Defendant

Kim Jong-ju, main (prosecutions, public trials), and foreign vibration (public trial)

Law Firm Mailing et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1.162 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) following the receipt of money from Nonindicted 3 is acquitted.

【2011 Gohap1621】

The Defendant, who is a public official in extraordinary civil service on July 1, 1996, began to work in the National Assembly as a secretary for the National Assembly (class 6) and has served as an assistant for the National Assembly member from around 2008 to January 2012 after undergoing several promotions.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Receipt of money and valuables from Nonindicted 1

The Defendant was urged from October 2009 to August 201, 201, the president of ○○○ Group, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 1, who operated Nonindicted Co. 15, to the effect that “The Defendant would be free from the investigation of the original source of the ○○○ Group, which was going from September 2009 to December 2009, and would be free from the investigation of the original source of the ○○○○ Group, and would be free from Nonindicted Co. 16 and Nonindicted Co. 17, who was going from December 2009, in order to ensure that the workout program for Nonindicted Co. 16 and Nonindicted Co. 17 would be in favor of Nonindicted

The Defendant received, in return for the above solicitation, cash KRW 300 million from Nonindicted Party 1, 1) around December 2009 through January 201, 201, the Defendant received, respectively, cash KRW 100 million from June 201 to July 201, 201, from the female volunteer belt around 2010, around June 201 to July 30, 201.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables for mediating matters belonging to public officials' duties.

B. Receipt of money and valuables from Nonindicted 7

From May 209 to June 2009, the Defendant received cash 20 million won from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank Chairperson Nonindicted 7 to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank Chairperson at the Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank”)’s office (hereinafter “Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank”) to help him take over the insolvent Savings Bank in the Seoul Deposit Insurance Corporation at Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s request from Nonindicted 7.

In addition, from around the above to May 2010, the Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 7 about a total of KRW 150 million on six occasions, such as the list of crimes (1) as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1).

2. Violation of the Political Funds Act;

The defendant is an assistant to the National Assembly member (Grade IV), who assists the members of the National Assembly, handles overall civil affairs including local civil petitions, and engages in political activities.

On March 1, 2009, the Defendant received a proposal from Nonindicted 5, who actually manages Nonindicted 24 Co. 24, 2009, to transfer a lot of money to the Defendant, such as reporters, etc. in various places, such as drinking value or meal expenses, and accepted it.

The Defendant received KRW 5 million from Nonindicted 5 on March 10, 2009, via the borrowed account (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of one bank in the name of Nonindicted 22 from Nonindicted 5 on March 10, 2009, and received a total of KRW 117 million through the above 23 times from around that time to December 14, 2010, as indicated in the attached crime sight table (3).

As a result, the Defendant received a contribution of KRW 117 million for political funds by means not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

[2012 Gohap702]

1. Receipt of money and valuables for arranging the loan of Nonindicted Bank 23

From January 2009 to March 2009, the Defendant received the request from Nonindicted 25 to “the request from Nonindicted 27 Co. 27 operated by Nonindicted Co. 26 to help them receive loans from financial institutions because it is necessary to do so,” on the fixed number of the National Assembly staff of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The Defendant sent the said request by phone to Nonindicted Co. 23 bank around March 2009.

As a result, Nonindicted Co. 27 was granted loans of KRW 30 billion in total, including KRW 20 billion, around June 18, 2009, to Nonindicted Co. 23 banks located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu around March 26, 2009, and KRW 10 billion around June 18, 2009.

On April 1, 2009, the Defendant received cash KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 25 on the first floor of the “M hotel” parking lot located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, for the said loan honorarium.

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables on the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions.

2. Receipt of money and valuables for arranging Nonindicted 39 Savings Bank loans

From July 2009 to August 2009, the Defendant received a request from Nonindicted 25 to “Non-Indicted 28 to help them obtain loans from a financial institution because it is necessary to complete the construction of the port (building name omitted) construction from Non-Indicted 28 Co., Ltd.,” and sent the said request by call to Non-Indicted 39 Savings Bank on or around August 2009.

