2018Gohap80 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery),

Subsequent to the acceptance of a bribe, violation of the Political Funds Act

A

He/she shall file prosecutions (prosecutions, public trials), public prosecutions, and public prosecutions (public trials).

Law Firm Barun (LLC)

Attorney Go Il-il, Mag-young, and Kim Jong-tae

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Attorney Lee Han-hee, Lee Ji-hee, Cho Tae-tae, Lee Jae-chul

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Im-sung, Jin-Jin, Doz.

July 19, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years and by a fine of 160,000,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 500,000 into one day.

682,00,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above fine and additional charges are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.The charges of violation of each of the Political Funds Act stated in the annexed Table 2 Nos. 8, 21, 26, and 27 among the charges of this case shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be publicly announced.

Criminal 1)

1. The status and status of the defendant;

around April 2012, the Defendant was elected to the 19th National Assembly member (B party and 2) and was elected to the 20th National Assembly member (B party and C party) around April 2016, and was elected to the 20th National Assembly member around June 2014. From around June 2014, the Defendant was in charge of E in the committee from around June 2016. From around May 2013 to May 2014, the inside representative of the B party from around May 2013 to around May 2014, and from around August 2017, the Defendant was in charge of the member recommended to the candidate for public office for the B party for the 2014 local election, and from around August 2017, the Defendant was in charge of the chairman of the F Party (former political party) in Gyeonggi-do.

The Defendant, as a member of the National Assembly, has the duty of integrity pursuant to Article 46 of the Constitution, and performs duties such as the enactment, ratification, amendment, or abolition of statutes, deliberation and determination of the State budget, and supervision and control of the State administration in accordance with conscience in preference to national interests. A member of the D affiliated therewith shall perform legislative activities such as examination of bills and petitions concerning matters under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as housing, construction, etc., national land, transportation such as railways, railroads, roads, aviation, etc., budget, settlement of accounts and fund examination, inspection and investigation of the state administration of the competent ministries and agencies such as G institutions and H institutions, etc. As such, the Defendant shall not abuse his/her position to obtain economic benefits, rights, or positions in relation to contracts or dispositions of

2. A bribe;

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) - The representative of the limited partnership I (hereinafter referred to as "I") conducting the electrical construction business related to the ordering construction of the G agency (hereinafter referred to as "I") filed an objection with the purport that "K Corporation (10,307,64,00 won of the estimated construction cost on November 4, 2014) was selected as the final successful bidder, but the current status of possession of I's electrical engineer selected as successful bidder in the SPBL, a competitive company participating in the bidding, was decided to suspend the conclusion of the contract with the G agency on or around January 14, 2015, the G agency requested that the assistant M of the defendant's member of the National Assembly belonging to the National Assembly, who is a member of the National Assembly under its jurisdiction, who will not conclude the contract, will be able to conclude this contract through "A."

M around that time, M used to conclude a prompt contract with N, but did not want to do so, reported the situation to the defendant, and the defendant directly sent to the 0 G agency president 0. The defendant used to conclude a contract with the above 0th president as soon as possible by calls from the above 0th president. The defendant immediately ordered the head of the G agency management support office P to conclude the contract with I as requested by the defendant. On January 29, 2015, G institution concluded the above contract with I and the above contract. After that, the defendant demanded that the "J should not be 100 million won if it was well resolved." On May 2015, 2015, the defendant entered into the contract with 100 million won after being well resolved through M, and it was well known to the effect that the 5th anniversary of the contract for construction with P or J was delivered as consideration to the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. On August 12, 2015, I, operated by HJ related to H agency ordering construction, was subcontracted from R with “Electric Construction/2 Section” (53 billion won in construction cost, and construction period from August 12, 2015 to “work cost” (580 billion won in scheduled construction cost) among the S Corporation ordered by H and R (hereinafter referred to as “R”) around August 12, 2015. As a result of the profitability review, J requested the increase of construction cost on the side of R for reasons that the enemy would have been expected to have been in excess of KRW 1.5 billion even if the work was to be carried out in the future, it could be deemed to have been carried out by R’s request by the National Assembly’s assistant to H agency for damages.

Since September 2015, M used to take measures to preserve the deficit of H agency’s electrical facilities TT, and written an agreement between R and I on October 5, 2015, the agreement was prepared between R and I, and M reported to the defendant that "R agrees to preserve the deficit of I through design change," at the defendant’s clinic in the first National Assembly Secretariat as the Seoul National Assembly Secretariat will of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly Secretariat."

On April 2016, the defendant was issued KRW 20 million in cash upon the request of J to the effect that I does not recognize the enemy. In addition, the defendant was issued KRW 20 million in cash at the local office of the defendant's district office of U.S. building V.

However, in order for R to not accept the request of J, around July 8, 2017, the J asked the Defendant to the effect that he will not leave the enemy in the re-construction work. On August 2017, the Defendant used to accept the above request of J to the effect that he will not be considered as the enemy by phone call to the head of H Agency Construction headquarters at the end of the end of the year of August 2017.

W calls directly from the H agency leader X. He confirmed that I did not receive any money even after doing construction work, and X followeded on September 5, 2017 to the effect that X would be accepting the request from the officer of the RY electricity division, etc. Around September 5, 2017, L sent to X the intent that "W would accept the full demand for the increase of KRW 3.48 billion of the construction cost required by X," and WW received a report from X, who visited the above officer's room on September 2017, reported that "W accepted the request for the increase of R in its entirety."

Accordingly, the defendant received a bribe in relation to public official's duties and committed an unlawful act.

3. Violation of the Political Funds Act

A. As to the contribution of Gong100

1) Since the beginning of the political activities by winning the 4th AA Si Assembly on July 1, 2002, the Z related zone was re-appointed to the Assembly members of the 5th A Si Assembly on July 1, 2006, and was appointed as the president of the AA Si Council from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.

On March 4, 2014, the Defendant introduced the Z as a candidate for the AA market B political party from the '6-4 local election scheduled on June 4, 2014 to be elected as a member of the Committee for Recommendation of Candidates for the B political party of Gyeonggi-do Party of Gyeonggi-do.' On April 2014, the Defendant demanded 2 to have the ZJ 500 million won from the Haman on April 2014.

After that, on May 2014, the Defendant received contact that the Z was prepared for 500 million won in the Z, and ordered M and the Defendant’s driver AB to receive KRW 500 million in the Z. At that time, M and AB received the Z from the side of the road on the side of the roads following the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu National Assembly Center of the Republic of Korea National Assembly, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

In addition, from March 10, 2014 to May 10, 2014, the Defendant received a total of KRW 550 million under the pretext of contribution as shown in [Attachment Table 1] No. 1 to 5,000,000 from around March 10, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant received a contribution of political funds in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in an election for public office.

2) around October 201, AC related AC went out of AD City Council AE election, but failed to go out. On June 4, 2014, local elections were elected as AD City Council members and served as City Vice-Speakers.

At the time of the local election on June 4, 2014, the Defendant was in charge of a member of the Recommending Council for Candidates for Public Office for the Gyeonggi-do Party. On March 20, 2014, the Defendant received cash of KRW 20 million from AC in the name of public-private partnership upon the Defendant’s request to change B party nomination from AC in the election of the National Assembly members of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government National Assembly on March 20, 2014. On April 20, 2014, the Defendant received cash of KRW 50 million from AC in the second floor coffee shop of the building in which the AF hotel of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City is located.

Accordingly, the defendant received political funds in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in the election for public office.

B. Regarding illegal political support payments

around May 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million in cash from AI as a political support in a restaurant among the “AH” in AG and received KRW 471 million in total from 18 to June 39, 2016, respectively, for 32 occasions, as indicated in attached Table 1 Nos. 6 through 15, and 18 through 39, respectively, for a total of 18 electors’ gold and political support. Accordingly, the Defendant received political funds in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2-A at the Time of Sales】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, M and 0;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of suspect to the prosecution against J (including the statement of M in the comparison investigation);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against N orO;

1. Each prosecutor's statement with respect to M (the fifth (Duplicate), sixth (Duplicate), and Ten times);

1. A copy of each prosecutor's statement made to AJ, AK, AL, and AM;

1. A P statement;

1. Investigation report (verification of a serial number, etc. in custody of the AL) ;

1. Copy of a certified transcript of corporate register of a limited partnership company or a public notice of tender by K Corporation;

1. Photographss of 500 Corresponding photographs;

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2-b at the Time of Sales】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, M and W;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of suspect to the prosecution against J (including M's statement in the comparison investigation);

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution with respect to UN, Y, and T;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning M (the fifth (the fifth copy), and the tenth-time);

1. Copy of the written statement made by the prosecution in W;

1. A copy of the prosecutor's statement of AO (including each statement written in W, T, and X among the mass investigation); 1. Limited partnership company / Copy of the corporate register, I public water construction work details, public announcement of H agency tender, copy of the construction subcontract agreement between R and I, written confirmation of agreement on October 5, 2015, and each modified agreement;

[Criminal facts of each subparagraph of paragraph (3)]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Z, AI, AP, Q, AB, and M;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of AI, A Q and R by prosecutors;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect about AP (the second, third, and seventh times) by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the interrogation protocol of M by prosecutors (five times);

1. AL, AT, AR, AR, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, B, BC, BD, AE, Q, BF, BG, and AI on 1.

1. Statement made by the prosecution on the Z (including the statement made by BH in the antiquality investigation);

1. A copy of the written statement by each prosecutor's office with respect to M (the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eight times);

1. AB and a copy of each prosecutor's statement made to the prosecution;

1. Written statements of AP, Q, AR, AL, BG and BI;

1. A written consent to voluntary submission and seizure list of the BJ and M;

1. Investigation reports [Attachment of Details of Submission of AW], investigation reports [The current status of entry into and departure from Korea against BD and A, accompanying certain data to National Assembly A member's name], investigation reports [The confirmation of the details of entry into and departure from the National Assembly Secretariat of AI, investigation reports [the confirmation of the details of entry into and departure from the National Assembly members' name], investigation reports [the attachment of data on sources of illegal political funds of AR], investigation reports [the confirmation of the fact that a AIN BL has been operated], investigation reports [the confirmation of the fact that AIN BL has been operated], investigation reports [the confirmation of the schedule of A member and the National Assembly member's schedule stated in Q's multilateral];

1. Details of AP’s dialogue, BN’s account transaction details, BN’s account transaction details, BD and A, entry into and departure from the National Assembly on 2015, details of entry into and departure from the National Assembly Secretariat, AI’s Secretariat, Z and Defendant’s text, details of transaction in BP bank accounts in the name of Q Q, details of transaction in BP bank accounts in the name of BP, BC’s BS bank account transaction details, AC’s BS account transaction details, BU’s BS account transaction details, BU’s BS account transaction details, copy of BU’s business registration certificate, and materials

1. A copy of a Daogle (based on the ability to provide evidence) of a 2016, which was written by M on the screen by cutting a camera photograph, CCTV-cape, a pocket book prepared by M, a A pocket book, and Q;

