant legal principles

A. The term “duty” in the crime of bribery includes not only a public official’s duty under the legal control, but also an act closely related to his/her duty, or a duty under the customary or de facto jurisdiction, and a duty that may assist or influence a person with decision-making authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17797, Mar. 24, 201). In addition, the term “duty” referred to in the crime of bribery includes not only a duty prescribed by the law, but also a duty related thereto, and all duties that a public official, such as a duty under the ordinary legal authority, even if he/she does not actually take charge of duties in the past or in the future, in addition to a duty he/she takes charge of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 200

B. Bribery is the legal interest of the public official’s process of performing his/her duties and the non-purchase of his/her duties directly based on the social trust. As such, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established if the amount of money received from the public official’s duties and the public official’s performance of duties is a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to consider the existence of a special solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2609, Dec. 26, 1997). Whether a certain benefit received by a public official is an unjust benefit in a quid pro quo relationship with a public official, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the contents of the relevant public official’s duties, the relationship between the public official and the provider of the benefits, the circumstance and timing of receiving the benefits, etc. If the public official received the benefits from the public official’s performance of his/her duties and it is clearly doubtful that the public official received the benefits from the public official’s performance of duties.

C. In order to recognize the criminal intent of accepting public officials in relation to the duties of the public official in the crime of acceptance of bribe, strict proof is required. However, in a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent while recognizing the fact of accepting money and valuables, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent. In light of indirect facts, if it can be deemed that the money and valuables received in return for the public official’s duties are received without implied consent when the defendant recognizes the circumstances that have the nature of the money and valuables as consideration for the public official’s duties even if they do so, the criminal intent of accepting bribe is sufficiently recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16

3. Determination

A. Presumed facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged:

1) Details of Defendant’s duty

A) The Defendant worked in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on May 10, 1967 (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, both the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the change of its name was not considered) since the Defendant was appointed to the AP and the AP of the A0 River Management Office, and most of the Defendant worked in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The C Regional Land Management Agency was working in the AR, road facility E of the same Gu, and the AS of the D Local Land Management Office, etc. from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2016, and between the removal from office of a National Assembly member, the I and the head of the C Regional Land Management Authority, the L division of the same country, the M room AT Policy Bureau, the N local Land Management Office, and the Director of the 0 Local Land Management Office.

B) For a new road construction project, the road facility station under the jurisdiction of the local construction management authority shall take charge of design service companies, construction works, post-quality control and safety inspection, and the river station shall examine the appropriateness of design in connection with all structures to be built on rivers, such as teaching angles, and shall manage and supervise defective construction. The design service company, after consultation with the competent department after the selection, shall determine whether to reflect the general design, details, or reflect the design by the patent or new technology construction method, and the construction company shall enter into a subcontract with the relevant specific company by reflecting the patent technology as it is, unless there are special circumstances where the patent technology of the specific company is reflected in the shop design.

2) The relationship between the defendant, B, and P

A) From June 1996, B established and operated AP specializing in construction of road and bridge facilities, drainage pipes, etc. (the name at the time of establishment is referred to as “AU”; hereinafter referred to as “P”). From 2011 to 2016, P was awarded a total of KRW 163 cases, total contract amount of KRW 49,815,259,000 during the period from 201 to 2016. Of them, the construction ordered by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and public enterprises under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Of them, total of KRW 86 cases, total contract amount of KRW 47 cases, total of KRW 10,211,543,000, total of contract amount of KRW 10,543,000.

B) The Defendant and B did not have a friendly relationship even if they were the teachers attending the same church. At the time of the public official managing and supervising the road site under the jurisdiction of the Gangwon-do AV Regional Land Authority, P implemented around 2005, the Defendant and B came to know of their first and first. They followed a friendly relationship, such as a paper meal, golf, and sacrat, and a sacrata. They continued to pay golf and sacrata fees at all times, and these relations continued to have been maintained after June 30, 2016, when the Defendant was dismissed as a member.

C) Meanwhile, the Defendant introduced AW (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport AXY as of June 10, 2018) that had worked as his superior to B, and around October 29, 2014, the Defendant purchased and ordered B to buy and donate the Edridton pockets to be used by the AW Bureau. On May 20, 2017, the Defendant instructed B to prepare money to be reduced to B, while coming to the Z hotel Z hotel spana, together with B and B, around May 20, 2017.

