2018Gohap129, 334 (Joints)

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

(c) Transportation of stolen goods;

D. Abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights

1. A. B.

2.c.(d) B

He/she shall hold a new prosecution, Kim Jong-soo, and leap in a trial.

Law Firm Jin-Law, Attorney Ahn Byung-hee (for the defendant A)

Attorney Jeong-chul (for the defendant A)

Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Han-ju (for defendant A),

Attorney Dangerous, Kim Min-si, and Kim Min-young (for defendant A),

Attorney Lee In-bok (for the defendant B)

June 28, 2018

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to provide community service for 200 hours for each of the Defendants. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant A, abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’

The summary of the judgment of not guilty part against Defendant B is publicly announced.

Criminal 1)

[Status of Defendants and Related Persons]

Defendant A was dispatched to the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Intelligence Service") from C to D, and served as the chief secretary of the F Bureau from around September 2009 to October 2012. Defendant B was the head of the G secretary general under the F president’s control from around March 2009 to around September 2009; Defendant B was the head of the H secretary general under the F president’s control from around September 2009 to around July 2010, and was in office as the head of the H secretary general under the F president’s control from around July 2010 to around February 2013, Defendant B was under the command of the Prime Minister (the former senior secretary of the organization under the command of the Prime Minister from around July 2010 to around October 2011, and was under the command of the Seoul District Court for the destruction of evidence from among Defendant B’s command and supervision of the Seoul High Court for the destruction of evidence.

On the other hand, the non-party-friendly group directed by T, etc. was within U from U around the establishment of the organization and organization of the M Office, and actually, the president or government policy was hostile or critical from the time of the establishment of the M Office, and the inspection of the persons in conflict with political interests, etc. conducted the duty of blocking the public opinion of the anti-president president, and then the representative X of the V Subsidiaries's V subsidiary around September 2008 to December 12, 2008, posted the articles and videos against the President on the Internet B, which led X to pressure X to give up the resignation and renunciation of shares of the W representative director, and search of his office, and eventually, the Seoul Central Police Office started to conduct the investigation into the illegal inspection from 00 to 70.6.1 billion Seoul Central Police Office's investigation into the illegal inspection.

In this situation, from July 5, 2010 to July 7 of the same month, 2010, T et al. instructed MM head of Qu division and the competent officer N to delete all data such as computer files of employees where data related to the organization and activities of the MM room are stored, and then, ordered N to the effect that the re-important computer hard disks would completely damage the restoration of the computer, which was removed from the computer of the Special Investigation Team on July 7, 2010, and request N to physically damage (hereinafter referred to as "dimulation") the hard disc removed from the computer of the Special Investigation Team on July 7, 2010.

Although the investigation of a special investigation team was conducted from September 8, 2010 after the destruction of evidence occurred to September 8, 2010, crimes such as the illegal inspection of M, etc. and the destruction of evidence by Y and N2 have been revealed, however, important evidence during the initial investigation period was destroyed, and M et al. did not reveal the fact that T et al. concealed the substance by false statements, such as denying the instruction of T et al., and ordered T et al.

In particular, with respect to the concealment of the substance of M et al., Y and N were aware of the friendly organization of T et al., while receiving orders to remove data directly from T and S secretary disc damage, it contributed to the civilian inspection and the concealment of the destruction of evidence by concealing such fact during the investigation process, and made statements to the effect that the chief personnel, such as the Defendants, were involved in the destruction of evidence in the procedures of the Central Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security around January 2, 2011, the Defendants were suspected of being involved in the destruction of evidence in the ‘illegal inspection’ case.Y and N were indicted on September 8, 2010 (Y is detained, detained, and N is not prosecuted), and the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years from the time of the prosecution and 10 years from the time of the forfeiture of their status as the public official, and the Defendants were forced to intervene in the process of 10 years from the end of 20 years from the time of the trial.

From October 2010, the Defendants were aware that from Y and N around F, the Defendants demanded their status maintenance and monetary compensation for their public officials, and, if so, they were to do so, the direction of the F Chief Office on illegal inspection and destruction of evidence, etc. to the extent that they are forced to block the interference of the F Chief Office’s instructions or involvement in illegal inspection and destruction of evidence. If they were to be wide, there were new suspicions of interference, such as illegal inspection and destruction of evidence by the civilian of the F Chief Office, which led to a heavy burden on the President’s national performance, and the prosecution will lead to a fatal compromise on the President’s performance and support. Specific facts constituting an offense)

1. Occupational embezzlement by Defendant A (2018, 129, 201)

The Defendant served as a senior secretary from September 2009 to January 201, 2012, and assisted the President in charge of the F Chief’s role and the duties related to preventing and verifying the situation of power-type corruption.

On April 201, 201, the Defendant received funds necessary to prevent N's width from the early police officer from the NIS, and phone 3 respectively from the NIS A and AB Vice Commissioner of the NIS in Seoul, etc., and the Prime Minister's public official N et al. prosecuted for illegal inspection, etc. in Seoul, etc., can make a sudden movement, such as 'the interference of destruction of evidence by civilian inspection by the President' as a result of a serious change in the situation, and 'the interference of destruction of evidence by the civilian inspection by the President's office'. The Defendant demanded funding from the NIS to the effect that 'the NIS will provide funds to the NIS because there is no money now.' The reported AD, as a person in charge of the management and execution of the budget of the NIS, decided to grant the Defendant with the budget for the special activities of the NIS, and ordered the Defendant to execute special activities of the NIS, and then, the Defendant, the victim, in collusioned with the victim's funds held by the NIS and its budget.

2. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights by Defendant B (2018 Gohap334)

The defendant's involvement in the F Chief Office in illegal inspections, destruction of evidence, etc. will be wide enough.In order to prevent N, the defendant knew the trend of N, etc. through K, which is in a direct or cooperative relationship with his duties, by taking advantage of the status as the secretary of the F Chief Office and ex officio, etc., and knew them as if they could be sentenced to favorable punishment in the trial of the case, such as destruction of evidence, etc., and tried to look at them by providing them with monetary support that they need.

(a) Services and relationships between H secretary and K;

The chief of the Office of the President shall, under the order of the President, direct and supervise the public officials belonging to the Office of the President in charge of the affairs of the Office of the President, and the chief of the F shall have the AF secretary, the G secretary, the H secretary, and the AW secretary under his/her jurisdiction, and shall be related to the collection of public opinions related to the State and the understanding of the trends of public opinion,

In order to take charge of the duties of the President, he/she has been in charge of H duties, such as I’s personnel verification and service trend inspection, HB inspection, job inspection, and duty inspection. K under the direction and supervision of the Prime Minister, under the direction and supervision of the Prime Minister, has been in charge of the duties of the Prime Minister with respect to HD fraud promotion support, HD grievance settlement support, discovery of outstanding public officials, H establishment, inspection of vulnerability, improvement of systems, and other matters instructed by the Prime Minister with respect to HC support. The secretary was in charge of the duties of the Government Ministry, including the Prime Minister, as a staff member of the President accompanied by the administration, and was in charge of the duties of the Ministry, such as HB inspection, duty inspection, etc., on his/her own, he/she performed duties related to H-related duties, such as HB inspection, duty inspection, or directed K to perform specific duties, such as collecting trend information from a specific H or its surrounding persons.

(b) N’s direction of management and subsequent management activities;

On January 201, 201, the Defendant instructed the J to the effect that “it is no longer the case to be expanded in the trial, etc. by identifying the appearance of the N’s destruction of evidence, etc. upon the direction of the N’s official and the official concerned.” The Defendant instructed the Defendant to the effect that “The Defendant’s understanding of the trend, such as the change of N’s depth, is well managed by checking the core change of N’s reputation or raising complaints.”

The J calls from N around January 13, 201, and calls from N around 10, 201 to "B to prepare for about KRW 1 billion. It can be sufficiently prepared between KRW 500,000 and KRW 1 billion. It is possible to sentence a fine in the second instance." On the 20th page, N calls from around June 24, 201, to the effect that "I will know about about the fact that I will be responsible until 0,00,000 won, and that "I will keep to know about the fact that I will be responsible for it," and "I will keep to know about the fact that I would have received from N 10,000 won, and that I will continuously receive from N 10,000,000 won or more, to N 1,000 won or more, and that I will keep to know about the fact that I would have received from N 1,000,000 won or more, in the process of this case."

Around April 15, 2011, the Defendant received the NIS budget of KRW 50 million from A, and was well aware of the fact that it was the money created by the court of appeal to bring up the N who was sentenced to imprisonment in the appellate trial on April 12, 2011, the Defendant instructed J to deliver the money to N through J according to its purport. The Defendant instructed J to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up with, and going up with, the way to go up with the way to go up with the way to go up at the vicinity of the Seoul Office of Government in Seoul, Jongno-ro 8-ro, Seoul, the resignation of Jongno-ro 80,000 won.”

J around April 15, 2011, according to the Defendant’s orders, around April 15, 201, issued KRW 50 million delivered by the Defendant, to the effect that N will continue to exist at the top place of F, such as B, at the AJ restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul AI.