1. Determination as to the admissibility of each prosecutor's protocol of examination against AC (Evidence List No. 85, 153), protocol of examination (Evidence List No. 61), written statement (Evidence List No. 60, 89)

A. Article 312(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that if a protocol or a statement in which a public prosecutor or a judicial police officer made a statement by a person other than a defendant is used as evidence, it shall be made according to lawful procedures and methods, and the protocol is made according to the same contents as the statement before a public prosecutor or judicial police officer, etc., and the defendant or his defense counsel may have examined the person making the original statement at a preparatory hearing or on the public trial date. In light of the principle of court-oriented, directism, and cross-examination as prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, the realization of criminal justice justice due to discovery of substantial truth through the guarantee of cross-examination right, compliance with due process, etc., and the legislative background of the above provision, “examination of the person making the original statement by a defendant

It is insufficient to say that the content of the above protocol should reach the extent to which the person making the original statement of the above protocol can be verified, and it does not change on the ground that the above protocol is a case where the person making the original statement of the protocol refuses to testify pursuant to Articles 148 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. On April 2, 2018, AC appeared as a witness on the fourth trial date and took an oath pursuant to Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and then prepared each prosecutor's interrogation protocol, written statement, and written statement, and confirmed that they are the same as the contents of the statement at the time, and then the prosecutor's "general matters" was asked. However, AC refused all of its testimony on the grounds that the witness in question or the attorney-at-law's cross-examination related to the facts charged can be prosecuted by criminal prosecution under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, AC refused to testify's testimony on July 3, 2018. Furthermore, on the 4th trial date, it made it clear that it would refuse to appear as a witness and again refuse to testify the prosecutor's testimony, and furthermore, it cannot be said that AC's testimony cannot be proven that it could not be proven that it could not be used as evidence, other than the above 3rd prosecutor's interrogation protocol as evidence.

2. Determination on the admissibility of a pocketbook prepared by M

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

M’s pocket book (Evidence No. 69) written by M is a document in which M states based on the content that M gave money to the defendant, and is a document in which a person other than the defendant’s full statement was written. However, since it fails to meet the requirements prescribed in Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it shall not be used as evidence.

B. Relevant legal principles

A statement made by a person with a statement made by a third person is determined as hearsay evidence in relation to the fact requiring proof. In a case where a fact that is the content of the original statement is a fact requiring proof, said statement is deemed hearsay evidence or, in a case where the existence of the original statement itself is the fact requiring proof, not hearsay evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012, etc.). In addition, even though a document containing a statement becomes hearsay evidence when the authenticity of its content is used as direct evidence for a crime, it does not necessarily constitute hearsay evidence when it is directly made the said statement or when it is used as circumstantial evidence for an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1601, Jun. 13, 2013).

C. Determination

M made a statement concerning the above pocket book at this court that "the money received in front of the local election in 2014 shall be prepared at that time and later at that time," and that part of the book shall be recorded in AI, A Q, etc. as of the time of preparation, and the statement was made that the part in the pocketbook prepared by M was written by entry into the AI, A Q, etc. is written. If so, the part in the pocketbook prepared by M was written by a third party as to the fact that there was a statement from the AI, etc., it constitutes hearsay evidence. However, if it is used as evidence for itself as to what entry exists in the above pocket book, it is original evidence, not hearsay evidence, and it is not hearsay evidence, and it is recognized that the part in which M directly experienced is written by M with the testimony of M, and thus, it can be admitted as admissible evidence. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion shall not be accepted.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), Articles 131(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) of the Criminal Act, Articles 45(2)5 and 32 of the Political Funds Act (joint Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (Joint Imposition of Political Funds and Political Funds, and Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 (Limits to the sum of the maximum amounts of two crimes) of the Criminal Act and concurrent crimes for each penalty prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery with the largest penalty)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Additional collection:

The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 (3) of the Political Funds Act [Calculation of Amount of Additional Collection] 682,00,000 won = 66,000 won + 20,000 won + 596,000,000 won + 66,000,000 won for a bribe received (in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery): 50,000 won for a bribe (i.e., the base rate of sale as of July 17, 2018, which is close to the date of the sentence of this decision, X 50,000 won for a bribe accepted: 20,000,000 won for each political fund received: 596,000,000 won for a bribe received (one billion won for a political fund received and one million won for a return of 96,600,000 won).

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the main issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) Around May 2015, the Defendant received flexible 50,000 U.S. dollars from J. However, there is no fact that the Defendant received flexible 100,000 won as stated in the facts charged.

2) The Defendant, as a member of the National Assembly, heard the civil petition that the conclusion of a contract is being unfairly postponed even after the G agency’s appointment as a successful bidder from the J managing I, and, in order to resolve this, delivered the civil petition by telephone to the 0 president of the G agency. This was only a refund to the National Assembly member’s legitimate resolution of civil petitions. Since then, the Defendant received support payments from the J around May 2015, and did not recognize that the said amount was a payment related to the said civil petition. Accordingly, the Defendant does not constitute a bribe, 50,000 won received from the J around May 2015.

B. Determination as to the amount of pathology received by the defendant

A prosecutor charged the Defendant with the amount of money received from J around May 2015 at an amount equivalent to KRW 100 million. However, considering the following facts and circumstances acceptable by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s money received from J exceeds the amount equivalent to KRW 100 million due to 50,000,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The Defendant consistently stated that, from twice the prosecutorial statement to May 2015, 50 to the present court, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.,

2) In this Court, the J heard from M around May 2015 that “I sees that I am together with the Defendant, I am 5 to 60,000 losofts kept at home, and told the Defendant. At that time, I stated that M would have been aware of KRW 100,000,000. The statement made by the prosecution that I am 100,000,000 won was the rejection of exchange rate.”

3) The Defendant repaid the AL of KRW 50 million from J to a flexible, and the part of the transitioned to the Defendant was confirmed during the investigation process (Evidence No. 1852 of the record). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant used the transitioned to the amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 on the record or kept the remainder in custody, in addition to the portion equivalent to KRW 50,000,000, which discharged the Defendant’s obligation to AL.

C. Determination as to whether the money received by the Defendant constitutes a bribe

1) Relevant legal principles

The legal interest of accepting bribery is the fairness of performing duties, the social trust in the performance of duties, and the uncertainty of the act of performing duties is protected, and there is no special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received because it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act. In addition, money and valuables are sufficient to have been received in connection with the performance of duties, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties. In addition, the determination of whether a certain profit obtained by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit in a quid pro quo relationship does not need to be made in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of duties of the public official in question, the relationship between a public official and a benefit provider, the relationship between a public official and a benefit provider, the degree of interest, the process and timing of receiving benefits, etc. In light of the legal interest protected by the law, whether the bribery is a special relationship between a public official and a public official's trust in the performance of duties, and whether it is doubtful as a result of the receipt of such benefit from a public official's society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4427).

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts are recognized.

A) From June 2014, the Defendant served as a member of the National Assembly D from around June 2014, and the National Assembly D is in charge of the fields of land and transportation, including housing and railroads, and thus, G institutions are affiliated with the agencies under its jurisdiction.

B) On January 14, 2015, when the conclusion of the 'K' contract that I awarded by G agency was postponed due to L's civil petition filing, a competitor company (Evidence No. 1816 to 1820), the J asked the defendant's assistant M to be able to promptly conclude the contract with G agency, in mind, through the defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly D, who is a member of the National Assembly affiliated with the National Assembly.

C) On January 23, 2015, the Defendant received a report on a civil petition related to the G institution 1 from M, and then called “whether the G institution is wrong to ex officioly suspend the conclusion of a contract with the enterprise selected as a successful bidder because it received a report from the assistant.” Since then, G institution entered into a contract for construction of the said power facilities and equipment (Evidence No. 1842 pages) with the G institution around January 29, 2015 (Evidence No. 1842 pages).

D) Around May 2015, the Defendant, along with M, received a flexible delivery of J equivalent to 50,00 tons from J in the first floor coffee hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Qu hotel in the vicinity of the J’s residence.

3) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the legitimacy of the first’s complaint related to G institution is set aside, and the Defendant’s 50,000 U.S. dollars received from JO constitutes a bribe as the money received in return for the member’s duty. At the time of receiving the said money, it is recognized that there was awareness of the Defendant’s quid pro quo at the time of receiving the said money. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A) This Court stated to the effect that “M does not conclude a contract solely on the ground that it was filed by phone call to N with the General General of Contracts,” and that “M does not conclude a contract with the competitor.” Accordingly, around January 21, 2015, the head of BV, a working staff member of G institution, and the head of AK, who directly found in the Defendant’s Assembly room and explained the matter to M. The latter stated to the effect that the Defendant directly calls to himself/herself to the effect that he/she would be unfairly examined as to I’s civil petition, and that the present member of the National Assembly sent a civil petition related to the conclusion of the contract by a specific company, which is not a civil petition related to the local constituency, was an exceptional.”

B) The J finds the connection of members of the National Assembly D to resolve the contractual issues with G institutions.

On January 2015, the court first known M, an assistant of the defendant, and there was no relationship of friendship with the defendant or M before. The court stated in this court that "if there was no interest in politics and there was no special reason to grant support payments to the defendant unless there was a case of G institution because there was no difference of interest in politics and there was no difference of interest in politics before it."

다) J은 G기관과 | 사이의 계약이 체결되고 나서 약 4개월이 지난 후인 2015. 5.경 피고인에게 돈을 지급하게 된 경위에 대하여, 검찰에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 "M가 계속하여 자신에게 G기관 건이 해결된 대가로 1억 원 정도를 요구하였다. 그와 같이 큰 돈을 주는 것이 부담스러워 사업차 해외에 출국하여 있던 동안 M의 연락을 피하였다. 그러나 입국한 이후에는 M의 요구를 더 이상 거절할 수 없어 5만 유로 상당의 유로화를 피고인에게 지급한 것이다."라는 취지로 진술하였다(증거기록 제1878, 1879쪽). J은 실제로 가 G기관과 계약을 체결한 당일인 2015. 1. 29.경 프랑스로 출국하였다가 2015. 2. 24.경 입국하였는데(증거기록 제1880쪽), 이는 J의 위 진술을 뒷받침한다.

D) From the prosecutor’s office to this court, the J consistently stated from this court that “the envelope containing emulation to the defendant, which means that the construction contract was well made for the defendant’s virtue, and that the defendant was a contract to be concluded as a matter of course, and that the defendant was a bad emulsion due to bad e.g., the defendant. As the opportunity to become aware of the defendant’s assistant M was the case of G agency, M would naturally have been related to this in the first place of personnel e.g., the prosecutor’s office and this court stated that “M would naturally have been related to this in the place of the defendant’s first personnel e.g., the prosecutor’s office and this court stated that “I had no specific memory of the talk about the G agency with the defendant, but the J would help the defendant do so.” The G agency stated that it was already aware of the past, and thus there was no reason to emphasize it.”