D) P entered into a subcontract with respect to “BA” construction (the date of conclusion of the contract), “BB” construction (the date of conclusion of the contract), “BC construction (the date of August 28, 2010), and “BC construction (the date of August 10, 2012 conclusion of the contract) among the construction ordered by the C Regional Land Authority during the term of office as the director of the C Regional Land Authority, the head of the C Regional Land Authority, the head of the C Regional Land Authority, the head of the C Regional Land Authority, and the head of the C Regional Land Authority’s river head, the head of the C Regional Land Authority, and the head of the C Regional Land Authority, respectively, during the term of office as the director of the C Regional Land Authority, among the construction ordered by the C Regional Land Authority (the date of conclusion of the contract, May 7, 2015).

3) Defendant’s activities for B

A) BE-related

On October 28, 2013, the Defendant sent a text message to the Standing Director of the BE Civil Work Management Headquarters, which was executing the “BG” ordered by the BF City at the time of BF City, to the effect that “AC v. BPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP is intended to be able to be able to be able to be able to do so, and that PPPPPPPP PPPPPP is included in the design of the PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP during the construction. However, as the design at the time was determined as another company, the PE

In this regard, although the above projects were not the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, public officials of the competent Ministry of Land, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport have conducted inspections on the whole process once every six months, according to the results of the inspection, the contractor is given the maximum suspension of business or participation after the fact that there is a concern that the contractor will be given the disadvantage to the relevant public officials, and the river or the cryp section of the school will not only be the public officials belonging to the river state and be given the results to the public officials belonging to the competent authorities of the road state, but also the public officials belonging to each local national land administration are well aware of each other, and the workplace can be changed in the future, so it is necessary to maintain a friendly relationship with the public officials belonging to the river state who are not public officials belonging to the relevant local national land management authority.

B) BH-related

On December 16, 2013, the Defendant sent text messages to AB, which were regular directors of the University and BH, stating that “AB had well known the name of P to enable AB to participate in the bid,” and subsequently, he promised B to make a visit to the President BH AB’s regular director on a Saturday, and that “B would be good if you want to make a visit to the President.” At the same time, the Defendant promised to do so at an interview with the President on a monthly Saturday. AB sent text messages to the effect that “Xxxx-xx-BBH” was not “B or PP-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bidding-related bid-related public tender-related bid-related bid-related bid-related bid-related bid-related bid-related bid-related bid-related.

In this regard, AB stated to the effect that public officials such as the defendant can be introduced to other employees if they are aware of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and that in the event of transfer of a job to another business department, various construction conveniences can be seen in relation to the project ordered by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. If you find out in advance the outline of construction works, the competent local government office, the cost of construction works, and the timing of ordering construction works ordered by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, etc., it can be considered based on the project feasibility, and convenience can be seen in the field inspection, etc. even during the construction process.

C) relating to the transmission of documents on the project promotion plan in 2014

On March 25, 2014, the Defendant sent to B a text message "The 14th Road Project Promotion Plan. It was written by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on February 28, 2014," and sent four photographs of 3,4, and 11 to 15 pages of the total 15 pages of the documents (No. 54), which were written by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on February 28, 2014. The above document contains "the status of the continuous implementation of the project in 2014", "the current status of the new implementation of the project in 2014", "the new design project in 2014", "the new design project in 2014", and "the subject of consultation on the new project in 2014 (internal data)".

D) In relation to the L of the Bank

On September 10, 2015, the defendant requested AE who had been in charge of the design service of the "BM" corporation and had been in charge of the business in the "BM" corporation, to the effect that "if a shop design for the above site is made, the company which performs the construction work of the bridge safety inspection which is well known within the above site may perform the work". However, as requested by the defendant, the above shop design was not carried out.

e) BN

On October 6, 2015, the Defendant received text messages, “BN visits,” “BG contact contact contact number,” and then asked BG to the effect that B calls and calls for B to the effect that B. At the time, BN was executing “BO” and the design proposal for B B was reflected in BN was a situation where BN could reduce cost rather than P’s design when constructed through the subcontractor and the registered company.

After the introduction of the defendant, B asked AG to be able to perform the work, and eventually P was awarded a subcontract of KRW 713,900,000 from BN on November 27, 2015.B thereafter, 10,000 in the market price of KRW 4.50,000,000.