D. Sub-determination

Accordingly, the Defendant directed the public officials of relevant administrative ministries, such as the Prime Minister K, etc. as the secretary of the president’s H office, and, by abusing official authority on the duties related to the establishment of H such as ascertaining the trends of HD, the Defendant identified N and reported the trends of N so that N does not cause any width to the illegal inspection and destruction of evidence, and ordered N to carry out an act without any obligation by allowing N to deliver 50 million won in cash to N.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A] 2018 Highis129, (Defendant A)

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Legal statement of a witness AC, AA, AK, and AL;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A, AD, and AM (including the part of the interrogation protocol of the defendant, the copy thereof, and the copy thereof);

1. Each prosecutor's statement (including a substitute part, a copy, and a copy) made with respect to DNA, AC, AA, AO, and AK; 1. Part I of the detailed guidelines for the compilation of the budget bill and the draft fund management plan for the year 2015, and one copy of the guidelines for the execution of the budget and fund management plan for the year 2010, which is abstract of the guidelines for the execution of the budget and fund management plan for the year 201, and a copy of the guidelines for the execution of the budget and fund management plan for the year 201, and a copy of the guidelines for the execution (Defendant B);

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. The witness J, AP's legal statement, and witness Z's legal statement;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution in each protocol of suspect examination of Defendants B, A, Z, and Q (including the whole part and copies thereof);

1. Each prosecutor's statement of the defendant B and Z with respect to the prosecutor's office record, Y, N, J, AP, AR, AS, ATS, AT, and AU (including the whole part and copies thereof);

1. The organization and organization of the Office of the President, one copy of the main duties of the H secretary, one copy of the presidential record repository reply data, one copy of printed materials on the Internet site of the President record repository, and the list of the workers in the AV senior executive office;

1. Copies of each recording, the details of each recording, one copy of JDai's schedule, each judgment, each written statement (Yth, February 10, 201, January 6, 201), written statement (Yth, January 6, 201), and minutes of the minutes of the Central Disciplinary Committee (Yth, January 11, 201);

1. A copy of each press report and each outstanding pending document of the F Office;

1. A photograph of KRW 50 million, which is a public seal;

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (the proviso to Article 33 of the Criminal Act does not have the identity of a custodian in the line of duty) of the Criminal Act, and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Article 123 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights due to the delivery of KRW 50 million with a heavier amount of cash)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations for the Reasons for Sentencing as follows)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

1. Defendant A

A. Summary of the assertion

Since Defendant A did not participate in the process of executing KRW 50 million of the budget for special activities of the NIS, Defendant A cannot be punished as a co-principal for embezzlement.

B. Determination

(i) the basic facts

A) Defendant A made a request to the NIS A and the Vice Minister of AB to the effect that the funds need to be provided for the purpose of “4 staff members of the Prime Minister’s M status Office” by telephone.

B) At a meeting of the political party of the NIS held daily, AA reported to AD the fact that the request for funding was made by the Defendant, and AD instructed AK to provide funding on its job.6)

C) AK ordered AC to execute the cost of KRW 50 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant special project cost”) to be used by AX out of the NIS’s special project cost without any special evidence.

D) AC received the instant special project cost from NN and delivered the instant special project cost to A from the head of the NIS AE Office at the beginning of April 2011.

2) Relevant legal principles

Joint execution of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the elements of a crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with an accomplice who implements the act in question to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether it falls under such premise shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation, intent to control the act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006).

3) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even though Defendant A did not directly participate in the process of executing the budget for special activities of the NIS, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A conspired with AD in sequence and embezzled the budget for special activities of the NIS. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

A) The statement of the staff of the NIS regarding the circumstances during which the instant special project cost was executed from the NIS’s special project cost

① The AC stated to the effect that “The phone calls from Defendant A had been seen as the news articles related to the inspection of the general public, and whether it can be supported by the NIS because there was no officially to support the costs of the lawsuit against the relevant public officials,” Defendant A asked Defendant A AX to speak at the level of the BA. In addition, Defendant A asked Defendant A to speak at the end of the BA. It did not refuse Defendant A’s request, and Defendant A stated to the effect that “The phone calls from Defendant A and reported to the NIS at the time, stating the phone calls from Defendant A” (legal statement, evidence record, evidence record, evidence record, 70, 71, 846, 847, 4333 through 435).

② AA also proposed that “AA had a public official who was tried by Defendant A and a non-governmental inspector for a suspended sentence at the first instance court, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence, was subject to a suspended sentence, and that there was a lot of concern about future pension issues and living conditions, which may be detained in the appellate court, and that there is concern about a rapid change if the situation is uneasible. There is no money for preventing this, and that there is no money for the NIS’s request to grant money from the NIS at the meeting of political parties, I reported the fact of Defendant AD’s request for funding at the meeting, and AD stated to the effect that “AD 1 was given personnel request from Defendant A to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to receive money.”

B) The status and role of Defendant A, and the process of non-explosion of the special project cost of this case

① As seen earlier, Defendant A made a request for funding to AC and AA, who is a senior secretary of the NIS, as a staff member of the NIS. AC and AA made a statement to the effect that “AC statement: (a) 851, 870 pages of legal statement, evidence records, AA statement: (b) 906 pages of legal statement, evidence records, and evidence records)” (AC statement to the effect that “AC statement was made by Defendant A, who is not an individual of Defendant A, was demanded to provide funding to Defendant A” (AC statement to the effect that “AC statement: 851, 870 pages of legal statement, evidence records, and evidence records: 906 pages of legal statement, evidence records). In other words, Defendant A’s employees received Defendant A’s request for funding funding from the NIS under the exclusive budget for special government

② In requesting AC to provide funding, Defendant A also predicted that “IX will be reported to AX.” (Evidence No. 3130) “IX will have to be determined.” (Evidence No. 5221 of the record) and “AD considers that AC would have to be reported to a person who has the right to decide on financial assistance” (Evidence No. 521 of the record) and “AD would have to be delivered to AC or BA to a person who has the right to decide on financial assistance.” (C) “AC or BA would not have requested financial assistance (L No. 5971 of the steam record). This was the fact that Defendant A was dispatched to, and worked for, E around 208. The fact that Defendant A had been aware of the State and BB’s special project cost prior to the delivery of the instant special project cost, and that the State and B had been aware of the State and B’s special project cost through the State and B’s request.

(3) Upon Defendant A’s request for funding, AC and A were very close to AD in terms of the organization, direction, and reporting system of the NIS, and in fact, a meeting of political parties is not one of the most recent after the request for funding, and the request was delivered to AD and the execution order was given, and the special project cost of the instant case was delivered to A.

C) The purpose of the Defendant A’s common perception of the purpose of the use of the instant special project cost is to gather N to the extent that he/she had engaged in the illegal inspection and destruction of evidence, and the purpose of AC and AA was delivered to AD through the said purpose, and AD was aware of it and ordered AD to execute the instant special project cost. In other words, Defendant A and AD had common awareness of the purpose of the use of the instant special project cost.

D) The degree of control of the crime

In light of the fact that Defendant A and A made a request for funding on the premise that it will be delivered to AD, a decision-making authority to execute the funds, the special project cost of this case was executed from the budget for special activity of the NIS, and Defendant A and the location where the special project cost of this case will be delivered to Defendant A and the head of the AE office consult with and received direct delivery of the special project cost of this case by a secret method inside the office of the NIS. Although Defendant A did not have the authority to direct the execution of the budget for special activity of the NIS and did not directly participate in the execution process, it is not only to acquire profits by taking advantage of AD’s embezzlement, but also to actively induce embezzlement to acquire profits by taking advantage of AD’s embezzlement, and to this purpose through AD’s order to execute the special project cost, it can be recognized that Defendant A controlled the crime by taking part in the important process

2. Defendant B

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant B’s delivery of the instant special project cost to N is limited to the appraisal of N and the request of A who had been a substantial superior to N, and the fact that the Justice requests the J to manage N well is merely a request that the J, which had previously caused N’s grievances, be more responsible for the settlement, and the J was not a subordinate of Defendant B.

1) The suspicion of having committed an illegal inspection by a public official under the control of the office of the senior secretary of the office of the President of the Office of the President of the Republic of Korea under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister was raised as a press report on June 5, 2010 and the Prime Minister’s office of the date of controversy was requested to the prosecutor’s office after a self-inspection on July 5, 2010. (ii) On July 5, 2010 and the same month after the request of the Prime Minister for an investigation, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs deleted the data of the M of the office, Y of the M of the Q of the M of the office, and N of the competent official deleted and destroyed evidence.

3) The prosecution commenced an investigation into destruction of evidence and prosecuted the destruction of evidence and damage to public goods on September 8, 2010.

4) On November 22, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that both of the above charges was guilty and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence of eight months of imprisonment for N.

5) After the first instance judgment was rendered, N and Y expressed their intention to make the width of the direction of the Cheong and the cost involvement in the illegal inspection and destruction of evidence by the civilian in the Mu room to the administrative secretary Z, J, K Office QP, etc.