E) A considerable amount of 50,00 won received from J (based on average trading rate of KRW 1,222.18/18 of May 2015) is considerably larger than that of the political funds that the Defendant received in general. It is difficult to readily obtain that the Defendant would be paid a considerable amount of money as simple support without any particular reason to the Defendant first time before the J. Furthermore, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s currency with the president of the G institution; (b) the details of the contract between the Plaintiff and the G institution that the J intended to resolve through the Defendant; (c) the process of concluding the contract after the involvement of the Defendant; (d) the relationship between the Defendant and the J; and (e) the amount of money received; and (e) the Defendant recognized that the said money received from the J was a bribe for the purpose of resolving civil petitions related to the G institution, not a general support.

2. Judgment on the illegal action after the acceptance of the bribe

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) Although the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the J around April 2016, the Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million as stated in the facts charged.

2) On April 2016, the Defendant received money from the J and received a request for a subcontract for electrical construction with R and received no civil petition related thereto. Moreover, the Defendant merely received a simple support payment from the J in the situation where the Defendant was in front of the total line at that time, and did not receive the said money in return for the performance of duties.

3) Around August 2017, the Defendant’s phone call to the head of H Agency Construction Headquarters corresponds to a civil petition that he/she did not receive progress payment from R, a subcontractor, and then asked at the solution level, it is merely a legitimate performance of the National Assembly member’s legitimate duty. It cannot be deemed that it constitutes an unlawful act.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts are recognized.

1) From June 2014, the Defendant was active as a member of the National Assembly D from around June 2014, and the National Assembly D is in charge of the national land and other fields of transportation, such as housing, railroads, roads, aviation, etc., so H institutions are affiliated with the competent authorities of D.

2) On August 12, 2015, J entered into a subcontract for the electrical construction works of Section 2, among R and S Corporation (Evidence No. 2216 of the record) with the construction cost of KRW 5.75 billion (Evidence No. 2216 of the record). On September 15, 2015, J requested M to the effect that M would accept the request for increase in the subcontract price for the subcontracted construction works by exercising pressure to H institutions, as the construction cost of the said subcontract was set at a lower level than 30% of the contract amount, and the enemy was anticipated to be.

3) Thereafter, Around October 5, 2015, M drafted a written agreement with the vice president of I, RN department, and H agency’s T&C to preserve the enemy of I through the change of design (Evidence No. 2226 pages of the evidence record). However, I did not have any specific undertaking to preserve the enemy, such as the change of design, even after the termination of the agreement.

4) Around August 2017, the Defendant directly phoneed to the Head of H Agency Construction Headquarters W, and told that “I would have confirmed that I would have not received payment for the completion of the subcontracted electrical construction.” Since W, on September 2017, 2017, the Defendant directly sought the Defendant from the Defendant and then concluded an agreement to accept the request for the increase of KRW 3.48 billion for the subcontract price of I, the prime contractor, as the subcontractor, in full (Evidence No. 2373).

5) From October 2016, I continued negotiations on the modification of designs with respect to the increase in the amount of R and subcontracted construction works. Around September 4, 2017, I entered into a first modified contract with the effect that the amount of construction works would be increased by KRW 1.61 billion (No. 2752 of the evidence record), and entered into a second modified contract with the effect that the amount of construction works would be increased by KRW 624.8 million again (Evidence No. 2754 of the evidence record). Determination on the amount of the Defendant’s money received is made.

1) In a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables (which is equally applied to each of the following violations of the Political Funds Act) or not, in order to acknowledge conviction only with a statement made by a person who provided money or valuables in a case where the defendant, who was identified as the recipient of money or valuables, denies the fact of receiving money or in the absence of objective physical evidence, such as financial data to support this, the evidence should be admissible, and there should be not only a reasonable doubt but also a reasonable credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, whether the statement has interests derived from the statement as well as the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement, and its human beings; in particular, in a case where there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation is being initiated, or an investigation is being conducted, if there is a suspicion that the statement might not be admissible, whether there may affect the statement that he/she tried to escape from the imminent place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

2) Determination

Based on the facts acknowledged earlier, in full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 20 million in cash from J at the C District Office around April 2016 is recognized. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A) On April 2016, J consistently and consistently stated that the amount paid to the Defendant was KRW 20 million. In addition, around April 2016, M demanded that M provide support for the amount of KRW 50 million because he/she attempted to offer a large number of the Defendant. While M having sought KRW 20 million, M was confirmed with the amount of money, M did not receive money and returned money. On the following day, it appears that the Defendant directly phoneed the Defendant to B and took back the money that he/she did not go to the office, and that he/she would go to go to the office, and that he/she would have returned to U.S.’s office, and that he/she directly provided the Defendant with the amount of KRW 20 million prepared to the local constituency of the Defendant’s office in U.S., as well as the amount of money paid to the Defendant under the circumstances where he/she could be punished for the offering of a bribe.

나) M 또한 검찰과 이 법정에서 일관하여 "J이 2,000만 원을 가지고 왔을 때 약속된 금액인 5,000만 원이 아니어서 돌려보낸 적이 있었다. 피고인에게는 J이 차가 밀려서 다음에 온다고 말씀을 드렸다. 이후 2017. 5~6.경 H기관 건설본부장으로부터 피고인에게 의 하도급공사 건을 보고해야 하니 일정을 잡아달라는 연락이 와서, 혹시 피고인과 J이 '직거래'를 하는 것이 아닌지 의심을 하게 되었다."고 진술하고 있는데, 이러한 M의 진술은 위와 같이 피고인에게 2,000만 원을 건넸다는 J의 진술에 부합한다. 라. 피고인에게 대가성에 대한 인식이 있었는지 여부에 관한 판단

In addition to the facts acknowledged earlier, in full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that the said money was paid as compensation for resolving a civil petition regarding the increase in the subcontract price by J’s H institution at the time of receipt of KRW 20 million from J around April 2016. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

1) The J consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that the Defendant provided the Defendant with KRW 20 million and attempted to assist the S-related subcontractor to proceed well (Evidence Records No. 1890, 2658).

2) From this Court, M expressed that “At the time of the election of a member of the National Assembly on April 2016, M talked to receive KRW 50 million from J at the time of the election of a member of the National Assembly, and that there was a deficit that brought about KRW 20 million and returned. At that time, the case of BR subcontract was not resolved at all.”

As seen earlier, I first concluded a subcontract agreement with R as of September 2017 when it entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant. On October 5, 2015, as the J, which entered into a relationship with G institutions, the Defendant issued KRW 20 million to the Defendant under the circumstances where the subcontract agreement with R was not completely resolved even after the formation of the agreement. The J naturally divided a dialogue with R to the Defendant, who can exercise influence over R, as a matter of course, the H institutions and their subcontractors.

3) The Defendant also stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that “When the J had been found in the office of local constituency C with support payments around the total period of 2016, the KJ stated that the case of subcontract construction payments with R would be detained (Evidence No. 2908, 2909, 2910, and 2934 of the Evidence No. 2909, 2910) and in this Court, “such talks about the degree of 3 to 5 minutes.” The Defendant’s statement appears to have a conversation with J and R around April 2016 regarding the case of the construction payment of subcontract with J and R. If the facts and circumstances were to exist, the Defendant sufficiently recognized that there was a civil petition between R and R as compensation for resolving the civil petition.”

E. Determination as to whether there was an unlawful act

1) Relevant legal principles

The term "illegal act" in the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of a bribe refers to any act that violates his/her duties and includes not only the act itself but also the act that is objectively related thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003). Since the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of a bribe is the direct legal interest and protection of the law, the act of improper acceptance of a bribe constitutes "unlawful act in the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of a bribe, as long as the acceptance of a bribe is deemed to have influenced the act itself," it constitutes "unlawful act in the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of a bribe." Since it is sufficient to judge or act in favor of a public official who delivers a bribe has affected the judgment or act, it is sufficient to judge such unlawful act as an infringement of fairness and fairness of duty (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2013No31436, Jun. 14, 2013).

2) Determination

In addition to the facts acknowledged earlier, considering the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the call called by the Defendant to the head of H agency Construction Headquarters W, around August 2017 to the effect that the Defendant would be able to receive the construction cost for the subcontracted project related to S from R, and that it constitutes a case where the Defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, exercised an unreasonable pressure on the executives of H agency, which is the agency affiliated with the National Assembly, to resolve the specific civil petition of the Defendant, for which the Defendant issued a bribe, constitutes an “unlawful act” as prescribed by Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

A) The head of H agency Construction Headquarters W stated in this Court that “The receipt of direct phone calls from the incumbent member of the National Assembly, such as the Defendant, was very unusual. After receiving the Defendant’s phone, the head of the electricity team instructed the Defendant to confirm the relevant contents, and subsequently asked M to take a schedule for reporting the details related to the Defendant. On September 2017, 201, the Defendant directly found the Defendant, and I directly sought 3,4880,000,000 won from the method of design change, and I agreed to accept the total amount of the construction cost.” As such, the Defendant directly sent the civil petition of a specific company to the executive officer of H agency and requested the resolution thereof from the standpoint of H agency, which is the authority in charge of the National Assembly D, to which the Defendant belongs.”

B) The Defendant stated in the prosecution that “At the end of two months after the completion of the 2016 General Election System, 1’s BW vice president was found to be a member room, and was awarded a subcontract at an excessive lower amount of the construction work ordered by H institution from R, and even though R was ordered to preserve the enemy through design change, the Defendant filed a civil petition for more than one year.” The Defendant stated that “The Defendant filed a civil petition that “at the end of one year without establishing any measure.” On October 2016, 2016, the Defendant’s pocket book contains specific details on the I’s subcontracting contract with R (Evidence No. 2803 of the evidence record). If there is fact-finding, the Defendant continued to receive KRW 20 million from the J around April 2016, it appears that the Defendant received a civil petition related to R’s subcontract from the International side.

C) At the prosecution and this court, the J stated that the case of subcontract price with R was not well resolved even after the Defendant gave KRW 20 million to the Defendant on April 2016. After being introduced electrical construction from the Defendant under Section BX around July 2017 to around August 8, 2017, the Defendant still failed to resolve the case of subcontract price with R. The Defendant himself as a member of the D. As seen earlier, the Defendant requested the head of H institution construction to resolve the subcontract price problem between R and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant actively demanded the resolution of the subcontract price problem between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to the head of the H institution construction division around August 2017. The Defendant’s demand for resolution of the civil petition amounting to KRW 20 million by the J’s member of the National Assembly, and the Defendant’s demand for the resolution of the civil petition amounting to KRW 1,000,000,000 from the J’s member of the National Assembly, which constitutes an unlawful act of the National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea National Assembly.

3. Determination on the violation of the Political Funds Act relating to the Z

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) The Defendant received KRW 5 million from the Z on March 20, 2014, and did not receive KRW 10 million as described in No. 2 of the Crimes List 4, and only received KRW 5 million from the Z on April 22, 2014, and did not receive KRW 20 million as listed in No. 2 of the Crimes List 5.