F) Concerning 'AM Newly installed works'

On April 21, 2016, the Defendant sent text messages to AF (former Gyeonggi-do Office Construction Headquarters BP), which was the Gyeonggi-do Office, to the effect that “AM rescheduled Construction” was reflected in P’s patent technology, with respect to “AM rescheduled Construction,” as of April 21, 2016, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that: (a) the design of the distribution pipe was reflected in P’s patent technology; and (b) the Defendant sent a telephone to BR, which was the head of the business department in charge of B and B’s implementation design, and (c) the Defendant sent a telephone to the BR, who was the head of the business department in charge of the said construction work, and (d) notified the son of the location of the department in charge of B’s implementation design, and the expected contract amount was KRW 42,606,540,00.

4) As indicated in the facts of the crime, the economic benefitB received by the Defendant from B was as indicated in the judgment. From September 11, 2012 to September 11, 2015, the sum of KRW 46,576,679, including the installment of the vehicle purchased in the name of the Defendant from September 11, 2012 to the account under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant transferred the funds to the account under the name of the employee AL to the account under the name of the Defendant, and paid it in lieu of payment to the AL. From February 22, 2014 to June 19, 2016, the Defendant paid the sum of KRW 3,446,500, including the Defendant’s food and drink, the price of the paper, and the golf amount, by means of a credit card appropriated

5) A statement B made by the donor B was consistent with the investigation agency, and the Defendant exercised influence, and stated that the Defendant requested that the service company for working designs reflects the patent method owned by P in the design of the pertinent project, or that P was made by exercising influence over the trial work so that P can proceed with the relevant construction work.

B. Determination on the payment circumstances, such as payment of vehicle installments

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant received a proposal from B that he would pay the full payment of the vehicle installments in lieu of the vehicle payment on September 2012, and asked the payment of the balance and the incidental expenses of the vehicle. From December 2012 to September 2013, 2012, the ten-time installments of the vehicle from September 2013 (3 to September 2013) were requested by B to pay the payment of the 13th installment of the vehicle.

1) As to the balance and incidental expenses of the vehicle, one to two installments

A) B consistently with the investigative agency, around September 2012, proposed that the Defendant would be paid in lieu of the installment if the Defendant purchased a vehicle with a vehicle to use the vehicle at the close room of the Round. The Defendant agreed to do so. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, the Defendant called “I would have received a large amount of assistance from the Defendant in relation to the ordinary P business, and I would like to pay the remainder and incidental expenses.” It stated that the Defendant would change the Defendant’s vehicle in the idea that I would have received a large number of assistance from the Defendant in relation to the ordinary P business and want to receive future assistance.

B) In this Court, the Defendant also acknowledged the fact that B proposed to pay the full payment on behalf of the entire vehicle payment to himself/herself on September 2012, but asserted that he/she did not simply think of it as an empty horse and never accepted it.

C) The Defendant’s workplace address among the written application for the vehicle log prepared by the Defendant at the time of purchasing the vehicle includes “BS”, “S”, “payment information column”, “BT”, and “BT, the Defendant’s driver’s license number, along with the Defendant’s signature and seal. At the time, AH, who was in charge of the Defendant’s vehicle log purchase business at the Y new business team, sent the Defendant’s vehicle log to the Defendant’s new business team, provided that the branch partner verified himself/herself to the lending customer and explained the loan interest rate, and provided an explanation about the installment payment method, and the notice for payment notice place, etc., and additionally prepares the defective contents in the application. AH stated that all driver’s license numbers can not be confirmed by the branch partner in contact with the Defendant who is the applicant, and that it is not possible to confirm these matters in currency with a third party other than the applicant. The Defendant’s sales of the vehicle also conforms to the Defendant’s statement that the branch partner himself/herself stated to the Defendant’s office.

D) On September 11, 2012, B paid the balance of the vehicle and KRW 15,302,760 through AL, and the Defendant thereafter registered the vehicle on September 13, 2012. Nevertheless, the Defendant stated that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, B was unaware of the payment of the balance of the vehicle and the cost of the vehicle and the cost of the vehicle and the cost of the vehicle were paid from B after two to three days thereafter (3827 pages of the investigation record), but it is difficult to believe the above statement in light of the ordinary procedure of purchase and registration of the vehicle (3827 pages of the investigation record). In addition, the Defendant also stated that he sent the land to B as his domicile on December 2, 2012 because he was aware of the fact that the delivery place of the vehicle was the P office, and that it was difficult to recognize the remainder of the payment after two to three days after the payment of the vehicle after two to three days after the delivery (275 pages of the investigation record).