As a result, Nonindicted Co. 28 received a loan of KRW 2.9 billion from the inner branch of Nonindicted Co. 39 Savings Bank located in Ansan-dong, Dong-dong around August 14, 2009.

On or around August 2009 or around September 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 29 to Nonindicted 25 in the Seoul Office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (hereinafter address 2 omitted) Nonindicted Company 28 in the name of Nonindicted Company 25.

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables on the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions.

【2011 Gohap1621】

【No. 1-A's Paragraph 1】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1 (in the case of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted Party 12, including Nonindicted Party 2’s statement)

1. Non-Indicted 1 (Handphone No. 1 omitted) and the Defendant (Handphone No. 2 omitted), telephone records (Evidence No. 7) (Evidence List No. 19), personnel record cards (Evidence List No. 19);

[The point of paragraph 1-b in the market]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 7

1. The third and fourth prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, and Nonindicted 32

1. Personnel record card on the accused of the suspect (No. 19 No. 19 of the evidence list);

[The point of paragraph (2) at the time of sale]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 5’s witness

1. The prosecutorial statement (including attached documents) with respect to Nonindicted 22, and the prosecutorial statement with respect to Nonindicted 5 (including attached documents No. 43 and attached documents)

[2012 Gohap702]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 25

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 1

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 35

1. A copy of Non-Indicted Party 28’s account copy of Non-Indicted Party 39 Savings Bank (Evidence No. 10), two copies of Non-Indicted Party 25 (Evidence No. 21), the account number 2 omitted (Use of Non-Indicted 34) credit card details (Evidence No. 25) (Evidence No. 31 to June 2010), one copy of the indictment (Evidence No. 27).

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

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of good offices and acceptance of matters belonging to the duties of public officials, each of them is a penalty), Article 45 (1) of the Political Funds Act (the receipt of political funds in a manner that is not prescribed by the Act, comprehensively including the receipt of political funds, choice of imprisonment), Article 7 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 10522, Mar. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) (the point of good offices and acceptance of good offices concerning good offices of matters belonging to the duties of executive officers

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment of Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. Additional collection:

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the latter part of Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act, Article 10(3) and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [Attachment 2] 1.166 million won + (10 million won + KRW 95 million + KRW 100 million + + KRW 150 million + KRW 17 billion + KRW 200 million + KRW 100 million]

【paragraph (1) at the Time of Sales】

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant received 50 million won in total from Non-Indicted 1 and one finger belt. However, there was no fact that the defendant received 90,000 US dollars from Non-Indicted 1, and the above money and valuables received by the defendant did not constitute a consideration for the solicitation of the public official's duties.

2. Determination as to whether to receive $90,000 or not

A. Issues and relevant legal principles

The evidence that the defendant directly proves that he received USD 90,00 from the non-indicted 1 at the end of June or at the beginning of July 2011 refers to the statement of the non-indicted 1, who is the donor. Thus, the issue of this part judgment is whether or not there is credibility which can be used as evidence of guilt in the non-indicted 1's statement. The issue of this case is whether or not the defendant's statement is admissible in the case where the issue is whether or not to receive money or valuables is raised or there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the fact that the defendant denies the receipt of the money or valuables, in order to acknowledge the defendant's statement only with the statement of the person who provided the money or valuables, there should be not only the admissibility of the statement, but also the credibility excluding a reasonable doubt, objective reasonableness, and consistency in the statement when determining credibility. In particular, if there is a suspicion about the crime, and there is a possibility that the defendant's statement might have an effect on the investigation or the statement that is being made in progress within 2014 times.

B. Summary of Nonindicted 1’s statement

Non-Indicted 1 makes a statement in the following manner with regard to the details of issuance of USD 90,00 in an investigative agency and this court:

- With respect to the source of USD 90,00: “The Defendant received money contained in the envelope from Nonindicted 2 in the vicinity of the villa in which he was absent from the Republic of Korea at the end of June 2011. In the vehicle back to Seoul, the Plaintiff confirmed in the vehicle back to Seoul, 9: (a) the said money was combined with one hundred USD 100 in the said envelope; (b) the said money was said to be another paper on the newspaper; and (c) thereafter, the said money was said to be another paper on the newspaper site; (d) money was inserted in a short color bag as is, after the newspaper was offered to walking the paper above.”

