208, 596 A. Acceptance of bribe

208Gohap642 (Consolidation)

(c) Fraud;

1. A. Defendant 1

House, Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu")

Reference domicile Incheon Bupyeong-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seung-gu")

2. B. D. Defendant 2

Residential Seo-gu Incheon (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

Reference domicile Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

nan

Law Firm

Attorney in charge

Attorney Park Do-young

January 8, 2009

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

With respect to Defendant 1, two days under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 80 hours.

A penalty of KRW 9,903,370 shall be collected from Defendant 1.

Criminal facts

Defendant 1 is a public official in charge of the control of illegal stopping vehicles under the traffic and parking control team of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Office from March 2000, and Defendant 2 is the representative director of ○○ Special (ju) and is designated by the Seo-gu Incheon Office as an agent for illegal stopping vehicles from the Seo-gu Office around November 2001, and is designated as the agent for illegal stopping vehicles from the Seo-gu Incheon Office.

Until the end, towing agent was operated.

When public officials of Seo-gu Office Control Group, including Defendant 1, affix an administrative fine to illegal stopping vehicles in the jurisdiction of Seo-gu and a vehicle Stackers subject to towing, Defendant 2 was towed to towing and storage facilities of illegal stopping vehicles on which the said Stackers were posted, and then the income such as towing and storage fees was raised.

Therefore, the number of vehicles to be towed by enforcement officers, activeness of regulation, accessibility to towing places and agencies, close contact systems with enforcement officers, etc. are bound to be directly connected with the revenues of towing agents. In fact, Defendant 1 was a member of the control team in charge of parking control over three Dongs around the office of ○○ Special (State) and maintained close relationship with ○ Special (State), such as sharing of vehicle control information, rapid contact systems, etc.

1. Defendant 1

A. When the Defendant discontinued his business since around September 2002, which had been continuously provided from (ju) ○ Special region, and was unable to receive the above beverage no longer, the Defendant had been able to receive cash in the name of meal expenses from ○ Special (ju) instead of being paid.

On February 2, 2005, the Defendant stated to the head of the management office of ○○ Special (main state) Management Office Kim○○ in the vicinity of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, that “A drinking water is no longer necessary, and KRW 10,000 per day does not request KRW 10,000 per day under the name of meal expenses.” At the same time, the Defendant stated to the effect that “A

On February 12, 2005: around 00, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 60,000 in total over 125 times in total from July 16, 2007, from around 00 to around 00, from Kim○, who was in a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to refuse the Defendant’s request in connection with the towing agency business within the vehicle of Kim○, which was parked near the above Seo-gu Office, in relation to the towing agency business, from the time when he received a bribe of KRW 60,00 in cash in relation to his duties.

B. As a result of the withdrawal of the electricity paid to a public official in charge of the control of parking and stopping in Seo-gu Office around June 2002

In the situation where the communication system between the defendant and the ○○ Special (State) was difficult with respect to the crackdown on parking and stopping, the defendant 2 declared that the defendant 2 would buy a mobile phone with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant does not have a mobile phone.

Around that time, the Defendant told Defendant 2 that “A mobile phone has no mobile phone because he had no mobile phone,” and received a mobile phone (L) opened in the name of Defendant 2 in the name of ○○ Special (State).

On July 24, 2003, the Defendant: (a) had Defendant 2 pay 105,830 won for the aforementioned mobile phone at the new location of the Korea-U.S. bank located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; and (b) obtained financial benefits equivalent to the above amount; and (c) received a bribe in relation to his duties from that time, including the receipt of such bribe.

26. By up to 26. A total of 1,983,370 won bribe was received in total over 33 occasions, such as the statement in the Schedule of Crimes (2).

C. On February 2005, when the vehicle loaded to the public officials controlling the parking and stopping of a vehicle falls short of the vehicle, and the defendant should control by getting a bus and getting a bus, the defendant stated to the effect that "the defendant has a lot of traffic cost to regulate by getting a bus."

Accordingly, on February 19, 2005, the Defendant received a bribe of 300,000 won in total on six occasions as shown in the annexed crime list (3) from around August 7, 2006, from around 00 to around 00, by receiving 50,000 won for the charge of the Defendant’s transportation card from Kim○○, in a situation where it was difficult for the Defendant to refuse the Defendant’s request regarding the towing business in connection with the towing business in front of the above Seo-gu Office cafeteria Kim○, the Defendant received a bribe of 50,000 won.

2. Defendant 2

A. In a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to refuse Defendant 1’s demand as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1-A, the Defendant conspired with the above Kim○○, and offered a bribe of KRW 7,620,000 in total with respect to Defendant 1’s duties, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table (1).