2) As to the three-12th installment of the vehicle

The defendant asserts that he paid the three to one2 installments, and there are doubtful circumstances such as the defendant's statement that he paid the above installments to the prosecutor's office. However, there is no evidence to see that B paid the above installments or the amount corresponding to B paid the above installments to the defendant. However, there is no reason to see that the defendant or B paid the above installments to the defendant. On the other hand, there is evidence to prove that the defendant submitted 6 times (4,5,7 or 10 installments) out of the above installments of the vehicle (the above increase 1 to 6) to the court, and the defendant submitted 6 times of the above installments (the above increase 1 to 10 installments) to the court, and the defendant's statement that he paid the above installments to the defendant's wife was the next bank (B or P's address and the above increase 4 to 7), the amount of installments (the above increase 4 to 97) and the above increase in the number of installments 1 to 81, 201, and the above increase in the defendant's account No.

3) As to the installment of the 13-36th vehicle

A) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, around October 2013, the Defendant, as well as B around KRW 25,100,000,000 to KRW 45,00,00,000, was to offset the vehicle payment into the vehicle payment.

B) However, at the police station, B stated that: (a) the Defendant was closed down, and the Defendant was economically strawed to pay the remaining installments of the vehicle; (b) at the time of the payment of the installment of the vehicle, the Defendant was given the payment of the installments of the vehicle from the Defendant at the time of the payment of the installment of the vehicle; and (c) he stated to the effect that he was given the payment of the installment of the vehicle even if he was aware of the vehicle in the gift (the investigative record 320, 3321 pages) and that this court did not hear that “the payment of the vehicle was made on behalf of the Defendant.”

C) On the other hand, the Defendant stated at the police around August 2013 to September 9, 2013 that B would reduce the remainder of the vehicle and incidental expenses paid by B to B to approximately KRW 17 million in total, and that B would be better, and that B would have expressed that B would have agreed to do so by requesting the Defendant to pay the remainder of the payment instead of the remainder of the payment (the investigation record 277,2790 pages). However, even according to the above statement, the Defendant and B would have set off the said KRW 17 million in total, and the remainder of the vehicle would have been paid again under subparagraphs B. In addition, the Defendant could not have attempted to return the text messages to B around that time, but the Defendant could not have attempted to return it to B more than 17 million.

D) If the Defendant and B agreed to offset the monthly payment, etc. from the vehicle payment, etc., it would have been normal to confirm each other, but no circumstance exists to deem that there was such process. Rather, there was no reason to deem that there was such process. Rather, the type and quantity of the visible vehicle exchanged to the Defendant and B, and the Defendant’s wife BU, who operated the Defendant, were not aware of the type and quantity of the visible vehicle. Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept the monthly payment as it is, and even if it is possible to recognize it, it does not seem that there was any motive to receive the difference from the standpoint of B from the point of view of view of B (and most of the beams received from the Defendant are kept in custody).

E) At the prosecution, the Defendant stated that the Defendant: (a) stated in BU that he would give a warning about the payment of the remainder and installments of the vehicle; and (b) stated that BU would so defective and that B left the vehicle to B. However, BU stated that B was friendly to himself; (c) he was sent to the opportunity that B’s wife was infected with cancer; and (d) he did not constitute calculating the value of the tea because it was based on gift; and (c) the Defendant merely stated that the Defendant was the principal of the vehicle and did not have a vehicle payment.

C. Determination on business relationship and compensation relation

In light of the above facts and the records and arguments, in particular, the defendant was a public official working in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, or in a river state, and there were at least indirectly and indirectly affected P's subcontracting order or the management and supervision of construction conducted by P. (2) the donor B was expected or intended to be able to receive various conveniences, such as giving P's subcontract by exercising his influence as a public official, and (3) the defendant actually exercised influence over giving P's contact with the relevant public official or Si construction, and offered public documents to B by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (4) Even if the defendant did not actually exercise influence for B as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel, simple acceptance of bribe does not constitute a constituent element of acceptance of acceptance of bribe, and (5) it seems probable that the defendant again received money from the representative of the local land office where the defendant was affiliated with the local land office where he had been affiliated with the public official, and thus, it would be probable that the defendant's payment of money and valuables to the public official or the public official for more convenience than 500 percent (2).