6) On October 5, 2010, the Prime Minister’s Office requested the Central Disciplinary Committee on January 11, 201, upon which the Central Disciplinary Committee was convened. On January 6, 2011, Y submitted a written statement (Evidence No. 3818 pages) containing the purport that “Any strong demand for the destruction of evidence was made by the mother’s wife.” On January 11, 2011, N appears at the Central Disciplinary Committee and stated to the effect that “the Z orders the destruction of evidence, while the Z orders it to destroy evidence.” The F and the Prosecutor stated to the effect that “I will not take any issue without computers.” After that, Y submitted a written statement to the Seoul Central Disciplinary Committee on February 11, 2011, the head of the Gu’s report No. 10 (No. 2) was made to the Defendant, and the head of the Gu’s report No. 3810 (No. 2, 2017).

8) As long as the instant special project cost received from AC was long time, A delivered to Defendant B. Defendant B again delivered it to J.

9) Meanwhile, the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court in the case of destruction of evidence and damage to public goods to N,Y, etc. sentenced the two years of imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months as to Y on April 12, 201, and two years of suspended sentence of 8 months as to N.

10) On April 15, 201, after the said judgment was rendered, J delivered to N the instant special project cost delivered by Defendant B.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of abuse of authority is established when a public official entrusts a public official with an exercise of his/her authority on matters falling under his/her general official authority to practically and specifically commit an unlawful or unreasonable act. The general official authority does not necessarily require legal enforcement, and if it is abused, it is sufficient to allow the other party to the exercise of his/her authority to perform a non-legal obligation or to interfere with the legitimate exercise of his/her authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6251, May 27, 2004; 2002Do6251, Mar. 10, 1992).

2) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant B’s abuse of its official authority to have the J manage and return N, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

A) Details and authority of Defendant B’s duty

Defendant B, as a secretary under the Chief F of the B B, was in charge of personnel verification, regular service evaluation, HB lecture establishment, and service inspection for the staff of the presidential office, and Defendant B was authorized to collect and grasp the service trends of specific HD according to his duties.

B) Relationship between K Office and H secretary office

① Article 13-2 of the BG Regulations (Presidential Decrees, the enforcement of the GO) stipulated “matters directed by the President concerning HB” in the duties of the K office under subparagraph 7 of the same Article. This was intended to clarify the relationship between HB’s secretary, who is in charge of HB’s duties, instructions to K and reports to K (see, e.g., evidence records 1259, 1263).

② Defendant B and P also made a statement to the effect that “The above provision means that “The secretary directs K in connection with the management of HB” (Defendant B’s oral statement, evidence record No. 4706, 4707, AP statement: Court’s statement, evidence No. 3024 pages).

③ In addition, the employees of the K Office, including AP, J, and AT, stated that “K reported most of the matters to the H secretary office, along with the office of secretary (AP statement: 3026 pages of legal statement, evidence records: 4454, 5705 pages of evidence, evidence records: 4454, 5705 pages: AT statement: 573-14 pages), Defendant B also made a statement to the effect that “Any case was released to the H secretary office,” and that “the J reported most of the matters to him and A” (the legal statement and evidence records 4708 pages).

④ Ultimately, while taking charge of H and personnel verification affairs for the government ministries and public institutions, K was in a relationship between H’s secretary-general in charge of H-related affairs to the government ministries and public institutions, and a secretary-general in charge of affairs related to the lecture of public institutions, public institutions, and public institutions, and reporting.

C) Whether Defendant B was aware of the danger caused by the Cheong’s illegal inspection and destruction of evidence by the Cheong’s excessive intervention

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B was aware of the risk as well as G secretary A, etc., due to N’s unlawful inspection and the lusent involvement in the destruction of evidence at the time of his appointment as secretary.

(1) Defendant B stated that “A is also aware of the fact that N was involved in the illegal inspection of this case and that “A is already aware of the fact that N was about to clarify such fact in the administrative appeals commission,” on the ground that “A is already aware of the fact that N was involved in the illegal inspection of this case in order to receive a prior action from J in the appellate trial of the case against him.” (Legal statement, evidence record 3186 to 3188).

② The G Secretary-General, “AU reported to A the content of the Y with the width of the Y first,” and “A all of the He reported to A the movement of the Y with the width of the Y and the N's protruding movement before the first instance court of the case of the destruction of the Y (the November 22, 2010),” and “The Z and J, APOY and N are reported to A, and the results were reported to A through Z, J, and AP, while reporting to A the situation that “A is known as being known at the time of the report.” (Additional evidence record 28 through 31 pages), “J, AP, as well as Defendant B, reported the double N, etc. report only to Defendant B, and the person who was in charge of the side secretary group in charge of the Y group (H6) was also described to the effect that the additional evidence was also written to the effect that A was also written.

③ The J also stated that “the fact that the N calls for KRW 1 billion in return for not doing so was sent to Defendant B and A.” (legal statement and evidence record 4467 to 4469). ④ AP made a statement to the effect that “The N calls only N after the first instance court rendered a judgment on N, and the N expresses that it would know that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known that it would have known it to the head office of the Cheongdae and the F.” (legal statement and evidence record 3067 pages).

D) In light of the following circumstances as to whether Defendant B’s need for management and meeting in order to prevent the width of N, Defendant B seems to have a need for management and meeting in his position to prevent the width of N.

(1) The statement ① of the persons involved) Defendant B stated to the effect that “A civilian inspection-related person in the K room is K, so the person who is responsible for managing the civilian inspection-related person in the H secretary room was himself/herself (Evidence Record 3191 pages), “A civilian inspection and destruction of evidence was a major issue in the F senior room,” “(Evidence Record 4696 pages),” “It is true that it may be accepted as a direction by the J that he/she would be adequate to manage N to the J.” (Evidence Record 6060 pages), “The primary interested person who must address the truth-related problem in the M room is a H secretary” (Evidence Record 6087 pages).

In March 208, 2008, AR, who had been in office BJ, stated to the effect that “At the time of 2010, AV government was expected to have been involved in the direction of the secretary office in the office of BJ and the civilian inspection, and that “at the time of 2010, BJ was a situation in which BJ had already been receiving the political cooperation related to the 4th lecture project at the time of Cheongdae-dae project” (Evidence No. 3971 of the record).

③ Defendant B stated to the effect that “The Defendant B, who was prosecuted for the instant case, such as the inspection by a civilian via J, helps the public officials see her humanly close to the scene, and, on the other hand, is engaged in management activities to reduce the burden factors by preventing the complaints from leading to the width, etc., the Defendant B stated to the effect that “It would deliver the money received from the NIS to Defendant B by receiving support from the NIS because she was generally aware of it (Evidence No. 5671 of the record).”

④ As to the reasons for which money was delivered to N through J, the AP stated that “I would like to have known of the involvement of the BJ in the instant case due to the width of N, such as destruction of evidence, I would like to have been threatening to cause difficulties in the future president’s national administration (Evidence Record 5893 pages).”

⑤ At the beginning of July 2010, the case of illegal inspection by a civilian in the General Council room, for which the prosecution investigation was started, was the largest pending issue as a general secretary." (Additional evidence record 17 pages) and there was a talk that the prosecution investigation was completed on September 2010, and that Y, after 1-2 months, Y, and N attempted to wide the scope of the interference between the audience and the audience. N was economically uneasy and uneasy the outcome of the trial, and it was a situation where N was able to flick and extreme behavior was likely to occur." In addition, N made a talk about the fact that "N ordered destruction of evidence at the S Bureau, such as the 2 administrative secretary, etc., that it participated in the destruction of evidence in the destruction of evidence, and that in addition to the S Bureau secretary, the chief F office in the case of Y, if you talk about such contents in the court, it is considered that it will be social and social. (Additional evidence record 23-24).

6. BK, who served as a secretary of the AF under the Chief F of the Cheongbu District Office, stated that “The case of illegal inspection by a civilian of the M room was one of the major issues of the Cheongbu District Office at the time, and was directly under the jurisdiction of the H secretary office at the time,” and “the Chief of the F position was an important issue” (Additional Evidence Record 172, 173 pages).

(2) Burden of government administration, including the President,

① From July 2010, the media reported the case of illegal inspection of the civilian in the M room, from around July 201, the media and the political sphere, the N and Y raised a suspicion of interference at the Cheongbuan level with respect to the use of a cell phone in the process of destruction of evidence, and as the result of the prosecutor's investigation of Y and N, it was not clear that the upper intervention was not clear, so-called ‘the head intervention' was carried out as a result of the F. In this situation, the F. K office had expressed an example of the trend of public opinion and political power related to the destroyed case, which is illegal inspection and evidence, and kept a trend. (11) (2) The K office changed the name of the organization from the M office to the destruction of evidence, but did not have a significant burden on the public opinion and political rights, such as the abolition of the office, but did not have any choice in the relationship between the K office and the K office and the K office. In this case, the president's involvement and the K office did not have any significant burden.

