209 Highest 172. A. Acceptance of bribe

(b) Offering of bribe;

A person shall be appointed.

Reference domicile

Reference domicile

Reference domicile

3.2.(b)No position.

Residence Gyeongbuk

Reference domicile

Doctrine

Law Firm 1 and 2)

February 11, 2010

Defendant A shall be punished by a suspension of qualification for two years, by a suspension of qualification for Defendant B, by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

When Defendant C fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

2,60,000 won from Defendant A, from Defendant B to Defendant B, and from Defendant B to KRW 1,00,000 shall be additionally collected. An amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered to be paid provisionally against Defendant C.

Criminal facts

Defendant A served as the head of D military construction and construction administrative division from April 4, 2005 to February 15, 2007, and was in charge of all the construction administrative affairs, such as permission of aggregate, and Defendant A, and Defendant B, respectively.

4. From April 1, 200 to February 15, 2007, a person in charge of administrative affairs related to the operation of the waste reclamation site in the D military while working as the environmental forest and environmental facility fraternity (such as civil petitions related to waste reclamation and purchase of molds to prevent malodor in the landfill site) was employed as the police assigned to the D military service from April 1, 198 to November 12, 2008, and was in charge of the supervision of the aggregate extraction site and the permission to extract aggregate under the D military construction division.

1. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant A

C received money from aggregate extraction business entities, such as E, who operate a comprehensive aggregate extraction plant, for the convenience of aggregate extraction, in relation to the permission for aggregate extraction, and when Defendant A, a superior, did not immediately approve or return documents for the permission for aggregate extraction proposed by C, C was given a difficult position, such as receiving a claim from aggregate extraction business entities.

C around May 2006, around 2006, the words "Isn't know that I would have gone from the defendant in the construction and office of the D military administration."

Defendant A received KRW 1,00,000 in cash from a subordinate C in relation to the construction of the D military office and the provision of convenience in the business of permission for aggregate extraction in the corridor around that time, along with the words “I ambling so that I would know about there is no money.”

2. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant A and B

A. At around June 2006, Defendant B, the Director of the Environmental Forest and Environmental Facility Book of D D, D, D, D, and D, D, D, D, D, and D, and D, and C, the construction of D, and the corridor, saying, “the soil was damaged.” At that time, C, the Defendant instructed Defendant A to read “I,” “I will be able to be used in the cleaning system (environmental facility system),” and the Defendant C, “I will have soil.”

Defendant B requested F, a person in charge of the environmental facility waste in the Korea Military Service, to “I am to find C with soil,” and C, at the construction and office around that time, ordered F to “I am to maintain down the fy at a low-time fying site in which soil is cut down.” The Defendant B, who reported this fact from F, ordered F to “I purchase soil.”

C around that time, A told E that “I will carry the field soil on a reclamation site,” but this saying, “I would like to carry the budget because I will bring the budget to the cleaning fraternity because I would like to carry soil to the garbage reclamation site.”

E submitted a estimate for equipment leasing for the transport of soil to the foregoing environmental facility system around that time, and on June 22, 2006, the D and D entered into a contract for equipment leasing for the transport of soil, and transported dtop soil to the waste landfill.

C On June 2006, it concluded a contract with Defendant A, which had been frightly met in the corridor of the Gun office in the non-permanent city on June 2006, and the money was used in the burgical cleaning system and the construction administration system.

D Group paid 4 million won to E with the rent of equipment for transport of mototopy soil on July 2006, and C around that time received 3.6 million won after deducting value-added tax from E among the above money.

B. Defendant A’s acceptance of bribe 1) on July 2006, Defendant A received KRW 600,000 in cash from D military office construction and corridor C, with the words “the money from cleaning system,” which Defendant A received KRW 1 million in cash from D military office construction and office books among July 2006. Defendant A received KRW 600,00 in cash from D military office construction and office books.”

As a result, Defendant A received 1.6 million won in cash, which is a bribe in connection with his duties.

C. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant B

On July 2006, Defendant B received KRW 1 million in cash as a bribe in relation to Defendant B’s duties, at the construction of the D Military Service and the front corridor, “E” from Defendant B received KRW 1 million in cash with the horses. Accordingly, Defendant B received KRW 1 million in cash, which is a bribe in relation to his duties.

3. Defendant C delivered a bribe to Defendant C in relation to the aggregate extraction work at each date and each place set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), and each of them delivered KRW 2.6 million to A, and one million to B, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and witness C

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. A copy of the fourth prosecution examination protocol against Defendant C;

1. First prosecutorial examination protocol against Defendant B (including the cross-examination part with Defendant C);

1. Statement of part of the protocol of interrogation of suspect by the prosecution against Defendant A (including part of the cross-examination with Defendant C, Defendant B, and E)

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to F;

1. A public official personal card;

1. Copy of the judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A and B: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Suspension of Qualification) Defendant C: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and C: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A and B: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

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

Judgment on the credibility of Defendant C’s statement

In the case of accepting a bribe, the defendant, who was selected as the receiver of the bribe, denies the fact of the bribery at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no evidence to support it, in order to find the defendant guilty only with the statement of the receiver, there should be evidence, and there should be credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency before and after the statement itself, but also his human nature should be examined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009).

As to the instant case, Defendant C’s statement that Defendant A gave KRW 2.6 million to Defendant A three times, and KRW 1 million once to Defendant B is consistent with the evidence of conviction. In light of the aforementioned facts, Defendant C’s statement to the effect that (i) specifically explain the time, place, method of delivery, and reason for giving money to Defendant A and gave money to Defendant A and B is consistent; (ii) Defendant C demanded a construction business operator who moved the soil from the new village maintenance to the waste reclamation site of KRW 4,60,000 after deducting value-added tax from KRW 4,00,000,000,000,000 won was delivered to Defendant C; and (iii) it is considered that the process of delivery and the situation at the time of delivery and trust of the money to Defendant C at the expense of Defendant C’s environmental construction and delivery of the money to Defendant C’s soil to each of the Ministry of Environment; and (iv) the process of delivery of the money to Defendant C’s soil to each of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

(5) In light of the fact that Defendant C’s statements concerning the amount of money distributed three times to Defendant A or the amount of money distributed to Defendant A, or the place of delivery two and three times are somewhat inconsistent or inconsistent with the objective circumstance, considering the fact that there was a gap near three years from the time of the occurrence of the case to the investigation agency and this court, it appears to be due to the limitation of memory; and 6) as at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant B made a detailed confession of the following facts: (i) if the amount of money distributed to Defendant B, other than the chief of the division in charge of aggregate extraction business, was given to Defendant B, the amount of money raised to the chief of the division in excess of the general rule of experience, it can be sufficiently recognized as reasonable, objective, reasonable, and consistent with the general rule of experience; (ii) in light of the fact that Defendant C’s statements made by Defendant C were made in a state where it was possible to punish Defendant C with money paid to Defendant C, it is difficult to find the grounds for Defendant C’s statements to the same effect.

Although Defendant A and B are strongly denied the entire facts charged for sentencing, the fact that they did not cause any particular concern while living a public office for a period of not more than 30 years, there is no same power, and the amount of accepted money is not significant. Considering all the circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case, such as the receipt of money directly to private business operators by Defendant C, a subordinate employee, rather than directly demanding money, the suspension of qualification should be imposed as ordered.

Judges R. R.D.D.

Note z.