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and six months, and fine for 57,736,174 won - 216,510,652 won;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months;

2. The scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor

A. Defendant A

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery of Bribery of 5 million won or more, and less than 100 million won (type 4) 2

[Special Convicts]

[Scope of Recommendation] Two years and six months of imprisonment - Seven years (the total amount of a bribe according to the basic area and the standards for handling multiple crimes is raised in two stages as a result of the total amount of a bribe according to the standards for handling multiple crimes, the minimum limit of the sentence scope shall be reduced by 1/2)

B. Defendant B

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery of Bribery of 5 million won or more, and less than 100 million won (type 3)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 9 months of imprisonment - 2 years and 6 months (the total amount of bribe according to the basic area and the standards for handling multiple crimes is raised in two stages, so the minimum of the scope of sentence shall be mitigated by 1/2)

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and a fine of 80 million won;

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: A bribe crime against a public official is a serious crime that seriously undermines fairness in the performance of duties, influence in the conduct of duties, and social trust therein. A bribe has been received over a long period of four years, and the total amount of the bribe exceeds KRW 50 million. This court still does not recognize one’s fault.

The circumstances favorable to ○: (a) there is no criminal record of suspended execution or more; (b) the Defendant was not required from the beginning to give the relevant bribe, such as the installment of the vehicle, etc.; (c) maintained a substantial friendly relationship with B, and such friendly relationship seems to have somewhat influenced the instant crime.

For about 22 years, public officials have served as public officials in good faith, and have been awarded medals and decorations.

○ Other punishment shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing factors specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the age, character and conduct, home environment, motive, means and method of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime.

(b) Defendant B: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution; and

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: A bribe crime against a public official is a serious crime that seriously undermines fairness in the performance of his/her duties, infinites, and social trust therein. A bribe has been granted over a long period of four years, and the total amount of the bribe exceeds KRW 50 million. A bribe was actively proposed to purchase a vehicle.

The favorable circumstances of ○: The instant crime is recognized and reflects his mistake. He actively cooperates in the investigation process. There is no criminal record more than a suspended sentence. They have maintained a substantial friendly relationship with A, and these friendly relationship seems to have been somewhat influenced by the instant crime. It is not good to health due to liverism.

The acquittal portion: Defendant A

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant had B pay 27 times the remainder of the vehicle, the registration tax, and the total amount of 46,576,679 won from September 11, 2012 to September 11, 2015, as stated in attached Table 1, as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 1 in the judgment.

Accordingly, the defendant received 46,576,679 won as a public official in relation to his duties.

2. Determination

A prosecutor shall apply Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the entire act of accepting a bribe as stated in attached Table 1, including all the acts of receiving a bribe of at least 30 million won, but less than 50 million won, was indicted for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In a case where a single and continuous criminal committed repeatedly for a certain period and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each crime shall be deemed as an inclusive crime. In a case where a single and continuous criminal committed repeatedly for a certain period, and where a single and continuous criminal committed the same type of crime under the same type of crime and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each crime shall be deemed as a single comprehensive crime, even if there is a considerable period between the date of receiving money and the date of receiving money, and where there is no reasonable room for the prosecutor to prove that a single crime has been accepted a continuous crime.

As seen in Section 3-B of the above part of the "Determination on the argument of the defendant A and his defense counsel", as seen in Section 3-B of the above part, the defendant is deemed to have paid a total of 10 installments of the vehicle from December 2, 2012 to September 2013, and there is no evidence that the defendant paid the corresponding money to the defendant in that process, and there is no circumstance that the defendant or his/her defense counsel changed the payment method. There is no circumstance that the defendant would change the payment method of the corresponding money to the defendant. As such, the defendant stated that the defendant was sent the payment of the remaining 10 installments on behalf of his/her own, while the defendant was stated that he/she was sent the payment of the remaining 10 installments, it can be deemed that the crime of bribery was renewed. In addition, in light of this, it does not appear that the defendant received any bribe other than the above period from the defendant during which he/she received the bribe for the above period, and it cannot be concluded that the defendant's payment of bribery was made during the same period.

3. Conclusion

Then, Defendant A’s comprehensive acceptance of a bribe listed in No. 1 or No. 3 of the annexed List of Crimes

The comprehensive acceptance of the above crimes Nos. 4 through 27 are concurrent crimes. The amount of each acceptance of bribe falls short of 30 million won in all, and the crime of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the crime of the crime of the crime of the bribery falls under a case where there is no proof of crime. However, in a case where each judgment on the crime of the acceptance of bribe

Judges

The presiding judge, the Full Judge Line

Judges Kang Jin-han

Judges Do Residents-ho

Note tin

1) Even if the pertinent document is not an external document, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there is no difference between the fact that the Defendant provided B with convenience related to the construction.

2) Determination of types shall be made on the basis of the aggregate amount of bribe according to the standards for handling multiple crimes. The same shall apply