③ Considering the fact that there were financial support and job referral meetings for N not only T, Z, BL13, presidential room AS14, which directly ordered N to destroy evidence, as well as J’s N management and revolving attempts, the risk of N due to the width seems to have been a common pending issue and a very large burden in the presidential office that assists the President and the affiliated executive office.

(3) Defendant B’s land category as the leader of the destruction of evidence

Y As seen earlier, Y An open suspicion of destruction of evidence and damage to public goods

Defendant B and A belonging to the F Chief Office were identified as the orderer of destruction of evidence through a written statement at the Anhyh Disciplinary Committee. The former was inevitable in that the former was of an unstable position in that the latter could be at risk of suffering disadvantages, such as the occurrence of his satise or the subject of investigation, regardless of whether the latter was true or not by Defendant B.

E) Whether Defendant B instructed J to manage N and revolving her to perform a non-obligatory act

In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant B’s order to manage and reply to prevent the risk due to N’s excessive intervention, thereby allowing the J to perform an unobligatory act.

(1) Statements of relevant persons

① At the end of the first instance trial on November 2010 and the second instance trial on the destruction of evidence and damage to public goods, N has been made by the J, and during which the second instance trial is proceeding, the J has been made. The J expressed to the effect that it would make it possible for J to keep the Defendant B to be punished by a fine in the Z through the Z. 15) The J believed it to believe that it may be punished by a fine in the F senior room, and made a change in the face of ne. 16. In the second instance, the sentence of imprisonment was handed down, and the contact was delivered by the JJ and received KRW 50,000,000 from the money that Defendant B was delivered by Defendant B, and that money was considered as equivalent to money managed by Defendant B (Evidence record 1384 through 1386).”

② As to the process of delivering the instant special project cost to N through B, “M workers were moving to width the direction or intervention of the audience. Since the employees who were tried at a trial became aware of the complaint, there was a need to pay money in Cheongdae by preparing their living costs or attorney fees, and accordingly, it was necessary to do so. The employees who were tried to bring an appeal for the lack of economic difficulties because they contributed to the creation of Cheongdae and political party, and therefore, it was also necessary to pay money to prevent their dissatisfaction at Cheongdae and Cheongdae.” (Evidence No. 3093 of the evidence record), “The burden of having been borne by Cheongdae-man as well as the burden of being borne by Cheongdae-man was also considered (Evidence No. 4962, 591).” (Evidence record No. 4962, 5951), and “No. 97 of the inspection record and the civilian inspection report on the unlawful investigation process of the case” (Evidence No. 97 of the case).

③ The J explicitly expressed that N would intervene in and instruct their own crime B 4 and B 4, and that it would not have occurred even if it delivered such intention to Defendant B and A. It understood that there would be a big wave to manage N 4 so that it would not be punished (461, 5706, 5890 pages of legal statement, evidence record) and that N 4 would have been using more active evidence than 6 N 6 N 4, and that there would have been no further need to obtain instructions from Defendant B and A 4, and that there would have been no further need to obtain instructions from Defendant B and A 4, and that there would have been no more than 66 N 4, because there were no further specific instructions from Defendant B and A 4, and that there would have been no further need to obtain instructions from Defendant B and A 4.

④ Defendant B also stated to the effect that “N must manage it well” (the legal statement, evidence record 4734, 4735 pages) and “A was also identified and discussed as it was.” (The legal statement, evidence record 4736, 4737 pages).

⑤ From the time of the occurrence of the requirements, AP made a statement to the effect that “N will be responsible for the attorney’s fees, etc. at the F office on March 4, 201” (Evidence No. 5891) and “N will be responsible for the attorney’s fees, etc. at that time,” (Evidence No. 3034 pages). (2) mutual contact circumstances related to ascertaining trends, such as Defendant B, J, AP, Z, and AU, including N, etc. (Evidence No. 3034 of the Evidence No. 1, KJ made a statement to the AP or made a statement to the effect that “N would be responsible for the attorney’s fees, etc. at the F office” (Evidence No. 5891 of the Evidence No. 5891 of the Record) and “AP will have been known to the AP, etc. 1, 2011. After that communication to the AU, the AP made a statement to the effect that it was “AP1 or 5,”.

② The Z stated that “The Z has frequently contacted with the AU and asked the trends of Y, N, etc.” (Evidence No. 4111 pages) and stated that “The Z has several currencies from April 12, 2011 to August 18, 2011, at which the appellate court rendered a judgment on N, and that “the Z has contacted to grasp the N, etc.” (Evidence No. 4118, 419 pages). Moreover, the Z has made several calls from May 27, 2011 to July 18, 2011, it stated that “the Z has transmitted the NN’s demands” (Evidence No. 4130 pages).

③ The J and AU have made several calls from April 201 to September 201. The J and AU made a statement to the effect that “The J made contact with the ZU or asked the N’s depth, overall situation, progress of trial, etc.” (Evidence Records 4476, 5713, 5715 pages). (4) AP and AU also made a 20-time call from May 201 to August 201. While AP had known that “AU was well aware of the NU’s status,” the AP made a statement to the effect that “IU was able to ask for any possible sentence of a fine,” “The same shall apply to the investigation and trial proceeding, or predictability, etc.” (Evidence No. 4476, 5713, 5715 pages). Meanwhile, from May 28, 2011 to May 18, 2018.”

6) On June 24, 2011, J made a statement to N that “at the end, I am for several people about the language and system, but I am for the last time. I am am not for doubt about it?” In fact, on June 22, 2011, Defendant B, A, A, AU, and J appears to have suppered (J as a copy of this schedule: 1790 pages of evidence evidence record, 4973 pages of evidence record: evidence record, 4973 pages), and on this, J made a statement to the effect that “I am for the management of N at a place of meal at a night” (Evidence record 5719, 5720 pages).

(3) Whether support and management was made according to the public opinion of Dong administration within Dong administration

① The BR, who served as the presidential secretary of the BP, stated that “N had a dynamic theory but did not contain public opinion or atmosphere that economic support should be given” (Evidence No. 4429) and that “BS, who served as the executive secretary of the BP secretary office, was also a public opinion or a fund-raising position in N” (Evidence No. 4245 of the Evidence Record).

② BK served as a senior secretary of the FF branch also stated to the effect that “it is not essential to support the Prime Minister’s personnel who are judged to be in need of living expenses or attorney’s fees among the internal employees of the NIS.” (Additional evidence record 186 pages), and that “No memory has been talked about the support of the attorney’s or attorney’s fees within the F senior office” (Additional evidence record 188 pages).

③ The N’s breadth on the direction of intervention in the Cheongdae-man and the destruction of evidence in the case of illegal inspection and destruction of evidence is a situation in which a large number of threats were raised within the Cheongdae-man. However, it is not common sense that the employees in the Cheongdae-man merely provided monetary support solely on the ground that there was a public opinion on N only when the employees in the Cheongdae-man had been tried.

(4) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, the need for N’s monetary support is limited to some departments such as the presidential office, the K office, the H secretary office, and the G secretary office, etc., which were necessary to respond to the problem of aggravation of public opinion and the burden of state administration due to threats by the width of N.

(6) Defendant B was a secretary in charge of H duties of the public official, and was in the position to fully know whether it is appropriate to give monetary support to the public official who was tried due to the destruction of evidence. Considering that Defendant B sent money to N through J was either KRW 50 million or KRW 20,000,000 to the money that Defendant B served to N, and that Defendant B used a smuggling method of delivery of money contained in the shopping bags with the vehicle that he drives outside the J’s workplace, it is difficult to deem that the instant special project cost was incurred solely with the awareness of the public official or Dong with respect to N.

6. On the other hand, Defendant B asserted that he managed N due to the direction of Defendant B, who is the actual superior, but Defendant B and A are the secretary of the same rank under the F head of the Gu at the time, and thus, Defendant B cannot be deemed the actual superior. However, Defendant B’s failure to comply with the direction of the F head of the Gu at the time, and it is not justified for Defendant B to have the J under his direction manage N, so such circumstance does not interfere with the recognition of a crime.

F) Sub-decision

Ultimately, the case of illegal inspection and destruction of evidence by the employees of the N, etc., was one of the most serious concerns for the president’s national administration, and there was a great sense of responsibility and burden from the standpoint of the F. The F. Office assisting the president. As such, the media and political power continuously raised suspicions of the participation order by the Cheong-man toward the illegal inspection and destruction of evidence. As such, it is reasonable to view that, regardless of whether the Cheong-man had actually participated in and instructed the above case, it was sufficiently anticipated that the Cheong-man will have a significant burden and burden of the president’s national administration. Considering that Defendant B was considered to have been given a person to destroy evidence, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B was not a secretary to have his official authority entrusted to ascertain the HB trend as his secretary and to have him manage and pay N in his official authority.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100,00) of Embezzlement/Misappropriation

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Extent of Recommendation] The sentence of imprisonment between four months and one year and four months shall be imposed: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;

○ Unfavorable Conditions

The Defendant’s crime has been embezzled by means of using information collection and investigation, etc. for purposes of national security, and the Defendant first demanded to use funds for the purpose of preventing the use of funds for the purpose of “for the so-called “for the purpose of preventing the use of funds” by the personnel in charge of the NIS. There is no reason why and motive for the Defendant has been very good. The Defendant has thoroughly sought that he has received special activities of the NIS for a long period of time, and even in the re-investigation that has started after the lapse of 5 to 6 years, he has repeatedly denied the fact that he has received special activities of the NIS, and even in this court, he has expressed the attitude of denying his criminal acts, and also has expressed the attitude

○ favorable circumstances

The Defendant recognized a part of the facts that he had late, and did not personally benefit from the instant crime. The full amount of the amount of damage was deposited for the Republic of Korea. There was no record of the instant crime prior to the instant crime.