2) The Defendant did not receive KRW 500 million from Z on May 2014, 2014, as indicated in Nos. 2 Nos. 6 of the Punishment Table of Crimes. M received KRW 500,000 for the purpose of transmitting it to BY from Z, without knowledge of the Defendant. The Defendant, who was aware of this fact, subsequently, returned the said KRW 500,000 to Z.

3) The Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million from the Z on May 2014, such as the list Nos. 2, 7, 2014.

4) The Defendant did not receive the request from the Z in relation to the AA market candidate recruitment for local elections in 2014, and the Defendant was not in a position to exert influence over the AA market candidate recruitment. The money that the Defendant received from the Z was a mere political support, and the money received from the Z was not a political fund related to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in an election for public office.

B. Determination on the amount received around March 20, 2014

In full view of the following facts recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred therefrom, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 10 million in cash from the Z at the time and place No. 2 No. 4 of the crime sight table.

The defendant and defense counsel shall not be accepted.

1) Z은 이 법정에서 "2014. 3. 20. 피고인에게 1,000만 원을 주었다. 피고인에게 두 번째로 돈을 건넸을 때 500만 원짜리 봉투 2개를 가지고 갔던 것은 확실하게 기억한다. 피고인의 의원실에서 돈을 건넬 때에는 M는 항상 인사를 나누고 먼저 나갔고, 피고인과 단둘이 잠시 담소를 나눈 후 돈이 담긴 봉투를 피고인이 보는 앞에 두고 나왔다."는 취지로 진술하였고, 검찰에서도 "피고인에게 두 번째로 돈을 주었을 때 그 금액이 1,000만 원인 것은 분명하다."고 진술하였다(증거기록 제1215쪽), 이러한 Z의 진술은 당시 건넨 돈의 액수에 대해 일관성이 있고, 정치자금 공여자로서 처벌받게 되는 가운데 자신의 범죄사실을 자백하는 것으로 달리 그 신빙성을 의심할 사유를 찾을 수 없다.

2) M also stated, consistent with the prosecution and this court, that “the Z was directly released to the Defendant’s parliamentary room around March 20, 2014, with 10 million won and 10 million won. The Z and the Defendant went to the business at the time to pay more money. In advance, the Z brought about KRW 10 million to the Z and recorded the amount in the pocket book.” As to this part of the facts charged in the pocket book drawn up by M, “3/207:14:30 (30 minutes delayed) 15:00 support” (Evidence No. 2767 of the evidence record). This is consistent with the above statement of the Z. D. 22, 2014.

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred therefrom, the fact that the Defendant received 20 million won in cash from the Z at the time and place No. 2 No. 5 of the crime sight table 5 can be acknowledged.

The defendant and defense counsel shall not be accepted.

1) The Z stated in this Court that “the Defendant gave KRW 20 million to the Defendant on April 22, 2014.” The Defendant did not clearly memory the cause of KRW 10 million or KRW 20 million. However, the Defendant did not look at the amount recorded in M’s pocket book and did not bring about 4 bags of KRW 5 million or KRW 5 million.” The Prosecutor stated that “it was not accurate memory, but did not bring about KRW 10 million to KRW 10 million and 20 million to KRW 1,000 more than the first month (Evidence No. 1219 of the Evidence Record). The Defendant stated that this part of the ZM’s book was consistent, and that “the Defendant was aware of this part of the facts charged,” and that it was 0:2150,000,000,000 won, and that it was 0:0,000 won or more, and that it was 20,000,000 won.”

C. In full view of the following facts and the circumstances that can be inferred from the court’s duly adopted and investigated by the court on May 2014, 2014, it can be recognized that the Defendant received KRW 500 million in cash from the Z in relation to the AA market airspace at the time and place No. 2 No. 6 of the crime sight table 2, and even if the Defendant directed M to M and returned the said KRW 500 million to the Z, it is merely an circumstance after the crime was established. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) Z은 검찰과 이 법정에서 일관하여 "앞서 피고인에게 3,500만 원을 주었으나 AA 시장 공천 여부에 대한 확답을 받지 못한 상황에서 당시 다른 예비후보가 공천헌금으로 10억 원 이상을 냈다는 소문을 듣고 나도 큰 금액을 내야겠다는 생각을 하게 되었다. 그래서 5억 원을 준비하여 M를 통해 피고인에게 전달하였고, 피고인의 소개로 BY을 직접 만나 인사를 나누었다. 그러나 2014. 5. 14.경 발표된 AA시장 후보 공천에서 결국 탈락하였고, 2014. 5. 20.경 M에게 연락을 받고 5억 원을 건넸던 같은 장소에 나가서 M로부터 5억 원을 돌려받았다."고 진술하였다. 이러한 Z의 진술은 일관되고, 달리 신빙성을 의심할 만한 사유를 찾을 수 없다.

2) In this Court, M was aware that the present AA market was sent KRW 2 billion when receiving the official map, and it was to receive KRW 500 million from the Z under the official unconstitutional name. It was accepted that the Defendant did not give any particular answer to the Defendant that he prepared this KRW 500 million. On May 14, 2015, 2014, 196, 196, 200, 2000, 2000 won and transferred the Defendant’s car driving on the back-road parking lot at the National Assembly Subsection, and 50 million won in cash brought into the Z. The Defendant stated that “The Defendant received KRW 500 million from the Z and 500 million in cash,” and then, 2005, 2005, 2005,000 won in cash, 205,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

3) 피고인의 운전기사인 AB은 이 법정에서 "피고인의 운전기사로 채용된 후 얼마 되지 않아서 M와 함께 피고인의 카니발 승용차를 운전하여 국회 본관 뒤쪽 주차할 수 있는 길에 가서 잠시 차를 세운 적이 있다. M가 누군가로부터 무엇인가를 받아 차 트렁크에 실었는데 그게 돈인지 여부를 확실히 알지는 못한다. 그날 저녁에 피고인이 퇴근하기 위해 차에 탔을 때 피고인이 물건을 받았냐고 물어서 트렁크에 받아놨다고 답하였다. 이후 피고인이 자신에게 돈을 왜 돌려주지 않고 있냐고 짜증을 낸 적은 없다."고 진술하였다. 이러한 AB의 진술 또한 5억 원 수수 과정 등과 관련하여 M나 Z의 진술과 부합한다.

4) In this court, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not instruct theM to receive KRW 500 million from the Z in advance, and that M received KRW 500 million, and later came to know the fact late after M received KRW 500 million. It was asked whether or not the Z had a support payment by calling to Y with BY, who heard that the Z has been with KRW 500 million. The Defendant stated to the effect that “BY is sent only to only the person, and the money was returned to Y and the money was returned to Y by sending it to Y,” without the Defendant’s instruction or approval. However, it is difficult to otherwise obtain that M arbitrarily received money amounting to KRW 500 million from the Defendant’s passenger car by moving to AB, a driver of the Defendant, without obtaining the Defendant’s order or approval.

5) In addition, the Defendant stated in this court that “The Z returned KRW 500 million to the Z, but the Z was given positive answers to the Z, and that Z was returned to 2-3 days later, and that Z was returned to the Z.” Since the Z continued to return the Z, it was not appropriate to result in a public opinion poll conducted by the central authority, and that Z returned KRW 500 million to the Z.” Even based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant appears to have returned the Z to the Z, and it was difficult to view that Z was immediately returned KRW 500 million at the time of the above return. Moreover, the Defendant did not appear to have used the Z in cash or intended to return the Z to the Z in return for KRW 500 million. In addition, the Defendant did not appear to have used the Z in cash or intended to return it to the Z in accordance with the above situation.

C. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 20 million in cash from the Z at the date and time and place indicated in No. 2/7 of the List of Offenses Act can be recognized in the manner that the Defendant received KRW 20 million in cash from the Z at the time and place indicated in No. 7 of the List of Offenses Act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

1) In this Court, the Z stated in this Court that “The Defendant, along with AS, was in possession of the Defendant on May 2014, 2014, and the Defendant directly gave 20 million won to the Defendant at the time of completion of meals.” At the time of opening money to the Defendant, the Z stated that “AS is not accurately memoryed as to whether the AS was in the said place.” The Z consistently stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that the Defendant did not clearly memory only as to whether the AS was in the said place at the time of carrying money to the Defendant, and that the Defendant gave 20 million won to the Defendant (Evidence No. 1230, 1321, 1322, 1729, 1730 of the evidence record). Such a statement of the Z is under criminal punishment as a political fund provider, and there is no other reason to suspect its credibility.

2) At the prosecution, “S prepared the Defendant along with the Z, and then divided the Z into an envelope. After the Defendant’s existence of occupation, the Z was first set away from the Z to the envelope. After the Defendant’s existence of occupation, the Z told the Defendant to put the envelope back from the Z.” (Evidence No. 2350, 2351, 2357 of the Evidence No. 2357 of the said record). Such AS’s statement also conforms to the statement of the said Z, and there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the Z as it is against criminal punishment of the said Z, the husband, and there is no other reason to doubt its credibility.

3) In addition, M also stated in this Court that “I want to have the audit personnel of this Defendant, I would like to find a patrol room on May 201, 2014 and divide the talk about the results of the Habman's office and the official construction. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to have the Defendant receive the audit personnel. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to have the Defendant paid KRW 20 million from Z and that IS's statement.”

D. Determination as to whether or not a person received in connection with public order

In full view of the following facts recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred therefrom, it can be recognized that the Defendant received five times political funds from Z as stated in No. 2, No. 3, and No. 7, 500,000 from Z, all of which are received in relation to the candidate election for public office in Z. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) From July 2002 to June 4, 2006, the Z sent the 5th AA Si Council member from July 2006 to June 201, 201. Among them, from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010, the Z was the president of the AA Si Council member (Evidence No. 1200 pages), from July 1, 2008 to June 30, and from June 2010, the 6/4 local election, which was planned to be implemented on June 4, 2014, it was desired that B political parties affiliated to the 6/4 local election, would be recruited as a candidate for AA market (Evidence No. 1338 pages of evidence record).

2) Around March 10, 2014, the Defendant was appointed as a candidate management member of the B Party Gyeonggi-do Office for Public Office (Evidence Records No. 2763), and the right to recommend candidates for the AA market has been transferred to the Central Party Public Officials Recommendation Management Committee around April 30, 2014. As such, the Defendant not only was in the position of directly participating in the AA market candidate recruitment until April 30, 2014, but also was known as the so-called “BZ” member, which was called the so-called “BZ” member, but also was close to the AA market candidate recruitment. From the standpoint of Z, the Defendant seems to have been able to exercise influence over the AA market candidate candidate recruitment.

3) On March 1, 2014, the Z consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that the Defendant was asked to introduce the Defendant as a candidate for the AA market. Since then, it is clearly stated that the Defendant provided political funds of KRW 550 million in total to the Defendant starting from March 10, 2014 to around March 10, 2014. As above, the Defendant had been working as a candidate for the AA market for a long period of time, and at the location of the Z where he wanted to leave the local election as a candidate for the AA market at the time of 2014, it is natural to view that this money was paid not only a simple support but also a public subsidy.