· 9만 달러 교부 당시의 정황에 관하여 : “9만 달러를 피고인에게 주기 위해 2011. 6. 말경 혹은 2011. 7. 초경 여의도동에 있는 코보스 호텔 커피숍에서 피고인을 만났는데, 피고인을 만나기 전 한 시간가량 기다렸다. 그날 피고인이 굉장히 바빴던 것 같다. 당시 피고인에게 돈이 달러라는 말조차 하지 못했고, 피고인은 차도 마시지 못하고 간단히 몇 마디만 하고 그냥 나갔다.”

C. Determination of credibility

According to the above evidence, the defendant and the non-indicted 2 told the defendant and the non-indicted 1 to the extent that they offer money and valuables or entertainments to the Vice Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the non-indicted 20 before the non-indicted 19. It is somewhat meaningful that the defendant received 90,00 U.S. dollars additionally from the non-indicted 1.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is determined that the statement by Nonindicted Party 1 was sufficiently reliable to exclude a reasonable doubt in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court.

1) On November 27, 2011, Nonindicted Party 1 consistently stated the facts of delivery of USD 90,00 from the time when he/she was under interrogation seven times to the time when he/she was under interrogation. Nonindicted Party 1 is difficult to find any special contradiction in the said statement itself.

2) Nonindicted 1’s statement on the developments leading up to the delivery of USD 90,00,00,000, such as the source of USD 90,00,00, the packing condition of money, and the situation at the time of delivery of money to the Defendant is considerably specific and difficult to experience directly.

3) 피고인의 진술에 따르더라도 피고인은 ‘2011. 6. 말경 내지 2011. 7. 초순경’ 국회 예산 관련 업무로 굉장히 바빴다는 것인데, 이는 공소외 1의 진술에서 확인되는 금원 교부 당시의 정황과도 일부 부합하는 것이다.

4) It is difficult for Nonindicted 1 to find out the reason why he could not identify the Defendant, and Nonindicted 1 did not state the fact of granting money and valuables to the Defendant to protect the Defendant during the first investigation by the prosecution, and when the money and valuables delivered to the Defendant are recognized as the consideration for the Defendant’s duties as a public official, Nonindicted 1 also stated the fact of delivering money and valuables to the Defendant.

D. Sub-committee

Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted, since it can be recognized that the defendant received US$90,00 according to the above statement by the non-indicted 1.

3. Judgment on the pretext of giving or receiving money

A. Relevant legal principles

The term "mediation" means "an act of arranging or assisting a certain matter between a certain person and his/her counterpart in order to mediate or convenience," and the act of arranging such matters is included in cases where the act of arranging such matters is subject to legitimate duties, and if the act of arranging such matters is provided or received under the pretext of the above mediation, it is established regardless of which actual act of arranging is committed. On the other hand, whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a provider of profits shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the relevant mediation, the relationship between a broker and a provider of profits, the degree of profit, the circumstances leading up to the receipt of profit, etc., and it is sufficient that there is a comprehensive and comprehensive quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a provider of money or goods, and furthermore, in cases where the nature of the quid pro quo for other acts is indivisiblely combined with the money or goods received by the broker, such act of arranging has the nature of the quid pro quo as a consideration for the act of arranging (see

B. Determination

In full view of all the following circumstances admitted by the evidence mentioned above, it can be sufficiently recognized that the amount received by the defendant from Nonindicted 1 was the consideration for the public official's duties.

1) Facts of solicitation

In around the end of 2009, Nonindicted 1 asked Nonindicted 2 to the effect that “○○○ Group is under investigation by the prosecution,” and “Nonindicted 16 Company was forced by the Korea Development Bank. The Korea Development Bank received a request to the effect that it would prevent Nonindicted 16 Company from paying the transaction amount to Nonindicted 17 Company, and then delivered it to Nonindicted 2’s above request. In addition, Nonindicted 1 continued to make solicitation related to the said ○○○ Group even while giving money to the Defendant several times.