Considering the above circumstances and taking into account the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, method and means of crime, circumstances after the crime, and other circumstances that form the elements of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution; and

○ Unfavorable Conditions

The Defendant’s crime by taking advantage of his/her secretary’s duty to monitor and give money to K in order to prevent and attract the scope of his/her staff members, and is not very good. In particular, it is very bad in that the Defendant, who is in charge of the duty to obtain public confidence in the public official by establishing He/she, provided illegal instructions using his/her status. The Defendant also sought a long-term criminal act, and the Defendant made a false statement in order to conceal the fact that he/she delivered money even after the existence of the special project cost of this case is revealed due to N’s width. This behavior of the Defendant is criticized in light of the Defendant’s career and status. Moreover, the Defendant does not appear in the form of genuine reflection while denying his/her criminal act.

○ favorable circumstances

Defendant recognized the alternative factual relations at the latest before the crime of this case. There is no criminal records prior to the crime of this case.

Considering the above circumstances and taking into account the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, method and means of crime, circumstances after the crime, and other circumstances that form the elements of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant received KRW 50 million from the budget for special activities of the NIS in relation to the Defendant’s duties, as stated in the judgment, to support the exercise of various powers, such as the performance of duties of the NIS and the performance of duties of the president, budget, and policy on various pending issues, etc., by requiring AD to provide the special activities of the NIS, who is a person subject to the Defendant’s duties, through AC, etc., at the Seocho branch of Seoul, Seoul, etc. on April 201, 201.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of KRW 50 million in relation to the defendant's duties.

B. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel

The special project cost of this case is not related to the duties of Defendant A or related to consideration, and is received for the purpose of delivering it to N, who is an employee of the Prime Minister Office MM from the beginning, so there is no intention of acquisition.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) The crime of bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of money and valuables received since the process of performing duties by a public official, the trust in the society, and the non-purchase of the act of performing duties, are protected by the law, and there is no need to make a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of the money and valuables received, and it is sufficient that money and valuables were received in relation to the duties, and there is no need to have a special relation with an individual act of performing duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3579, Oct. 12, 201);

B) Determination of which profit a public official gains is an unfair profit with a quid pro quo relationship, shall be made by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content of the official’s duty, the relationship between the provider of the duty and the benefit, whether there exists a special relationship between the parties, the degree of interest, the circumstances and timing of receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the fact that the bribery is the process of performing the duty, the social trust in this regard, and the purchase of the act of the official

Whether a public official is suspected of having a fair performance of his/her duties from the general public due to receiving benefits is also a standard for determining the establishment of bribery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17797, Mar. 24, 2011).

C) Even where a public official receives a benefit in return for a duty to be in charge in the future, the crime of acceptance of bribe may be established. However, if it is impossible to confirm that a matter that is subject to a duty to take charge in the future is related to the receipt of the benefit, and is either abstract and abstract, or it is not clear whether a public official exercises his/her authority and authority that is related to the receipt of the benefit in the future, it is difficult to readily conclude that the benefit was received or received in return for the benefit in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do12346, Dec. 22,

2) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that Defendant A received the special project cost of the instant case through AC is related to the duties of Defendant A or is given money in a quid pro quo-related relationship.

A) G secretary and chief F officer’s duties

G secretary who had served at the time of the instant case by Defendant A is under the control of the F Chief Office, and the first main duties were related to the status and prevention of power-type corruption, such as I, and H and I, but the H Team under the control of G secretary was newly established as a senior secretary office under the control of the F, and the personnel verification and H duties were transferred to HB secretary office. On the other hand, the F Chief shall have AF, G secretary, He secretary, secretary, secretary, secretary, secretary, etc. under his control, to grasp the public opinion collection and public concern about government affairs, to conduct affairs related to I, and ultimately assist the President in the smooth management of government affairs.

B) Relationship between the duties of G secretary and AX

① Even in cases where the personnel verification prior to the establishment of the HB office and the H’s duties are deemed as the duties of the G secretary office, since the personnel verification is the duties of a candidate for appointment, it is irrelevant to AX, which is already performing his/her duties, and H duties may be deemed as an object of abstract duties in terms of preventive aspect. However, for specific duties to be subject to the HB, specific cases have occurred, such as the occurrence of a case of oral dismissal among HB, etc.

② Meanwhile, in order to take charge of the affairs related to information, security, and criminal investigation related to national security, the Act provides that the NIS shall be under the jurisdiction of the President (Article 17); separately from each Ministry, the Office of the President’s secretary, the Office of National Security, and the Presidential Security Service (Chapter 2); according to the National Intelligence Service Act, the NIS shall be under the jurisdiction of the President and shall be subject to direction and supervision of the President (Article 2); the organization of the NIS shall be determined with the approval of the President (Article 4); the prescribed number of employees shall be determined by AX (Article 5); and the President, the Vice-Chairperson, and the head of AE shall be appointed by the President upon the personnel hearing of the National Assembly at the proposal of the President (Article 7). Accordingly, even if the President’s authority to take charge of the overall operation of the NIS is not only affected by the President’s will; the head of X-X’s authority to take charge of reporting or performing official duties in a broad manner, such as public opinion on, or official duties of the NIS.

③ The prosecutor asserts that Defendant A, who is a senior secretary, is a person related to the duties in relation to AD, is naturally recognized to be related to the receipt of the special project cost of this case. However, in view of the nature of the presidential duties that oversees the whole administration in accordance with the Constitution and laws and regulations, the office and the ministry assisting the President is bound to be related to the duties of the head of the central administrative agency. In particular, in the event that the office and the consideration considered as a senior agency are given to an administrative agency, it is difficult for the administrative agency to refuse such instruction and request, the administrative agency should be careful to recognize the bribe of the money and valuables only with the abstract and objective relevance of the above duties.

④ Ultimately, whether the head of an administrative agency’s payment of money and valuables to a member who assists the President with the agency’s budget is evaluated as a bribe on account of business relationship and a quid pro quo relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the process of receiving the money and valuables, recognition and intent between the money and valuables, source of money and valuables, amount of money and valuables, profits the provider gains by delivering the money and valuables, whether the delivery of money and valuables is suspected of having the fairness

C) The details of delivery of the instant special project cost

① As seen earlier, the delivery of the instant special project cost was derived from Defendant A’s request for funding. However, as seen below, AD is highly likely to have received a request from Defendant A to provide funds. This is distinguishable from the case of acceptance of bribe between a higher-level public official and a lower-level public official, as the lower-level public official complies with a higher-level public official’s request for funding.

② Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Defendant A is liable for the crime of occupational embezzlement in collusion with Defendant AD for the crime of occupational embezzlement against the act of making the instant special project cost out of the budget for the NIS special project cost. As such, the instant special project cost constitutes embezzlement. It is reasonable to deem that Defendant A’s delivery of the instant special project cost is merely the act of devolving embezzlement as intended between the accomplices for the crime of embezzlement and embezzlement.

D) The other party to the delivery of the instant special project cost recognized by AD

① AC and A made a statement to the effect that “AC’s request for Defendant A’s funding was accepted by the Cheongdaedae, not the Defendant A, at the “National Quota” (AC’s statement: legal statement, evidence records, 851, 870 pages, AA’ statement, evidence records: 906 pages). ② In addition, A made a statement to the effect that “AA has paid AD’s special activities expenses at the AV regular time from the National Quota to the Cheongbu Department (21). At the time of BC prior to the AD, AD paid the 11th regular government expenses (Evidence evidence records).”

③ On April 5, 2008, when AD former BC was in office, 2008, 200 million won for the special activities of the NIS was delivered to B B B through B B B. However, at the time, AL, who was employed as the head of the AEth of the AEth of the NIS, stated to the effect that “it was recognized that it was inappropriate for BC to provide the budget, but it was sent by the employees of the existing NIS, such as planning and budget officers, at the time of planning and budget, that it was possible to process the budget.”

④ In addition, even around 2010, July 8, 2010, when ADO AX served, KRW 200 million for the special activities of the NIS was sent to B B via B. However, AD explained the circumstances and instructed AD to the effect that “it was necessary to make a satisfy due to lack of visibility to be used as commemoratives from B, and thus, ordered AD to do so by receiving a report.” (Evidence No. 3282, 3283 of the record) and “The 3282, 3283 pages of the record,” and “The special activities of the NIS were perceived to be money that can be widely and flexibly used for national security, etc. even at the time of the instant request by B and B.” (Additional evidence No. 41, 422 of the record) stated to the effect that D made a statement to the effect that there was no money.