4) From March 10, 2014 to April 22, 2014, Z has made an unclear statement as to whether or not the Defendant and the Defendant have made explicit dialogues. However, the Z has shown in this court that “the Defendant and the Defendant have been presented with the results of public opinion poll at the bar of the Defendant and parliamentary room, and that there was a conversation related to the election of the Defendant, such as management method of the Defendant.” The Prosecutor made a statement that “The Defendant appeared to have been present at the first place on March 10, 2014, and that there was a conversation related to the election of the Defendant,” and that it appears to have been presented as a witness at the prosecution’s meeting on the first place on March 10, 2014 and that there was no memory as to whether or not there was a conversation related to the AA market airspace.” The Z appears to have been presented as a witness of the Defendant’s political fund under the circumstances where it appears to have been presented as a witness of the prosecution.

5) On April 8, 2014, the Defendant sent text messages to the Z on April 23:52, 2014, and notified the name and contact number of the members recommended by the public officials of the Gyeonggi-do Party to the Z. Moreover, on May 14, 2014, the Z appears to have been published on the AA market, at around 01:25, the Defendant sent the text messages to the Z, stating that “I think I would know that I would go too much because I would go back because I would go back because I would go back and go back.” This day was after the announcement of the official ceiling on the AA market, and the Defendant actively sent the Z the text messages to the Z at around 09:38,000, and it appears that I would have been aware that I would have been able to receive Zk's official text messages after the announcement of the official ceiling on the AA market, and that I would have been able to receive Zk's official text messages from the Z.

6) On May 14, 2014, 200 million Won 20 million Won, from the list No. 2 No. 7 of the crime day table No. 2, 2014, the Z left the AA market airspace around May 14, 2014. However, 2 stated that "the defendant, who had made a lot of efforts to keep in politics in the future, stated that "the defendant made a lot of efforts to keep in politics in the future" in the prosecutor's office and this court consistent with the above 20 million won, and stated that "the defendant made a statement to 0,000 won for his own public interest, but the defendant did not have made efforts for his own public interest, and the defendant made a statement to 0,000 won as well as 0,000 won for his own public interest, and that "the defendant and the defendant made a statement to 0,000 won of his own political fund throughout May 14, 2014."

4. Determination on the violation of the AL-related Political Funds Act

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) An AI made a statement by reporting the contents recorded in the pocket book prepared by M without specific memory on the money paid to the Defendant, and leading the Defendant by M. The contents and M’s statement are not trustable. Therefore, the AI’s statement made accordingly cannot be trusted.

2) Specifically, the Defendant: (a) around August 2013, KRW 10 million (No. 2 No. 11); (b) around September 2013, KRW 10 million (No. 2 No. 13); (c) around October 13, 2013, KRW 5 million (No. 2 No. 15); (d) around October 22, 2013, KRW 5 million (No. 2 No. 16); (e) around January 27, 2014, KRW 10 million (No. 2 No. 17); (e.g., Table 2 No. 17); (e., KRW 1,000 (No. 2 No. 17); (e. 200, Jun. 20, 2014; and (e) did not receive money from AI; and (e) did not receive money from AI 181,200,000 won (no. 18).

B. The credibility of AI statements

1) In this Court, AI stated in this Court that “The correct amount is not memory, but at least KRW 250 million to the defendant as a political support.” While requesting M to exercise the influence of the defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, so that it can be employed as an executive officer ofCC, it is not accurate detention. In light of M’s ordinary character and sexual character, the details recorded in the book prepared by M will be correct. There is no time to keep and deliver money to the defendant. At all times, it was delivered to the defendant through M or money was given to M at the location where M and the defendant are located.”

2) In the prosecution, the AI stated, “In 2013, the amount of KRW 10 million was paid directly to M or to the Defendant via M or at least once in 2013, the amount of KRW 30 million was not accurately memoryed as to how much money was paid. If M received KRW 240 million over 11 times in total, it would be the end of M.” (Evidence No. 1479, 1481, 2113, 2114%).

3) On the other hand, at the prosecution and the court below, the AI stated that " around February 6, 2017, at the second-class restaurant of the CD hotel, the Defendant spawns and spawns the Defendant. At the time, there is a lack of money, and the Defendant asked the Defendant to assist 20 million won by account transfer after 3 days. The Defendant sent KRW 20 million by account transfer. At ordinary times, the Defendant provided the Defendant with support money equivalent to KRW 200 million to KRW 200 million. It was considered that the Defendant would be able to receive KRW 200-30 million by account transfer." In fact, the AI requested that the Defendant receive KRW 20 million from the Defendant under the name of the Defendant AB, a driver of the Defendant, around February 6, 2017 (Evidence evidence 1506).

4) In full view of the statements in the law and prosecutorial office of AI, AI consistently acknowledges that the defendant provided at least KRW 200 million for political support to the defendant as a political support from the prosecutor’s office to this court. However, in a situation where there is a high possibility that the AI itself may be punished for violating the Political Funds Act (in fact, AI was indicted with AC and CE as a violation of the Political Funds Act while the public trial in this case was in progress) and made a statement at the prosecutor’s office or as a witness of the defendant’s trial. Furthermore, it appears that the time or circumstance during which the delivery of specific money was made does not provoking any memory, or that it was made passive and passive by evading and stating that it was always equivalent to M rather than directly delivered to the defendant in M’s statement.

5) As asserted by the Defendant and his defense counsel, it appears that the AI stated to be referring to the entry in the pocketbook or M prepared by M during the statement, referring to the statement made by M, but in the situation where the possibility of punishing itself as a crime of violating the Political Funds Act by granting political funds cannot be ruled out, there is no special motive or circumstance to make a false statement in excess of the amount of money issued to the Defendant even though the level of punishment can be lowered, and there is no special motive or circumstance to make a false statement in the situation where the amount of money issued to the Defendant could be raised, and in light of the fact that the prosecution and this court specifically stated the contents that are not attributable to the above pocketbook or M in this court, the part concerning the amount of money paid to the Defendant in the AI’s statement can be trusted, and no other reason exists to suspect the credibility thereof.

C. Among the statements made between the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office in this court, the part of the statement that the AI transferred the case and the support payment to the prosecutor's office to the effect that it asked the defendant to deliver it to the defendant. However, considering the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in this court, the statement in this part M is difficult to believe it as it is.

1) At the prosecutor's office and this court stated that "AP, at the end of the end of 2015, the defendant made a statement that "at the end of 2015, the defendant would know about M with the money and valuables related to M, and that M will be made well. Upon delivery of the defendant's horse to M, M would have made a considerable lot of marization and would have made a little contribution (Evidence No. 827,828)" (Evidence No. 827,828 of the evidence record), M also stated that "the amount supported by the defendant would be the same to this degree as the amount supported by the defendant." At the time, the defendant stated that "at the end, there was an entry that there was interference with this point of view to the defendant's perception or attitude of the defendant's M related to the money and valuables, such as the statement of AP or M, it appears that there was an issue of support payment related to M.

2) As to the reasons why M prepared a pocketbook stating the details of support payments to the Defendant, M stated that “it was intended to prevent a member of the National Assembly from being responsible for a failure to pay the money received by him/her.” Around April 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she would not pass M through M and directly communicate himself/herself in the future.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant and M appear to have considerable conflict with each other in relation to the receipt of ordinary support payments, and in particular, the Defendant seems to have suspected that M did not deliver part of the support payments he received during the period.

3) At around 2009, M has a record of being sentenced to punishment for 3 years and 6 months for a crime related to bribe, and is present at this court as a witness, M scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamsing to complete judicial processing and life in prison upon the completion of the instant case. Since the relationship between a member of the National Assembly and an assistant of the National Assembly is military service, it cannot be said that the Defendant scam scam scam scam scam scamscam scam scam

4) Since M is under investigation and trial after being detained on October 11, 2017 due to a separate crime, it is not possible that M made a statement in conformity with the facts charged against the Defendant in order to avoid additional criminal punishment as well as favorable disposition as to separate cases. In other words, in a case where M himself/herself has revealed the fact that he/she did not deliver the money received from the contributors of political funds, such as AI, to the Defendant, he/she is liable for criminal liability as to such money, and thus, it is sufficient to make a statement to the effect that he/she takes charge of his/her responsibility by making a statement as if he/she was not delivered to the Defendant regarding whether or not he/she delivered the said money, or that the entire amount was delivered, even if it was delivered.

D. Specific determination for each amount

1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court around February 2013 of the Gu administration (No. 10 million won No. 2 No. 8) around the Gu administration, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received cash of KRW 10 million from AI from an AI around February 2013, 201, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A) In this Court, AI stated in this Court that “M should find himself after being hired as an assistant officer of the Defendant and take a lot of support payments.” The amount of KRW 10 million in cash was 10 million and paid to M. M. Whether M delivers KRW 10 million to the Defendant is not known or not. At the time, M did not know at that time, the Defendant did not have any difficulty.”

B) The pocket book written by M is deemed to be “the Gu administration 2013.2. Gu administration” with respect to this part of the facts charged (Evidence No. 2823 of the Evidence Records). M received cash 10 million won from AI as a personnel expense for the Defendant’s life-saving service around February 2, 2013. On the same day, the Defendant contributed to the CF’s broadcast program and completed an occupation-oriented trial at the nearby bones Sea Office, and the other employees sent KRW 10 million to the Defendant under the circumstances of the restaurant.”

C) The above M’s statement is different from the statement of AI as to the name or circumstance in line with the statement of AI, and it is also difficult for M to easily obtain in light of the empirical rule that M delivers the above KRW 10 million to the Defendant at a restaurant, which is an open place. In addition, the entry in the above pocket book is supported by the fact that M received KRW 10 million from AI. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the above KRW 10 million as the entry in the above pocket book can be deemed to have been delivered to the Defendant, and the AI is consistent with the prosecutor’s office and this court, and there is no memory with the Defendant around February 2013. The statement is different from the M’s statement.

D) As seen earlier, it is difficult to believe that the portion of the statement of M delivered money from AI as it is to be delivered to the defendant, and as long as AI also states that it has not been known that the above money has been delivered to the defendant, the possibility that the above KRW 10 million that M received from AI should not be ruled out.

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court at around May 2013 (No. 30 million won No. 2 No. 9), the Defendant can be recognized as having received cash KRW 30 million from AI at the date and time and place indicated in No. 2 No. 9 of the crime sight table. The Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

가) AI은 이 법정에서 "AH이라는 중식당을 간 기억은 명확히 없으나, 2013. 5.경 피고인, M와 함께 식사를 하다가 피고인이 보는 자리에서 M에게 3,000만 원을 주었다."고 진술하였고, 검찰에서는 "시기는 정확하게 기억나지 않으나 M, 피고인과 함께 식사를 한 적이 있고, 그 식사 자리에서 M를 통하여 3,000만 원을 준 것은 맞다"라고 진술하였다(증기기록 제1483. 2117쪽), AI의 이러한 진술은 비교적 일관된 것으로 보이고, 이 법정에서 AI이 한 진술 중 3,000만 원을 피고인이 아닌 M에게 주었다고 진술한 부분은 피고인이 보는 앞에서 M에게 3,000만 원을 건넸다는 취지로 보일 뿐이다.