2) The circumstances at the time of delivery of the first money

Non-Indicted 1 began to offer money and valuables to the defendant from the time when the request was made with regard to the ○○○○ Group, and the defendant divided the situation of the ○○○ Group before giving the first cash of KRW 30 million. It was sufficiently known that the above money was related to the ○○ Group, which was already requested by the defendant.

3) Parental relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

In 207 or 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 became aware of the Defendant who had worked as an assistant to the National Assembly member, and it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 1 had a pro-friendly relationship between Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1, who had started to give money to the Defendant, without any consideration, to conduct a monetary transaction of KRW KRW 00 million between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1.

4) The circumstances of good offices

After receiving the request from Nonindicted 1 in connection with the ○○○ Group, the Defendant confirmed whether it is possible for Nonindicted 16 to make a transaction payment to Nonindicted 17 Company, as claimed by Nonindicted 2, in light of the intent of Nonindicted 1’s request, at the end of 2009 or around the beginning of 2010, Nonindicted 16 Company was allowed to make a transaction payment to Nonindicted 17 Company. On September 2010, Nonindicted 2 directly talked with Nonindicted 2 or through the Defendant, and then delivered the said documents to the prosecution-related persons.

5) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Nonindicted 1 had inflicted damage on the Defendant while managing the Defendant’s securities account, and that Nonindicted 1 had provided money and valuables to the Defendant with the intent to compensate for the above damage. However, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge the above alleged fact, and even according to the Defendant’s statement, even if following the Defendant’s statement, the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant due to Nonindicted 1 is only KRW 4,000,000,000), and the contents of the above change suit by the Defendant and

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

[Article 1-2]

1. Summary of the assertion

It is true that the defendant receives a total of KRW 150 million from Nonindicted 7 as stated in its reasoning, but the above amount was not a consideration for the public official's duties.

2. Determination

Examining the following circumstances confirmed by the aforementioned evidence in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it can be recognized that the Defendant received a total of KRW 150 million from Nonindicted 7 in return for the solicitation of matters belonging to the public official’s duties.

A. The credibility of Non-Indicted 7’s statement

In relation to the name of money and valuables provided to the defendant relatively consistently from the investigative agency to this court, Nonindicted 7 stated that “the defendant gave money and valuables to receive help from the defendant as an assistant officer of Nonindicted 21 member who is the actual duty of the current government,” and that “The savings bank industry was difficult at the time, so it would not strengthen the supervision over the savings bank, and it would not be able to strengthen the requirements for the establishment of branches, to ease the requirements for the establishment of savings banks, and to provide money to the savings banks so that savings banks may be able to prepare for difficulties with sufficient time through the adjustment of BISD ratio, etc.” However, Nonindicted 7’s statement has credibility to be considered as evidence of guilt.

(b) Defendant’s statement on solicitation;

In an investigative agency, the Defendant also tried to find out whether the non-indicted 7 Chairperson may purchase the non-indicted 6 Savings Bank on good terms in the non-indicted 6 Savings Bank, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he acknowledges the solicitation of the non-indicted 7, on the ground that “The non-indicted 7 Chairperson may purchase the non-indicted 6 Savings Bank on a good condition in the non-indicted 6 Savings Bank, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation would know about the receipt of the savings bank, and that he would know about the proposal.” “The non-indicted 7 Chairperson made a statement to the effect that he would give a good opportunity to the financial authorities on the non-indicted 6 Savings Bank.”

(c) Circumstances of good offices;

After receiving the above solicitation from Nonindicted 7, the Defendant: (a) identified whether an insolvent savings bank was in possession of it in lots through members of the National Assembly Administration Committee in charge of savings banks; and (b) asked the contents of the savings bank; and (c) stated, to the employees of the Financial Supervisory Service, that “ Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank is a strong financial soundness; and (d) it is well aware that the insolvent savings bank is in possession of the insolvent savings bank in Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank.”