⑤ around April 208, 2008, KK, who served as the Chief AF secretary of F, has received government funds from the NIS and used them as public opinion poll costs to prepare for the overall election. Around the instant case, the statement was made to the effect that “The National Assembly knew that the budget that can be used by each ministry is hidden, and that it may be requested from the NIS because the budget that can be used by each ministry was concealed” (Supplementary Evidence Record 189, 190 pages).

6) As seen earlier in determining the guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement, the purpose of Defendant A’s request for the special project cost of this case was to keep N’s unlawful inspection and destruction of evidence from a lusent intervention width, and the purpose was to deliver AC and AA to AD through AC, and AD recognized this and instructed AD to execute the special project cost of this case. It is highly likely that the funding would be used to prevent confusion in the state administration that would be experienced by Blus or President due to the width of N, etc.

7) Considering these circumstances, considering the characteristics of the special activities of the NIS, which do not require separate evidence of the specific purpose of use and use, it is highly likely that AD would have recognized that it would directly receive the special activities of the NIS from the public officials who directly receive the activities of the NIS, rather than recognizing the duties of the public officials who directly receive the activities of the NIS to the public officials.

E) The method by which the instant special project cost was executed out of the NIS’s special project cost

As seen earlier, the instant special project cost requested AC and AA to provide funding, and ordered AD to provide AD’s instructions at a meeting of political parties, which was reported by AA, in accordance with the procedures for the execution of the budget for the special project cost. In light of the fact that the Defendant A’s request for funding was accepted in a meeting of political parties, without any particular discussion, and prompt funding was granted in accordance with the procedures for the execution of the budget for the ordinary project cost, the decision on delivery of the instant special project cost seems to have been based on the examples or practices of the disbursement of the special project cost for the Cheongbu, which took place prior to the delivery of the instant special project cost.

F) Whether there was a benefit to AD by delivering the instant special project cost to Defendant A

① Defendant A had been aware of the aggravation of the public opinion on AD due to the case of H on June 2010, 201, North Korea on November 23, 2010, and the case of HI on February 16, 2011, prior to Defendant A’s request for funding. However, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant AD’s mistake was immediately connected to AX’s reprimand’s reprimand’s personnel management. At that time, Defendant AD was more than two years since the former BC was appointed as AX around February 2009 and had been replaced for less than one year, and it was difficult for the President to re-introspecte AX by making efforts to replace AX’s diplomatic efforts or personnel affairs, not the AX level. In fact, Cheongdae and Cheongdae made efforts to replace AX’s diplomatic efforts and personnel affairs.

② With respect to the issues in the course of performing the duties of the NIS staff, the Chief Office of F seems to have been aware of public opinion or political rights reaction with respect to them. However, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that AD's assertion of public opinion and political rights related to AX competition is specifically identified, or that AX needs to be replaced is reported to the President.

③ AA made a statement to the effect that “(after North Korea’s Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Do,” (Evidence Records 1690 pages), AC also made a statement to the effect that “AD had no big influence on public opinion since AV was receiving a big belief of AV (Evidence Records 87,80 pages)” (Evidence Records 87,880 pages), “AD considered a pro-friendly relationship with AV as its power, so it is doubtful how much the relationship with the Defendant was considered, and that it would naturally have been requested to provide funds to help the President.” (Evidence Records 925 pages)

④ In full view of these circumstances, the fact that there was a demand for negative public opinion or political right AX competition with respect to the case during the performance of the NIS’s duties, as alleged by the prosecutor, is nothing more than a vague trend that it is difficult to deem that AD delivered the instant special project cost on the ground that it was apprehended that it would have an effect on the maintenance of AX status by understanding public opinion about AX and reporting it to the President. In addition, there is no circumstance to deem that there was a problem to obtain specific pending issues or convenience to be resolved by AD at the time.

⑤ The prosecutor asserts that there is a business relationship or a quid pro quo in the delivery of the instant special project costs to Defendant A, which could have been received when AD refused Defendant A’s request for funding (such as personnel measures against the national quota and restrictions on the performance of duties). However, as seen earlier, it is doubtful whether AD delivered the instant special project costs, recognizing that AD’s failure to comply with the Defendant’s request or disadvantages to the national treasury is likely to result in the delivery of the instant special project costs, with the recognition that AD’s failure to comply with its request, would have been affected by the instruction or request of the superior agency. However, the meeting of political parties would have been avoided through the procedures for executing the budget with the direction of AD, and that the special project cost of the instant case was already delivered to BD.

(5) Even if AD had experienced a personal crisis in regard to his/her oception issues, it is difficult to understand that AD intended to preserve its status by means of paying money using the State budget to G secretary who has no authority to exercise direct influence on his/her oception, in the absence of circumstances to deem that AD had dealt with, or had been aware of, his/her oception issues in the F Senior Office or G secretary office.

G) In the process of delivery of the instant special project costs, the confidentiality may be a big mark to recognize the bribe of the said funds. The delivery of the instant special project costs by the head of AE office of the NIS at the time of delivery of the instant special project costs can be deemed as having expressed an intent to use a secret method to prevent the transfer of the instant special project costs to the outside. However, as seen earlier, it cannot be concluded that AD, AK, AA, and A were out of the process of delivery of the instant special project costs through the process of execution of the budget with the awareness of the use of the instant special project costs. Thus, it cannot be concluded that AD was confidential in the process of delivery of the instant special project costs, without specifically ordering the method or place of delivery of the instant special project costs, and the delivery of the instant special project costs by the smuggling to A of the instant special project costs cannot be concluded to have been inappropriate due to the lack of understanding that the instant special project costs were the destruction of evidence, such as the destruction of evidence by the staff of AD, etc. of the instant special project costs.

H) F chief role theory23) and business relationship relationship

Defendant A emphasizes the broad role of the F Chief Office, such as the F Chief Office’s assistance to the Government Office, personnel opinion statement, etc., as a way to obtain the reliance of the President’s trust. Defendant A emphasizes the broad role of the F Chief Office, such as the role as a staff member of the President, personnel rights assistance, public security affairs, finance and national defense affairs. However, this is merely a document stating personal opinion or future progress in order to enhance the position of the F Chief Office in the position of assisting the President, and personnel opinion statement, etc. are limited to a document stating the personal opinion or future progress in the position of the F Chief Office in the position of assisting the President. Rather, Defendant A emphasized the close cooperation with the Government Office in connection with public security affairs. It is difficult to see that Defendant AD was able to exercise its influence, such as personnel authority, etc., on the Government Agency, and there is no circumstance to deem that Defendant A had delivered the instant special project expenses.

(i) Whether Defendant A is suspected of being fair in performing his duties as a waterway of the Special Project Costs of this case

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the instant special project cost is of the nature of funding between the NIS, which is a subordinate agency, and the office of the NIS, and that it is difficult to deem AD to have any specific pending issue related to the duties of secretary, and that Defendant A’s authority and authority cannot be deemed to have any benefit or disadvantage to AD due to the fact that Defendant A’s use of the budget of the NIS is irrelevant to the duties of the NIS, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant A might have been doubtful of the fairness of the performance of duties of the G secretary in relation to the relationship with the NIS, i.e., whether the fairness of the performance of duties of the G secretary is doubtful, or that there is a concern that the G secretary may perform unfair performance of duties in relation to AX, from the external perspective.

2. Defendant B

A. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of one’s exercise of one’s right to BS

1) Summary of the facts charged

A) The duties and relationships between HA secretary and B Q secretary

The Chief of the F shall be assigned to AF secretary, G secretary, H secretary, and W secretary, and shall be in charge of the duties related to the collection of public opinion and the understanding of the trend of government affairs, I’s personnel verification, corruption and prevention, etc., and assist the President in the performance of government affairs. Among them, H secretary was in charge of the duties of H, such as verification of personnel affairs and examination of service trends, HB inspection, job inspection, duty inspection, and duty inspection. B Q secretary, under the order of the President, assisted the President in charge of the duties of preliminary verification of public officials and public institutions HJ personnel affairs, political parties, and public institutions and HJ candidates.

B Q Q secretary office requested the office of secretary to verify the personnel of the candidate group to be appointed in relation to the party in political service and the public institution HJ personnel affairs in the office of secretary, and the office of secretary in the office of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary office sent the results of the verification as classified 4 in relation to the personnel inspection. Meanwhile, the office of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary office and secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary office was in a cooperative relationship in relation to the personnel inspection. On the other hand, the office of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary of secretary office requested the B Q Q secretary office to confirm necessary matters or to provide cooperation to take necessary measures in the course of performing his duties such as inspection of service trends

B) the direction of N’s employment mediation and any act of arranging in accordance with such instruction

On January 1, 2012, the Defendant, at the office of the Cheongdae B Q secretary office located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Office, Seoul, requested the Nman to arrange the employment of the Nman through a public agency, and BR to the effect that “The head of N in connection with the illegal inspection is in need of job placement measures in order to prevent N's width by concealing that the situation the N should have been employed to prevent N's width, and that it is necessary for N's job placement measures in terms of HD fraud boosting, etc., “The head of N in connection with the illegal inspection that is a private person, is in a situation, and it is difficult to live.” The Defendant stated to the effect that it would be well known that it would be difficult for the Nman to find out the location of food.” The Defendant asked the Nman to request a change in the job placement of the Nman through a public agency, and the BR sent the resume once to the effect that “I want to review.”

Since then, on January 2012, the Defendant found the BS again in the B Q secretary room, and found the N's resume, and "The N convening Officer only employs a public official, and he/she should give more time to him/her.

Along with the above Defendant’s request, “S” was made to the BWX president, who was found in the BWX’s office around February 6, 2012, and “WWX president, is a person who sincere, well-grounded, and has been the president and a current state. It was inevitable to leave the position or contract position as it is difficult to leave the public official.”

Accordingly, around February 13, 2012, BY directed BWY directors to find out the job opportunities of N, BY requested N to employ the above CAB representative, a gas boiler producer, at the office of the CA representative in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, "it is possible to prepare a job at the level of public official's salary for at least one year and six months," and CB directed N to the head of the CACC personnel management team of the CACC personnel management team of the process of using N by communicating N.

C) Sub-decision

Accordingly, the Defendant directed the public officials of relevant administrative departments, such as the Prime Minister, K, etc. as the secretary of the president’s H office, and, in order to prevent N from abusing official authority on the establishment of HD trend and duties related to the promotion of HD fraud, the Defendant concealed the situation in which N should be given to work and, as if it is necessary to take job placement measures against N in terms of HD fraud, ordered BS to instruct BWX to have BWX president prepare the job site of N, and requested BWX president to perform an act for which he is not obligated to perform.

2) The summary of Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion did not have any general official authority to direct B Q secretary’s BS to the administrative officers affiliated to the B Q secretary’s office, and it cannot be deemed unlawful and unfair to request the job referral, considering the N’s position close to the point of view.

3) Determination

(A) the basic facts

(1) On January 2012, 2012, Defendant B sought N’s employment by finding BP secretary under the President’s Office BP, and asked Defendant B to find out N’s employment. The BR directed N’s employment mediation by leaving B Q secretary in the place where Defendant B was located. 24)

(2) On January 2012, Defendant B sought N’s job referral to BS by finding the B Q Q secretary office again.

(3) AS, around February 6, 2012, sought N’s curriculum vitae to the BW president, who was finding a BW secretary office, and requested employment. BX directed BW director BY directors to find out N’s employment jobs.

(4) On February 13, 2012, BY requested the CA representative director CB to employ N at the office of CA representative director, and CB directed the CA personnel team leaderCC to employ N.

(5)CC had been on N with respect to the employment of the CA, but the N finally refused employment system, thereby suspending employment process.

B) Relevant legal principles

The term "the abuse of authority" in the crime of abuse of authority means that a public official unlawfully exercises it with regard to matters falling under his general authority, i.e., the conduct of official duties, in a formal and external form, but its substance means the conduct other than the legitimate authority. Accordingly, the abuse of authority is distinguishable from that of a tort using a status where a public official performs an act that does not fall under his/her general authority. The term "duty" in the crime of abuse of authority refers to a legal obligation and does not constitute a simple psychological obligation or a moral obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do6950, Jan. 30, 2009; 90Do2800, Dec. 27, 1991).

C) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by allowing Defendant B to arrange the employment of N constitutes a case where Defendant B is included in the scope of Defendant B’s general official authority or made Defendant B to perform an act for which he is not obligated by abusing his official authority.

(1) Whether the N’s direction for job placement of BS falls within the scope of the general official authority and authority of Defendant B

(A) The primary tasks of HA secretary and B Q secretary are the verification of personnel and service trends, HB inspection, and duty inspection, etc.

H Duties, job inspection, and duty inspection are as seen earlier, and the main duties of the B Q secretary office are political parties and public institutions’ HJ personnel, political parties, and public institutions’ HJ candidates.

(B) Relationship between HA secretary office and B Q secretary office

He is under the direct control of F, and B Q’s secretary is different from the immediately higher agency in terms of the organization in the presidential office BP, and all of his positions are not considered to be a secretary. The personnel affairs of B Q’s secretary may be considered to be a cooperation relationship in that it is necessary to cooperate in the personnel affairs of the He office secretary in terms of the personnel affairs of the He office secretary. However, the relationship in which H secretary directs, supervises, instructs, and reports the B secretary.

not be deemed to have existed.

(C) Relationship between Defendant B and BS

BS is merely a relationship in which a report is made by BP secretary, as an administrative officer of the B Q secretary office, and it is reasonable to view that Defendant B does not have the authority to direct the duties of Defendant B, insofar as there is no such relation as seen above, to report the direction between the H secretary office and the B Q secretary office. (D) The duties of the H secretary, whether or not the employment guidance is included in the Defendant B’s general duties and duties, shall be verified by the candidates at the time of appointment of the I, prevent the public officials in service from being harmed by ascertaining their service trends and supervising their duties, and assist the President by taking appropriate measures in the event that the case of such dismissal is discovered, it is difficult to view that the B Q secretary office has the authority to direct the employment mediation after his retirement. Moreover, since the B Q secretary office cannot be deemed to be in charge of employment mediation beyond the duties of political and public institution’s personnel management, it is nothing more than that of Defendant B’s request for cooperation with the duties of the Q secretary.

On the other hand, since the prosecutor has a general duty of "the boosting the morale of a public official" to H secretary, the prosecutor asserts that the direction of the N for the job placement of the defendant B constitutes abuse of authority. However, the "the boosting the morale of the public official belonging to his office" cannot be viewed as the duty of the H secretary under the law. In particular, unless the agency in charge of the boosting the morale in the organization refers to the duties of the H secretary, it can be understood that the public official belonging to his office is recommended to improve the work efficiency that all the public officials belonging to his office can perform for the public officials, and it is difficult to accept the above argument in that the public prosecutor's view that the "job placement" includes the duties of the H secretary after his retirement on the job authority of boosting the morale is excessively expanded.

(2) BS stated to the effect that “When Defendant B received an order from Defendant B to find out the employment of N, she saw that she would have come to know of the employment of N” (Evidence No. 4247, 4248) and BR also stated to the effect that “H secretary is closely in cooperation with his/her duties, and Defendant B was unable to refuse his/her request for job referral before the request by Defendant B because he/she first asked Defendant B to do so.” The B Q secretary stated to the effect that “If the case for which the request for verification was made by Defendant B is not proper in the H secretary office or when he/she leads time, he/she cannot select a suitable person.” However, even if the BS was arranged by Defendant B’s instruction, Defendant B’s act of job referral cannot be deemed as having any legal relation between Defendant B’s duty and his/her duty’s duty and duty’s duty and duty’s duty and duty’s duty.

B. Points of transport of stolen goods

1) Summary of the facts charged

Around April 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) received shopping bags from the office of Cheongdaedae-dae Office located as Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, which is a national budget, including KRW 50 million; and (b) delivered them to the J in the vicinity of Cheongdae-dae, even though the Defendant recognized that they are stolen, it was a stolen. Accordingly, the Defendant transported KRW 50,000,000,000 in cash, which is the stolen property embezzled as owned by the Republic of Korea, to the Defendant.

2) The summary of Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion was different from that of embezzlement of the NIS’s budget while delivering the instant special project cost to himself.

3) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

The perception of stolens is not required to be a conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient to be dolusent recognition to the extent of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous, and the issue of whether the stolens have been aware of the fact, shall be recognized in consideration of the identity of the owner of the stolens, the nature of the stolens, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3590, Sept. 5, 200; 94Do1968, Jan. 20, 200).

B) Specific determination

As examined below, A stated to the effect that it did not mention the source of the special project cost of this case to Defendant B, Defendant B delivered the special project cost of this case to J in a confidential manner in his own tea, Defendant B denied the fact that it received the special project cost of this case from Justice and delivered it to J during the investigation process, and sought false statements about J and sources, etc., Defendant B’s assertion is difficult to believe.

However, the stolen refers to "the goods acquired due to the property crime itself," and when considering the following circumstances in light of the above legal principles, even if Defendant B could have doubtful the source of the special project cost of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to view that the special project cost of this case was acquired due to the property crime and delivered it to J.

① A made a statement to the effect that “There is no fact about the request for funding to Defendant B and NIS, and there is no fact that talks about the source of the instant special project cost was divided” (legal statement, 5230, 5671, 5672).

② AP made a statement to the effect that “The J had made the statement to the effect that it was safe money when receiving money from Defendant B” (Evidence No. 3065 pages), and the J also made a statement to the effect that “Defendant B would have kept secret as to the source when she talked that it was a safe money and that it was a money that could not disclose its source” (Evidence No. 4493 pages). However, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B had perceived that Defendant B would have acquired the special project cost of this case as a property crime because it is possible for a person who delivered the special project cost of this case to be informed that he was A.

③ At around 2012, J asked about the possibility of tracking Defendant B and the official seal before the prosecution investigation was conducted. Defendant B asked for an answer to the purport that Defendant B would not be tracking the official seal, and that Defendant B would have been aware of the need to deliver the special project expenses of this case to the J at the time of delivery of the official seal, on the source of money, to the general public. (Evidence No. 5726 pages). However, as seen earlier, Defendant B did not notify that the person who delivered the special project expenses of this case was A, as seen earlier, it may be deemed that there was a purpose of not notifying that Defendant B was a person who delivered the special project expenses of this case, and that Defendant B was in the form of official seal because it was difficult to eliminate the possibility that Defendant B would have known that the amount was in the form of official seal. Furthermore, Defendant B’s delivery of the special project expenses of this case to the J at the time of delivery of the official seal or that Defendant B embezzled the budget.

(4) In order to recognize the fact that Defendant B’s special project cost of this case is a stolen object even if it is dolusent, it should have been recognized that it was at least A’s acquisition of property by embezzlement and breach of trust, etc., beyond a vague doubt about the source of money. However, Defendant B could not be considered to have delivered the money acquired by Defendant B through the above criminal act because A was a legal expert as a prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant A, the abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights due to the job placement order against Defendant B, and the transport of stolen goods constitutes a case where there is no proof of each crime, and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. As to Defendant A, the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, and

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) Since there are many facts overlapping among the facts charged in each case against the joined Defendants, it is a single premise.

In fact, based on the facts stated in the records of this case, a crime that does not interfere with the defendants' exercise of defense rights.

In this regard, some of the facts charged were revised.

2) Pursuant to Article 33 (Disqualifications) of the State Public Officials Act, a sentence on which the status of a public official is lost shall be imposed.

3) Defendant A makes a statement that “Although the memory requested to provide funding to AC, there is no memory requesting AA to provide funding.”

However, AA consistently receives a request from the defendant for telephone and funding from investigative agencies and this court."

Statements made (legal statements, 2018 Gohap129 (hereinafter case number omitted) evidence records 898 pages, 4342, 4343 pages, additional evidence records

26 pages)

4) Defendant A alleged that there was no specific fact that “N” was among the employees of the M Office, but AC and AA alleged that “Defendant A was in the office of Prime Minister from the Prime Minister.”

Defendant A referred to as “N” in the name of “N” when it is necessary for the Institute’s attorney fee, etc.

AC’s statement (AC’s statement, evidence record 849 to 850, 4335, AA’s statement: legal statement and evidence record

1903, 907 to 909, 4343 pages) In addition, “A” reports to AD the request of the Prime Minister for the financial support of Defendant A, and the Office of Prime Minister.

One of the staff stated "(1)" (20 pages of the legal statement, additional evidence records).

5) AX, AY, AB, AZ Deputy Director, AE Director, etc. are meetings in which only public officials in political service are present (so called 'Y').

6) AD has been reported by it to the Defendant’s request for funding from AA, and the officer who directed him to provide funding to A.

AA and AK present at a meeting of political parties, stating that the office is not memoryd in all, but "A and AK" provide funds from AA.

AK’s statement to the effect that “AK’s financial support is reported and given to AK” (AK’s statement: legal statement and evidence apparatus

Appendix 1843, 1844, Additional Evidence Record 19, AA Statements: Legal Statements, Additional Evidence Record 26 pages), AC also

The request for this assistance was entered in the note and delivered to AA, and the AAD was called by telephone, and the BAD was called as the BOD request.

The statement was made that it was called “original,” and that it was called “the statement will be returned,” (legal statement, evidence record 852 pages)

7) Although the name of the NIS special activity cost to be used by AX is not set separately by law, the name of the NIS special activity cost is not set separately by law, "special project cost", "special project cost";

The term "project support expenses", etc.

8) At that time, AX was the former BC of AD.

9) The evidence records of the 2018 Gohap341 case against Defendant B are all combined with Defendant A’s evidence records of the 2018 Gohap3341 case.

Since the records overlap, the number of evidence records in convenience 2018 Gohap129 is entered, and the case number also exists.

approximates;

10) The case of illegal inspection and destruction of evidence committed by civilians in the M room before the alteration of the organization into the K room refers to the case of destruction of evidence.

11) According to the pending pending documents, etc. of the F Chief Office, the F Chief Office reaction of public opinion and political rights in the instant case from July 2010 to November 201, 2010.

B continued the response measures, and the N's illegal inspection and destruction of evidence have been involved in N's intervention in the destruction of evidence.

Even around March 2012, there was a width, recognizing the case of illegal inspection by private citizens as a major issue that imposes a burden on the state administration.

It appears that additional evidence records (see, e.g., 74 to 152).

12) After the report on the press by a civilian, Defendant B was found to have the responsibility for the case and recommended his retirement.

(Defendant B’s Statements: steam Records 4718, 4719 pages)

13) The BL stated, “I am a gold bar to BM and Y families on September 2010.” (Additional evidence record 246).

J. 248 pages),

14) AS spreads a question that “AS has a risk of brupting the truth of the inspection case, such as a civilian, and the destruction of evidence, with hearing in the hinterland of the destruction of evidence; and

Y/N’s oral performance of the President’s national affairs, citing a situation in which Y/N expressed an explicit complaint and intimidation;

It is determined that there is a possibility of action at cost, and only Y, BN, BO, and N from July 201 to November 201 of the same year

B. He stated that “Y, N, two times more than three, the bags containing million won was dried (Evidence).”

(C) No. 4359 to 4361 of the record) At the time, the Presidential Office AS stated that “AS has provided money to N et al.”

(c)"Statement to the effect that it was stated (Evidence Records 4639 to 4641).

15) On January 13, 2011, the JJ speech among the recording records between JP N: “I have transmitted her fluorly, her fluorly, and has transmitted her fluorly, and the amount also her fluorly.

Madern, 1 billion won was sent, and her Z was delivered later, and then her Z was delivered later, and her Z was delivered later, her secretary to the next year, her and her secretary to the secretary.

A. 'A' and 'A' are almost **** a fine, and the place of work when it is inside 'A', 'A' and 'A' as a fine.

'I do not have to move to Gyeongbuk-do?', 'I think I think I think I will have to move to her, 'I will have to do so', 'I will have to do so', so I will have to do so.

In this way, there is a defect in doing so with a good money when filing a report on the grant of a fine, and it is now now available that the fine can be able to do so at present.

It is the same fact that the secretary continues to finitely finites, "I end finites before the second instance," but this is one of the past.

Our A, ASEAN, A, and us will be in cash of 500 million won? Also, 'cash' 500 million won, which is easy to do so.

Is you you you you you you you you you you know?", " from 500 to 1 billion" are the same as it is, and the degree of it is the same.

high.","as soon as possible, "if any, from what is created, to be identified, and from what is coming to ***?" (Evidence Records 1773 to 1773 of the Evidence)

1780 pages)

16) It appears that the suspension of the execution of imprisonment is meaning.

17) On July 16, 201, J’s speech out of the transcript between J and N: “B or this minute must not be its own people to B or B to B,” and “receive”.

A person shall be deemed to have no such species as B and there is no such a scam, "(Evidence Records 1786, 1789)."

18) 2) At the time of the second investigation of 2012, N’s initial N’s width, 2) refers to the F’s chief office in order to make the N’s trust.

The prosecutor's investigation on January 17, 2018 alleged that there was no contact with the F Director's staff, and on January 17, 2018, the F Director's position was the above.

He recognized the fact that he had contacted with the G secretary office AU.

19) On June 24, 2011, reference to a record of telephone conversations between J and N (Evidence Record 1781 to 1784 pages)

20) Defendant B stated that the amount of the instant special project cost was not confirmed, but the specific amount is not known.

It seems that the volume and weight of the money contained in the white can be measured that it is not the smaller amount.

21) As the instant special project cost, it appears that the special project cost used by AX out of the government subsidy’s special project cost is referred to.

22) The Deputy Director of the NIS shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of AX. On April 201, the Deputy Director of the NIS AY and the Deputy Director of the AZ shall be appointed on the recommendation of AX.

was replaced.

23) On January 12, 2018, evidence seized at the office of the law firm BV, in which Defendant A had served (see, e.g., evidence records 3229 pages).

24) Defendant B alleged that he requested N only from this court to BR, but the investigative agency itself is the BS administrative officer.

(Evidence No. 3201) and BS also find Defendant B as B Q secretary office and directly N.

The statement was made to the effect that it asked to conduct the business (Evidence Records 4248, 4259).

25) In light of the status of Defendant B and A, Defendant B was committed with theft robbery, fraud, robbery, etc., which is another property crime by Defendant B.

It seems that it was difficult to doubt that the acquired money was delivered to himself.