B. In a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to refuse Defendant 1’s request as stated in the foregoing 1-B, the Defendant offered a bribe of KRW 1,983,370 in total with respect to Defendant 1’s duties as indicated in the annexed crime list (2).

C. In a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to refuse Defendant 1’s demand as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1(c), the Defendant conspired with the above Kim○○, and offered a bribe of KRW 300,000 in total with respect to Defendant 1’s duties, such as the list of crimes (3).

D. At the end of May 2006, the Defendant: (a) purchased the land at the Defendant’s house of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted); (b) even if he received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to purchase the land by combining the money with his own money; and (c) furthermore, despite that he did not have the ability to invest 300 million won in purchasing the land with the Defendant’s money due to cumulative deficit, personal debt, etc. of the Defendant’s operation ○○ Special (State) of the Defendant, the Defendant purchased the land under the name of the victim and then purchased the land under the name of the victim of Seo-gu Office with the knowledge that the public officials of Seo-gu Office or Seo-gu Office knew of the amount of the KRW 300 million,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and then, (c) purchased the land under the name of the victim of the land under the name of 206,000,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

○ Each fact of 1 and 2-A to 2-C (2008 Gohap596)

1. The legal statement of the defendant 2, part of the defendant 1's legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Kim ○○;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the parts of each statement made by the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office No. 2008 type No. 56475)

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning ○○○;

1. Each police protocol on the maximum ○○○ and Kim○○;

1. Each protocol of seizure, each copy of ○○ Special Money Transfer Payment in 2003;

1. Each report on investigation;

○-1 Rain (2008 Gohap642)

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Each of the legal statements of the witness ○○○ and Kim○○;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 2 by the prosecution (including part of the statement made by this○○) of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 2008 type No. 64548)

1. Some of the prosecutor's statements concerning Kim○-○;

1. Part of each police statement on ○○○, Park ○, and Lee ○○;

1. A complaint, each notarial deed, each copy of deposits without passbook, each copy of each passbook transaction statement, each registration certificate, each copy of each copy of the register, each receipt, each copy of each business registration certificate, and each lease contract; and

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant 1: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively, the choice of imprisonment);

B. Defendant 2: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe, including the offering of a bribe), and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the act of fraud and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment Other Than Punishment)

1. Defendant 1 who has been suspended from execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances deemed as the following reasons for sentencing);

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Judgment on Defendant 2 of Article 134 of the Criminal Act and his defense counsel’s assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

With regard to the above criminal facts 2- D, the defendant argued that the victim this ○○ had a building located in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, that it would make investments in the development area. Accordingly, the victim would have made an investment of KRW 200 million in the short term, allowing the defendant to make an investment of KRW 5-60 million in the amount of KRW 200 million in the profits of KRW 5-60 million in the short term, and the defendant did not state that he would make an investment of KRW 300 million in the amount of KRW 300 million. The defendant, first of all, recommended the victim to make a profit reduction by the end of December 2006 or sold the land in another person's name. The defendant had no economic ability at the time of receiving an investment of KRW 200 million from the victim on June 13, 2006, and that the defendant did not have an intent to return the profits to the victim when he sold the above building.

2. Determination

A. First of all, the following facts are examined as to whether the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the above facts constituting the crime of this case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: ① With respect to the process of the crime of this case from the investigative agency to the court of law, the victim believed the victim to have invested KRW 300 million in the defendant's house in early June 2006, and consistently purchased the land located in the Incheon Seo-gu Inspection Team by investing KRW 200 million in the victim, thereby leaving the profits of KRW 5 to 60 million until the end of the year of the sale. The victim believed the victim to believe that the victim was in the name of a third party on June 2006.

13. 경 2억 원을 피고인의 통장으로 입금하여 주었는데 당시 피고인이 피해자에게 인천 서구 검단에 있는 ‘ 땅 ’ 을 구입한다고 하였을 뿐 인천 서구 석남동에 있는 건물을 산다는 이야기는 전혀 한 바가 없었고, 2억 원을 준 이후 한 달 정도 지나 피고인에게 땅을 샀느냐고 물어보니 피고인이 분명히 “ 검단에 있는 땅을 샀다. ” 라는 이야기를 하였다고 진술하고 있고, 피해자가 이 사건 범행 사실에 대하여 허위로 진술하고 있다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 점, ② 당시 피해자의 여자 친구였던 김○○도 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 피고인이 피해자에게 “ 자신이 하고 있는 렌트카, 렉카 사업이 아무나 할 수 있는 것이 아니고 공무원들이 연결이 되어야만 할 수 있는 것이기 때문에 구의원이나 공무원들을 많이 알고 있다. 그 사람들이 소스를 주어서 검단 쪽에 땅이 좋은 게 있다 .