D. Parental relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 7

Around early 2009, the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 came to know of Nonindicted 36, the vice president of Nonindicted 6 savings banks prior to the beginning of the beginning of the year in which they first met and came to know. It is difficult to view that there was a friendly relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 to conduct monetary transactions exceeding KRW 100 million without any consideration between the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 at the time of receiving money and valuables.

(e) Other circumstances.

1) After May 2010, Nonindicted 7 discontinued the provision of money and valuables to the Defendant as the Defendant did not properly receive money and valuables from him. If Nonindicted 7 delivered money with the intent of maintaining a good-faith relationship with the Defendant, or simply paid money to the Defendant at a money level, Nonindicted 7 did not have any reason to suspend the payment of money to the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the Defendant’s request.

2) After Non-Indicted 6’s internal insolvency in 2000, Non-Indicted 6’s savings bank was serious and around 2005, it was difficult for Non-Indicted 7 to take account of the financial conditions of the company at the time of receiving money and valuables, such as having been aware of the death directly by Non-Indicted 7 and contributing to the company the building equivalent to ten billion won. There is no reason for Non-Indicted 7 to issue to the Defendant a large amount of KRW 150 million without any consideration.

3) The Defendant attempted to laund money by again depositing part of the money received from Nonindicted 7 in the account in the name of Nonindicted 37 and Nonindicted 38, who is an employee of the National Assembly room, into the account in the name of the Defendant, etc. (7) and can be inferred that the Defendant was aware that the money received from Nonindicted 7 was illegal.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. Summary of the assertion

It is true that the defendant received KRW 17 million from the non-indicted 5 as stated in its holding, but the above money was for the defendant's social activities and was not for the political activities as assistant to the National Assembly members.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act provides that a person who contributes or receives political funds in a manner not prescribed by the relevant Act shall be punished, and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “political funds” shall be construed as “party membership fees, support payments, deposits, subsidies, incidental revenues as determined by the party constitution or party rules, etc. of a political party, a person who is elected by an election for a public office, a person who intends to be a candidate for an election for a public office or a candidate, a supporters’ association, an executive officer of a political party or a salaried clerical staff member of a political party, and other persons who are engaged in political activities, such as money

Therefore, political funds prohibited by the above Act refers to all of the money, etc. provided to persons who engage in political activities for political activities (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10422, Feb. 26, 2009, etc.).

Meanwhile, the establishment of a crime does not affect whether a person who has received political funds after receiving political funds by means that are not prescribed by the Political Funds Act has actually used the funds for political activities (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17886, Jun. 9, 201).

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: ① Nonindicted 5 stated in an investigative agency that the Defendant paid money to the assistant to the National Assembly member for political activities: “The Defendant, an assistant to the National Assembly member, made a statement to the effect that he paid money to the Defendant for political activities, such as “the Defendant was given a kind of support money for political activities”; ② the Defendant was performing the duties of treating civil petitions in the local constituency as an assistant to the National Assembly member at the time of receiving money; ② the expenses incurred by a civil petitioner or reporter in carrying out the Defendant’s duties, such as civil petition processing; ③ taking into account the Defendant’s status and duty, it is difficult to distinguish not only the Defendant’s external activities from social activities but also the part related to social activities; ④ Nonindicted 5’s personal activities, and the Defendant did not receive money from Nonindicted 5’s personal members in a way that did not receive money from 50 billion won, and the Defendant did not receive money from Nonindicted 5’s personal members in a way that did not receive money from 50 billion won.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

In light of the fact that the defendant, who is called an assistant to a member of the National Assembly who is called a member of the political authority, received the consideration for mediating the duties of a public official, or an officer or employee of a financial institution and received the contribution of political funds in a voice that is not prescribed by the law, he shall be sentenced to a severe punishment for the defendant, in view of the fact that the part of his crime is denied and against him, the defendant's crime is likely to lead to the people's incompetence with respect to the fairness in the performance of duties of a public official or financial institution, and the fact that the money and valuables illegally received by the defendant are equivalent to 1.167 million won per week).

In addition to the above unfavorable circumstances, the sentence was determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant returned part of the money and valuables received by the Defendant to the donor; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, other than twice the fine; (c) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc.; and (e) all the details of the sentencing indicated in the records,

1. Summary of the facts charged

In 209, the Defendant received solicitation from Nonindicted 3 to Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10, who operated a restaurant located in the jurisdiction of the Seoul city around the late, to the effect that “If Nonindicted 4, who is the father of the Defendant, does not work, arranged various landscape gardening projects including government-funded landscaping projects by using the status of assistant to the National Assembly members, the Defendant would make the payment of wages to that person by pretending the payment of wages to that person, even if Nonindicted 4, who is the father of the Defendant, does not work.”

On January 25, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 8,078,960 from Nonindicted 3 to Nonindicted 4 with regard to the above good offices, and received money from Nonindicted 3 from November 25, 201, from that time, on a total sum of KRW 186,256,960, as indicated in the attached Table (2) from Nonindicted 3, and received money and valuables for the good offices of matters pertaining to the public official’s duties, from November 25, 2011.

2. Determination

According to the above evidence, from January 25, 201 to November 25, 2011, it is recognized that Nonindicted 3 deposited KRW 186,256,960 in the sum of Nonindicted 4 accounts in the name of Nonindicted 4 in our bank (hereinafter “instant account”) from January 25, 201 to November 25, 201, and the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution as above on the premise that the said amount deposited in the instant account is given to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was managing and using the instant account as its own borrowed account solely on the ground that Nonindicted 4 withdrawn the said money deposited in the instant account for a long time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; ② Nonindicted 4 was living independently in the Defendant’s separate residence in 2010 and 2011, where the money was deposited in the instant account, and it is difficult to view that the money was given to Nonindicted 4 as being received by social norms solely on the basis of the circumstances indicated in the record, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant received the said money deposited in the instant account only with the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above facts charged on the premise that the defendant received KRW 186,256,960 from Nonindicted 3 constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime without examining the above facts, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)

1) In accordance with the Defendant’s personnel record card (investigative record 76 pages) and the Defendant’s legal statement, part of the facts charged was revised.

2) The Defendant returned her hand her hand her hand her hand she received from Nonindicted Party 1 before the investigation is commenced to Nonindicted Party 1 (the investigation record 394 pages), and Nonindicted Party 1 cannot confiscate or collect the value of the 300 million won from the Defendant. Meanwhile, Nonindicted Party 1 received from the Defendant and brought 15 million won out of the 100 million won paid around June 201 or around July 2010, and brought 20 million won out of the 100 million won paid around November 201, to the Defendant’s place of delivery of each money. Since the acquisition of the above 30 million won from Nonindicted Party 1 was not only a means of consumption of the amount received by the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 1 did not deduct the additional collection for each of the above 300 million won from the amount received by the Defendant.

Note 3) 216 pages of investigation records

Note 4) Defendant Examination Protocol 4

Note 5) 323, 324, 707, 766 pages of investigation records

Note 6) Investigation Records 324 pages

Note 7) Investigation Records 705 pages

Note 8) 55 pages of investigation records

9) The Defendant stated that “The part relating to the budget of the State agency was reported thickness and was in charge of local constituency-related civil affairs” with respect to his duties as an assistant to a member of the National Assembly (the investigative record 37 pages).

10) Nonindicted 5 paid money to the Defendant using the Company’s funds, and the said money was accounted for as provisional payment to himself (the investigative record 541 pages).

Note 11) The sum totaling KRW 1.162 billion to female car belts by five million to female car belts.

12) Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not include “in a case where money or valuables or other benefits are provided to a third party” in the requirements for the establishment of a crime of mediation and acceptance. It is clear that a person who has provided money or valuables to a third party regarding the arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of a public official under the principle of clarity may not be punished as a crime of mediation and acceptance under the above provision.

13) Nonindicted 4 retired from office as an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 11 in the past. From the end of 2008, Nonindicted 4 received money from Nonindicted Co. 12 in the name of salary from the Defendant’s main office from around the end of 2008, and it is determined that Nonindicted 4 had sufficient capacity to make an independent living at the time.