나) M는 검찰과 이 법정에서 일관하여 "식당에서 피고인, AI과 함께 점심식사를 한 후 AI이 피고인에게 주는 돈을 대신 받고 나왔다. 차에 탈 때까지 들고 있다가 차에서 내린 후 피고인에게 드렸다."라고 진술하여 위와 같은 AI의 진술과 일치한다. 사실관계와 사정이 이와 같다면, AI이 피고인, M와 함께 식사를 하는 자리에서 직접 현 금 3,000만 원을 건넸다면, M가 위 돈을 피고인에게 전달하지 않았거나 돈의 일부를 가져갔을 것으로 보이지는 않는다.

3) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court at around June 2013 (No. 2 No. 10, 2013), the fact that the Defendant received cash of KRW 30,000 from AI at the date and time and place indicated in No. 2, 10,000,000,000 from the AI can be acknowledged. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

A) In the prosecutorial office, AI stated that “I am above the envelope containing KRW 30 million, while making a talk with Defendant and M in the Speaker’s room, M brought the envelope to the Defendant by stating that “I am Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do do Do Do do Do do Do do Do do Do Do do Do.” (Evidence No. 1486, 2121) and in this court, I stated that “I Do Do e Do Do e Do Do Do n Do Do n Do n Do n Do n Do n Do n n Do n n

B) The pocket book written by M is indicated as “3.00 per delivery network to CG on June 2013” in relation to this part of the facts charged (Evidence No. 2823 of the record). In this court, AI stated that “AcG is also one of its money in order to deliver it to “CG”. However, the prosecutor stated that “ACG is also one of its credibility.” However, the prosecutor made several talks that “the defendant should help the representative in our country, the representative of the CA was asked about who the representative in the case.” (Evidence No. 1486, 2120, 2121 of the record of evidence). In light of the position of the AI prior to this point, it is difficult to view that the statement made by AI regarding “CG” by the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s office appears to have any reason to suspect its credibility.

C) In this court, M stated in this court that "the delivery to CA members to CA members would have been made to AI, and it would have been said that AI would have been said to be the outer part of AI." The AI stated that "The defendant's cG referred to himself would refer to the CA representative, and the prosecutor stated that "the AI should take 30 million won as well as personnel affairs to the CA representative around June 2013, and that "the defendant will bring 30 million won to the CA representative, and the defendant would directly take 30 million won to the defendant as a member's office on the date the AI promised to do so." This statement conforms to the AI's prosecutor's statement.

D) Ultimately, as to whether AI requested to deliver the above KRW 30 million to CG, the prosecution made a passive statement in court, unlike in the prosecution, on or around June 2013, the prosecution consistently made a statement about the fact that it directly charged to the defendant at the council room of the defendant to this court, and there is no reason to suspect its credibility.

4) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court (No. 20 million won No. 11) around August 2013, 2013, the Defendant can be found to have received KRW 20 million in cash from AI at the date and time and place specified in No. 2 No. 11 of the List of Offenses Act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

A) In this court, AI stated that "I have paid money to the defendant in the office. At the time, M was able to prepare for the degree of 20 million won. At the time, the defendant and M were found directly in the office. The defendant, alone, stated that M was given KRW 20 million to M in the next conference room when the defendant sits in a sofa," but the prosecutor stated that "I stated that "I will write 20 million in cash prepared for the defendant, which is 20 million in cash prepared for the defendant, at the cost of the leave. I stated that "I will write me at the cost of the leave. I do not correspond to the actual leave, but it was used at that time in the personnel room in place." (Evidence No. 1488, 2123 of the evidence record).

B) In this Court, M made a statement to the effect that “I visited the office of AI along with the Defendant for the proposal of AI, and I would like to conclude that AI will take cash of KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and that I would like to write it out in the leave cost.”

C) At the time, the Defendant and M visited the AI’s office, so it is difficult to easily understand in light of the empirical rule that the AI, an incumbent member of the National Assembly, who visited his office as a customer, is mixed with the Defendant, who is an assistant to the other room. It is reasonable to view that the AI, as stated in the prosecutor’s office, provided the Defendant with KRW 20 million in the name of M. The Defendant also stated to the effect that “I go to the AI’s office and return to the Council room, and then M received money that M would receive leave fees from the AI,” apart from any amount, the fact of the receipt is recognized. Thus, if facts and circumstances are different, the Defendant received all KRW 20 million prepared by AI at the time, and it is difficult to view that M would bring some amount of money.

5) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court at around September 9, 2013 (No. 2 No. 12 of the Crime List 2), the Defendant may be recognized as having received cash of KRW 30 million from AI at the date and time and place specified in No. 2 of the Crime List 12. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

A) In this Court, AI stated in this Court that “I am a bag containing money in front of M at the place in which the Defendant is viewed as a member of the Defendant. I did not accurately memory but did not pay money before the prosecution.” In the prosecution, AI stated that “I am a defendant with cash worth of KRW 30 million in a member of the Assembly, although I am not accurately memory (Evidence No. 1489, 2124 of the Evidence Record).”

B) As long as the AI, as seen above, at least 30 million won in cash in the same place with Defendant and M, left in front of M, it seems that M did not have any circumstance where M did not deliver the said money to the Defendant or may bring part of the said money. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the cash prepared by AI was delivered to all Defendant.

6) KRW 20 million in order of September 2013 (No. 20 million in sight of crime No. 13)

On September 2013, a prosecutor indicted the Defendant of the amount of political funds received from AI through BI as KRW 20 million. However, considering the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence alone, which is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s political funds amount to KRW 20 million exceeding KRW 10 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

A) On September 2013, the Defendant consistently stated from the prosecution to this court that the money transferred from AI to BI and M is KRW 10 million (Evidence Records No. 2826 pages).

B) In the prosecution and this court, AI directed M to deliver the envelope containing KRW 20 million to the prosecution and this court. While M calls confirming that it was well received KRW 20 million to oneself, it is not confirmed whether M delivers the money to the defendant or not, but M has not confirmed whether it was delivered to the defendant. The part of M’s statement that M delivers the money received from BI to the defendant is difficult to believe as it is, and it cannot be ruled out that M delivers only KRW 10 million among the KRW 20 million received through BI to the defendant.

7) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court at around September 22, 2013 (No. 20 million won in the list of crimes No. 14), the Defendant can be recognized as having received cash KRW 20 million from AI at the time and place specified in No. 2/14 of the list of crimes. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

A) In the prosecution, AI sent KRW 20 million to the defendant through BI and thereafter, the defendant's current amount of KRW 20 million to CH is not memory (Evidence No. 1491, 1492, 2126). The AI stated to the effect that the above money in this court does not correspond to the defendant. However, it is difficult to view that the defendant's office was found and the defendant's office stated that the delivery of money was made by means of an envelope with support payments in front of M, and thus, it is difficult to view that it reversed the statement in the prosecutor's office.

B) M also consistently from the prosecutor’s office to this court, consistent from this court, “AI will bring about a certain amount of KRW 20 million to CH Minister as a person in a strong command, and on that day, AI found in the council room of the defendant and gave 20 million won directly to the defendant. AI’s talked about CH minister’s talk to give money to the defendant. It is well aware of whether it will dance in order to give money to the defendant.” This M’s statement corresponds to AI’s above statement, and contrary to this part, there is no reason to suspect credibility in AI or M’s statement.

8) A prosecutor, around 10, 2013, around 13, 2013 (No. 20 million won No. 15), charged the Defendant with the amount of political funds received from AI as KRW 20 million on October, 13, 2013. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s political funds amount to KRW 20 million, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A) From this Court, the Defendant stated that cash received from AI through M on October 13, 2013 was KRW 5 million.

B) In this Court, the AI stated in this Court that “M gave KRW 20 million to the 20 million.” Although the pocketbook prepared by M is written to the effect that it is the CA election subsidies, M delivers the above money to the Defendant under the same name.”

C) Although M made a statement to the effect that it delivered money received from AI to the Defendant in this court as it is contained in an envelope, M’s statement to the effect that it is difficult to believe that all of the Defendant received money is delivered, and M’s statement to the effect that it was delivered to the Defendant cannot be ruled out that only five million won out of the amount received from AI was delivered to the Defendant.

9) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court at around 10, 222-23 (No. 2 No. 16) and around 23, 2013, the fact that the Defendant received cash worth KRW 30 million from AI at the date and time and place indicated in No. 2 No. 16 of the List of Offenses Act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

A) In this Court, AI stated in this Court that “The defendant has entered 30 million won in order to meet the defendant. At present, M was given money to M, and the defendant was not directly viewed.” On the other hand, the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that “I would like to prepare for the CA member office in the City of CI with M and then came to the office of CA member office in the City of CI, but the CA member did not come to the place. At this time, the defendant left the vehicle and sent 30 million won in cash to the defendant. At that place, M was delivered to the defendant. The defendant directly received money and directly received money from the defendant, and the defendant was given 192, 294, 192, 294, 194, 2000 won in cash and 30 million won in cash.” The defendant directly received money.

B) From the prosecutor’s office to this court, M proposed that “AI should first not be required to pay money to the CA election campaign, and gave money to the Defendant getting on and off the vehicle with AI. An AI consistently stated to the effect that it did not meet the CA at the time, but that it paid money directly to Defendant at the restaurant parking lot.”

C) At the time, the CJ election day, the CJ election day that the CJ election day that the CJ election day closed by the CA, and thus, the Defendant appears to have been at the CI for the CA election campaign. In such a situation, it seems that the AI started to find political funds by the CI until the CI in order to grant political funds directly from the standpoint of AI to divide the Defendant or the CA directly. However, it does not appear that the CA or even the Defendant did not have to have received the larger money of KRW 30 million in the absence of the CA or even the Defendant, such as the SAI’s legal statement. Ultimately, as the AI made detailed statements at the prosecutor’s office or made consistent statements, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was directly paid KRW 30 million after finding the Defendant who was at the time of CI, and it is not possible to bring part of the said money in such a situation.

10) around June 20, 2014, KRW 20 million (No. 20 million No. 18)

On June 20, 2014, the prosecutor charged the Defendant with the amount of political funds received from AI as KRW 20 million. However, considering the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s political funds amount to KRW 20 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

A) The Defendant stated in this Court that “The cash received through M on June 20, 2014 was KRW 10,000,000. At that time, the Defendant stated to the effect that it was impossible for AI to find it in the Council room because it was not in place at that time.”

B) In this court’s statement to the effect that “AI did not see Defendant on June 20, 2014, and provided M with KRW 20 million at the contact room.” On the other hand, M made a statement to the effect that “I shall not express the name, such as the Defendant’s father’s or CA election campaign support.” On the other hand, M has brought money under the name, such as the Defendant’s father’s father’s son’s or CA election support.” The AI stated that “I shall associate with money directly paid to Defendant.”

C) On June 20, 2014, the part in which the statement of the AI and the defendant coincide with is the part in which the member's office did not communicate with each other and received money through M. The statement of M that he received money was delivered to the defendant is difficult to believe for the reasons as seen earlier, and it is not possible that M delivers only KRW 10 million out of the amount of KRW 20 million received from AI to the defendant.

5. Determination on the violation of the AC-related Political Funds Act

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) The Defendant received KRW 20 million from AC at the Assembly room of the Defendant around March 20, 2014, as indicated in No. 2 No. 19 of the Crimes List 2, but there was no fact that he received KRW 50 million from AC at AF hotel coffee shop around April 20, 2014, such as the No. 20, around April 20, 2014. In addition, the said money was not received in relation to AC’s local election AD, but constitutes a mere political support.

2) On June 14, 2014, the Defendant did not have received KRW 10 million from AC from the Assembly room of the Defendant around June 14, 2014, as indicated in No. 21 of the Crimes List 21.

3) In the latter part of 2014, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from AC from the Defendant’s Assembly room at the Defendant’s Assembly room in the latter part of 2014, such as No. 2 No. 22 of the Crimes List, but this does not constitute political funds, inasmuch as it is the amount repaid on or around October 17, 2017, after personal borrowing from AC.

1) In full view of the following facts established by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court as well as circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash from AC at the date and time and place specified in No. 20 No. 20 of the List of Offenses Act, can be acknowledged in the manner that the Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash from AC at the time and place specified in No. 20 of the List of Offenses Act.

The defendant and defense counsel shall not be accepted.

A) On April 20, 2014, M consistently from the prosecution to this court, “AC was met with the Defendant at the AF hotel coffee shop located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, AC, prior to the departure of the CL basin 1, which was located in Sungnam-si, with the Defendant. It stated that “AC will not have a personnel for the CA or BY, while giving the Defendant KRW 50 million.” At the time, AC has prepared for KRW 50 million, and it was thought that there was a big distribution.” As at the time, AC had been prepared to distribute the above KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

A relatively detailed statement was made.

B) The pocket book written by M is written as “4/20 to 15:00 to 1 minute CL basin 500 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 (Evidence No. 2814 to 2814 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 30 million to 30 million to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 20 to 200 to 20 to 200 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30

C) The Defendant stated in this court that “AC, along with AC on April 21, 2014, stated that “AC had a representative of AC and a local election, affixed a photo on one occasion,” and that “AC had a photographed with AC along with CM and CN, and introduced AC to the effect that “AC had a photograph affixed.” In full view of the Defendant’s statement and M’s above statement, it is reasonable to deem that AC, which was prepared to run a local election campaign, had an intention to have a photograph taken along with an in-house voter at the time when the Defendant had been granted KRW 50 million from AC on April 20, 2014, the preceding day.”

D) On April 20, 2014, the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by AC’s defense counsel during the prosecution investigation process contains a statement that AC delivers KRW 50 million to the Defendant as political funds (Evidence Records No. 1952 pages).

2) Determination as to whether a person was received in relation to good faith

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 70 million, which the Defendant received from AC twice as stated in Nos. 2, 19, and 20,000,000 from AC, was received in connection with AC’s local election AD. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

A) In this Court, M tried to find a policeman on March 2014 and want to take personnel affairs for the Defendant so that his previous convictions do not arise during the process of local election AD council members. Accordingly, AC made it available for the Defendant to come up. AC, around April 20, 2014, stated in the AF hotel coffee shop that “I would not have to take personnel affairs for CA or BY even if I would not want to go to go through a cry.” With respect to this part of the facts charged, “I would not have to go to go to go through a cry or BY.” In this part of the pocketbook prepared by M, it is consistent with the statement of M as above, stating that “Iss would not have to go to go to go through a request for assistance of 50,000 won or more to go to the National Assembly members.”

B) Although the Defendant did not directly have the authority to cooperate in the local election AD of the party B, the Defendant was known to the close relation to the CA, which was called the so-called “ZB member at the time,” and exercises considerable influence over the party, and thus, from the perspective of AC, AC was expected to assist the Defendant in receiving the membership of a member of the AD local election.

C) Although AC had a criminal record related to assault that could sufficiently be problematic during the process of official examination, such as interference with duties, damage to property, and violation of the rate of punishment of violence, etc. (Evidence No. 107, 2812 of the record). Ultimately, during a local election of June 4, 2014, B was recruited as a candidate for AD Council members of a political party at AD Council. On June 14, 2014, considering the following facts acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, as seen earlier, insofar as the examination protocol of the prosecution against AC cannot be used as evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as a pocketbook prepared by M, a M’s statement, etc., is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s Assembly room on June 14, 2014.

1) On June 14, 2014, the Defendant consistently stated from an investigative agency to this court that no money was received from AC from the Defendant’s Assembly room.

2) The pocket book prepared by M is indicated as “the thickness and direct delivery of 1,000 National Assembly members,” which is the subsidy for the National Assembly Affairs Office AC and CG party representative election campaign in relation to this part of the facts charged.”

(No. 2815 pages) With respect to the contents written in the above pocket book, M stated in this Court that “IC know about them.” However, if it is a Saturday on June 14, 2014, there is no fact that the Defendant had been in a parliamentary room. The same is the same.” Therefore, it is difficult to specify when and where to what extent it is delivered to the Defendant by the entry in the above pocket book.

3) M did not have observed or confirmed whether AC actually delivered KRW 10 million to the defendant, and only from AC, it appears that it was recorded in the B’s pocket book, and that the statement was made abstractly on the premise of the contents written in the pocket book. In addition, in light of M’s statement that June 14, 2014 does not work in the Council room, and that Saturdays did not work in the Council room, it is doubtful that the defendant met AC in the Council room on the above date.

D. Determination as to the violation of the Political Funds Act, which received KRW 50 million in the second half of 2014

1) Relevant legal principles (the same applies to the violation of the AP-related Political Funds Act below)

In the context of the crime of bribery, if the accepter claims that he/she received the money from the accepter but not from the accepter, the question of whether the accepter actually borrows the money shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, reason for delivery, and method of receiving the money from the accepter, the relationship between the accepter and the accepter, the position and work experience of the accepter, the necessity of borrowing the money, the possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter, the amount and the means of borrowing the money, the economic situation of the accepter and the amount of the borrowed money, the amount of the borrowed money, the economic situation of the accepter, the amount of the guaranteed money, and the amount of the guaranteed economic interest related to the accepter, whether to provide the guaranteed interest, the repayment of the principal and interest agreement of the accepter, and the possibility of compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 2011).

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, it can be recognized that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from AC in the latter part of the second half of 2014, not later than subsequently borrowed from AC due intent to repay, but rather received as the principal after it is a political fund. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

A) On October 11, 2017, the Defendant consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that “M meta with AC and 53 million won around October 17, 2017 after being detained on October 11, 2017,” and that “AC had received KRW 53 million as of April 27, 2017, the day before the prosecution investigation was conducted by the B Party Gyeonggi-do Party, and made a statement to the prosecutor’s office that “when the first investigation was conducted at the prosecutor’s office” (Evidence No. 2818 of the evidence record), AB made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant’s statement was made by 50,000 won within the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the F Party Gyeonggi-do Party parking lot,” and that this statement was not made by the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant’s statement was made by 50,000 won due to the Defendant’s request for a false statement to AB by the prosecutor’s office.”

B) In this court, M made a statement to the effect that “AC prepared a loan certificate from AC for the latter part of the latter part of 2014 and borrowed KRW 50 million.” After that, “AC did not have any comments that the Defendant would pay the above KRW 50 million to the Defendant.” The AC did not set any security while paying the above KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and it appears that there was no fact that the Defendant received interest from the Defendant until October 17, 2017. If factual relations and circumstances arise, it is difficult to view that AC delivered KRW 50 million to the Defendant for the last time.

C) The defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by AC by the defense counsel during the prosecutor’s investigation process is indicated in the second half of 2014 that AC’s KRW 50 million is political funds (Evidence No. 1952 of the Evidence Records). 6. Determination on the violation of the AP-related Political Funds Act

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Defendant’s KRW 70 million received from AP around 2015, which is not political funds, individually borrowed from AP.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 70 million from AP around January 2015 can be recognized as a support fund, not a loan borrowed from BP at the later time. The Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) AP consistently from the prosecution to this court, consistently stated from this court that “AP paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant on the pretext of a loan, but there was no record of either preparing a certificate of loan or not having agreed on the period of payment or interest at the time, and no interest was paid. As long as the Defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, was equivalent to the Defendant, it was considered that the Defendant was unable to return money. The Defendant’s payment of money was due to the fact that there was an expectation that the Defendant would have been able to receive a subsidy in relation to the business. Although the Defendant was able to hear the word of lending KRW 70 million from the Defendant, there was no expression that he would repay or would have paid interest at any time.”

2) In addition to the above AP’s statement, considering the following: (a) the Defendant received KRW 70 million from the AP in cash, rather than the account transfer method; (b) the Defendant did not have any security or payment of interest from the AP; and (c) the AP did not demand the Defendant to pay the Defendant for a period exceeding two years from the date on which the investigation into the Defendant began to commence from the AP from the date on 2015 to the date on 2017, it is difficult to view the Defendant as a cash borrowed KRW 70 million from the AP.

3) In particular, upon being detained M on October 11, 2017, the Defendant, at the CP coffee shop located in Seocho-gu Seoul CO on October 16, 2017, drafted a separate loan certificate stating that the Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from AP on April 5, 2015 at interest rate of KRW 1% and KRW 70 million on April 30, 2015 (Evidence No. 2834, 570, 589 of the evidence record). The Defendant prepared the above loan certificate to AP and received KRW 10 to 20 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 25 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 25 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 25 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 20 to 2.

7. Determination on the violation of the Political Funds Act relating to A Q Q

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) The Defendant received KRW 30 million from Q around April 26, 2016, such as the list No. 2 No. 26 of the crime sight table, but this cannot be viewed as political funds since it borrowed the purchase price of the motor vehicle to be used by the Defendant’s wife.

2) The Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million from Q from the Defendant during May 2016, as indicated in No. 2 No. 27 of the Crimes List No. 27. The said money appears to have been received from A Q as the Defendant knew.

3) The Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million from Q from the Defendant on June 2016, as indicated in Table 2 No. 28, 2016.

B. Determination as to the violation of the Political Funds Act, which received KRW 30 million on April 26, 2016

1) Relevant legal principles

The main text of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act provides that “any person who contributes or receives political funds in a manner not prescribed by this Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” Article 3 subparag. 1(f) of the same Act provides that “any person who intends to become a candidate under the Public Official Election Act for political activities, any person who is a candidate or elected, any supporters’ association, executive staff of a political party or salaried clerical staff, or any other person who engages in any political activity, shall be punished as political funds.” The above provision prohibits and punishs those who engage in political activities, not any act of giving or receiving all money or goods provided for political activities, but any money or goods provided for political activities, which is objectively anticipated to be disbursed as expenses for political activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4075, May 11, 2018).” Article 3 subparag. 1(f) of the Political Funds Act provides evidence that the Defendant received political Funds from the Defendant’s Political Fund Fund.

A) On April 26, 2016, Q sought a loan of KRW 30 million in cash from the Defendant’s Assembly room, and directly delivered the Defendant with cash of KRW 30 million. On April 26, 2016, Q consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court, that “The Defendant prepared and paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant after receiving contact between the Defendant’s wife and M in order to buy a vehicle to be used by the Defendant’s wife from around April 2016.” The aforementioned 30 million loan certificate was prepared or agreement was not made on the due date and interest, and it was inevitable due to no return.”

B) M also requested the prosecutor’s office and this court to consistently support money in order to change the Defendant’s wife by calls to Q Q after the completion of the senior patrol force on April 2016. Accordingly, on April 26, 2016, Q visited the Council room to the Defendant and directly gave KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

C) According to the statements of Q and M, the Defendant requested Q Q Q Q to provide the Defendant’s wife with the purchase fund for the vehicle to be used by the Defendant, and Q Q Q also appears to have paid KRW 30 million in cash with the knowledge of such use points. In fact, around May 18, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle was purchased and registered in the name of the Defendant’s wife (Evidence No. 1087, 1906) (Evidence No. 1087, 1906) and the above money KRW 30 million was used for the purchase fund for the said No. Q Q Q and Q. From around April 26, 2016, it is difficult to view that Q Q and Q were not lawfully provided by the Defendant as a political fund within the scope of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant’s wife, which was not provided for the Defendant’s political activity.

1) At the prosecution and this court consistent, Q requested the Defendant’s wife to provide more support than KRW 10 million, since M makes a contact with the Defendant after giving KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and M makes it possible for the Defendant’s wife to obtain more than KRW 10 million. After that, M’s office, M received more than KRW 10 million in cash. Whether M actually delivered KRW 10 million to the Defendant was not confirmed, and the Defendant stated that M did not have any remarks from the Defendant that 10 million is a party for the above KRW 10 million.

2) In this Court, M made a statement that “I wish to purchase the original franchise by the Defendant, but I wish to purchase ANAs,” which is the same as the need to purchase money, and demanded A Q to additionally require KRW 10 million. The cost of KRW 10 million received from A Q was all delivered to the Defendant.” However, it is difficult to believe that M’s statement that Q delivered money to the Defendant that received A Q was, as seen in Section 4(c) above, is difficult to believe as it was, as it was, as seen in Section 4(c). It is difficult to exclude the possibility that M did not deliver KRW 10 million received from A Q to the Defendant.

3) On May 4, 2016, the Defendant’s wife Q Q’s name paid KRW 24,316,000 out of the purchase price of KRW 44,316,00 as a lump sum, and the remainder of KRW 20,00,000 as a non-interest rate of 36 months was concluded. On May 16, 2016, the above KRW 24,316,00,000 was actually paid and the registration of the No.S. passenger car was completed in the name of Q Q Q’s name (Evidence No. 1902 pages of evidence record). Even if considering the incidental expenses related to the registration of the No.S. passenger car, it is doubtful that KRW 1,00,000 was required to receive KRW 1,000,000,000 in addition to the purchase fund of Q Q Q Q’s automobile among May 2, 2016, it is insufficient to request the Defendant to receive KRW 1,000,0.

D. In full view of the following facts established by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, and circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million in cash from Q from the Defendant’s parliamentary room on June 2016, as indicated in No. 2 / 28 of the List of Offenses Act. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.

1) From the prosecutor’s office to this court, Q consistently states that “The defendant had difficulty in making phone calls before July 201, thereby leaving the parliamentary room directly leading the defendant to 10 million won (Evidence No. 1554, 2717, 2718).” Although Q could be punished as a violation of the Political Funds Act, there is no obvious motive for the defendant to make a false statement.

2) On June 21, 2016, Q entered “14:00 A Council member offices” in Q Q’s Multi-La, and in fact, considering the vehicle access details of Q Q’s National Assembly on June 21, 2016, the fact was recognized around 15:01 on the same day after getting on and out of the National Assembly and entering the National Assembly on June 21, 2016. As such, Q’s statement conforms to such objective evidence.

3) There is no record that Q Q entered the National Assembly building entry details by the Defendant or any other National Assembly member room (Evidence No. 2686 of the record). However, in this court, Q entered the National Assembly building to the effect that “at the time other events were held in the National Assembly at that time.” If so, the entry details of the National Assembly building could not be recorded, it cannot be said that the credibility of Q’s statement was lower solely on the entry details of the National Assembly building entry.”

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment for a term of 7 years to 45 years and fine of 122,218,00 won to 405,545,00 won); 2. The scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (limited to imprisonment)

(a) Crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and illegal action after bribery;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 4 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravated Action: Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribery

[Scope of Recommendation] 6 years to 8 years (Aggravated Field)

(b) Offenses of each political fund: The sentencing criteria shall not be set. The scope of final sentences due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 7 years and not less than 5);

3. Determination of sentence;

Although the Defendant was a member of the National Assembly who has a duty of integrity and duty of conscience in accordance with the Constitution and laws, and was given a bribe exceeding KRW 80 million by abusing the authority granted to the citizens. Furthermore, upon the request of J, the Defendant had been given a bribe in excess of KRW 80 million. Furthermore, upon the offer of the bribeer, the Defendant had been given a large amount of illegal political fund of KRW 1.096 million from 19 persons to H institutions and H institutions, which fall under the jurisdiction of the National Assembly D of which the principal belongs. The Defendant was given a large amount of illegal political fund of KRW 625 million from 19 persons to 6.5 million from among them, and the Defendant was given a large amount of bribe and political fund, and the Defendant appears to have actively demanded money to the other party through M in most cases. Considering that the Defendant’s criminal act, as a result of the Defendant’s criminal act, the fairness and uncertainty of the member’s duty, soundness of the election system, which is the basis of democracy, and transparency of the public and confidence of the Defendant.

However, with respect to the crime of violating the Political Funds Act, the defendant's mistake is recognized as committing a part of the crime, and the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime are considered as a whole, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in light of various conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case

The acquittal portion

1. Judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On May 2015, the Defendant received from J an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,000,000 from Q hotel in relation to the “K Corporation,” which was ordered by Q hotel 1st to J as well as M, in relation to the “K Corporation,” which was ordered by Q hotel in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged is a case where there is no proof of a crime to prove that the defendant received money in excess of 50,000 U.S. dollars as seen in Article 1-b of the "Determination on the Dispute Point". However, as long as it is found that the defendant was guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to receipt of e0,00 U.S. dollars equivalent to 50,000 U.S. dollars as stated in the above facts charged

2. Determination on the violation of some of AI-related Political Funds Act

A. Determination as to receipt of political funds of KRW 10 million around February 2013, 201

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 2 No. 8)

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant received the contribution of political funds by receiving KRW 10 million in cash from AI as a political support in the room of the Defendant’s Assembly members center at the time of the Gu administration and not determined by the Political Funds Act.

2) Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in Article 4-d. 1 of the above "Judgment on the point of dispute", and thus, a not-guilty verdict pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal

B. Determination as to the receipt of each political fund mentioned above Nos. 2, 13, 15, and 18

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

A) No. 2 No. 13

On September 2013, the Defendant received 20 million won in cash as a political support from AI through BI at the coffee shop of the CDtel building, and received political funds in a way that is not determined by the Political Funds Act.

B) No. 2 No. 15

On October 13, 2013, the Defendant received cash amounting to KRW 20 million from AI and received political funds in a way that is not determined by the Political Funds Act through M in the Council room of the Defendant in the House of the National Assembly Members.

C) No. 2 No. 18

On June 20, 2014, the Defendant received the contribution of political funds in a way that is not determined by the Political Funds Act by receiving KRW 20 million in cash from AI for the purpose of political support, etc. from the council room of the accused in the National Assembly member hall.

2) Determination

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime with regard to the receipt of political funds to the extent of each of the above amounts, as examined in each of the above facts charged in Section 4-d, 6, 8, and 10 of the above facts charged, and thus, it should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of the violation of each of the Political Funds Act by giving and receiving of 10 million won, 10 million won, 12 won, 5 million won, 15 million won, and 10 million won, which are included in each of the above facts charged, it shall not be acquitted in separate text.

3. Determination as to the violation of the Political Funds Act by June 14, 2014 related to AC

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 21 No. 5)

On June 14, 2014, the Defendant received from AC a cash of KRW 10 million and received political funds in a way that is not prescribed by the Political Funds Act, from the Assembly room of the accused in the National Assembly member hall.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, as examined in Section 5(c) of the above "judgment on the point of dispute", and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced

4. Determination on partial violation of the Political Funds Act relating to A Q

A. Determination on the violation of the Political Funds Act of April 26, 2016

1) The summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 26 No. 5 of the List of Crimes)

On April 26, 2016, the Defendant received a cash of KRW 30 million from Q to the office of the Defendant’s National Assembly member, under the pretext of political support, etc., and received a contribution of political funds in a way that is not prescribed by the Political Funds Act.

2) Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in Section 7-b of the above "judgment on the point of dispute", and thus, a not-guilty verdict is made in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is announced in accordance with

B. Determination as to the violation of the Political Funds Act by the First Lieutenant on May 2016

1) The summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 27 No. 5 of the Crimes List 27)

On May 2016, the Defendant received KRW 10 million in cash from AP under the pretext of a political support fund, etc. from AP in the KR office operated by AP M in the middle of May 2016, and received the contribution of political funds in a way not determined by the Political Funds Act.

2) Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in Section 7(c) of the above "judgment on the point of dispute", and thus, a not-guilty verdict is made in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is announced in accordance

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

1) Based on facts acknowledged by the argument and records of the instant case, the facts charged to the extent that the Defendant’s defense right is not infringed.

Some revisions are recognized.

2) On February 2017, the name of the political party was changed to that of the F Party.

3) On May 2015, the average trading standard rate of emulation is KRW 1,222.18/L. Based on this, the punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) shall be imposed.

If 122,218,00 won to 305,545,000 won, or if 122,218,000 won to 250,000 won to 100,000 won, and the fine for the crime of illegal action after the acceptance of the bribe is imposed.

If concurrent crimes are aggravated within the scope of the total sum of KRW 40 million to KRW 100 million and the total amount of both crimes, the scope of punishment by a fine against the accused under the law shall be limited.

from 122,218,00 to 405,545,00 won.

4) The sentencing criteria are to determine the type of bribe crime on the basis of the sum of the amount of bribe.

5) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery and Improper Action after Bribery) whose sentencing criteria are set, and each political whose sentencing criteria are not set

Since a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article

Only the lower limit of the crime is applicable, but the lower limit of the recommended sentencing criteria is lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law, and ultimately, according to the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law.

Berne.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.