비밀리에 진행되기 때문에 자기 이름으로 살 수는 없다. ”, “ 검단 방향 쪽에 땅이 있는 데 단기 매매로 해서 잡았다가 신도시 같은 계획이 발표가 나면 되팔아서 수익을 주겠다. 내가 다 하고 싶은데 2억 원이 부족하니 내가 3억 원을 투자할 테니 당신이 2억 원을 투자하라. ” 라고 이야기를 하였고, 피해자가 2억 원을 피고인에게 송금한 이후에 피고인의 처인 김상희로부터 피고인이 검단 쪽에 땅을 샀다는 말을 들었다고 진술하고 있어 피해자의 위 진술 내용에 부합하고, 피해자에게 ‘ 땅 ’ 이 아니라 인천 석남동에 있는 건물을 사겠다고 하여 2억 원을 투자받았다는 피고인의 진술과는 배치되는 점, ③ 피고인은 제1회 경찰 피의자신문시에 인천 서구 ( 이하 생략 ) 에 있는 주상복합상가를 피해자의 돈 2억 원과 피고인의 돈 3억 1, 000만 원을 합하여 매수하였다는 취지로 진술하였으나 ( 2008형제64548호 사건의 수사기록 38쪽 ), 피고인이 위 상가 건물을 구입하면서 주식회사 한서상호저축은행으로부터 1억 7, 000만 원을 대출받고, 박○○으로부터 1억 2, 000만 원을 차용하여 위 대출금 및 차용금을 위 상가 건물의 매수자금으로 지급하여 실제 피고인이 위 상가 건물의 매수에 투자한 금원은 별로 없었던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 피고인은 2006. 6. 13. 피해자로부터 2억 원을 지급받은 이후 두 달 정도 지나 2006. 8. 9. 에서야 위 상가 건물을 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 하였는데 ( 2008 형제64548호 사건의 수사기록 63 ~ 70쪽 ), 위 상가 건물을 사겠다고 하고선 피해자로부터 2억 원을 받은 피고인이 두 달이 지나서야 위 상가 건물을 매수한 경위 또한 쉽게 납득하기 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 위 범죄사실 기재와 같이 피해자에게 2억 원을 투자하면 인천 서구 검단 쪽에 ‘ 땅 ’ 을 구입하여 2006. 말까지 5 ~ 6, 000만 원의 이익금을 남겨주겠다는 취지로 거짓말을 하여 피해자를 기망한 사실이 넉넉히 인정된다 .

B. Next, considering the following circumstances as to 00 billion won or more of the Defendant’s fraud, i.e., the following circumstances: ① there was an apartment house with the Defendant’s own property at 00 billion won, ○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant’s wife’s wife’s property at 00 billion won, for each of the above 00 billion won, (i.e., KRW 00 million or more, KRW 10 billion or more, and (ii) the Defendant had sold the above 00 billion property at the time of the instant case’s purchase, and (iii) there was no other income from the Defendant’s wife, and (iii) there was no specific amount of KRW 14 billion or KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000 for KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000 won or more.

C. Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The above defendant 1 received a bribe of considerable amount of money for a long time from the defendant 2, who is the representative director of the towing company of illegal parking and stopping vehicles, in relation to his duties, while he was in a position to perform his duties fairly while maintaining the integrity and morality of his duties as a public official. This act by the defendant is detrimental to the public official's trust, and such act does not constitute a serious punishment corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant is the first offender, and his mistake is divided, and the return of 5 million won to the defendant 2 shall be considered as favorable circumstances to the above defendant, and the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, results, etc. shall be considered, and all sentencing factors specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be considered as ordered.

2. The above Defendant 2 offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties for a long period of time, and the fact is true by purchasing the land and acquiring 200 million won from the victim for the purchase price of the land, despite the absence of intent or ability to leave the benefit within a short period of time. Nevertheless, the above Defendant does not reflect his mistake while denying the above crime of fraud until the end, nor cannot even punish the victim with severe punishment corresponding thereto because he did not recover any damage.

However, the above defendants do not have any specific criminal history, and the facts of bribe grants recognized their errors and reflects them as favorable to the above defendants, and the above defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, results, etc. are considered in consideration of all sentencing factors as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges