Defendant 1 and 12 others

Han Lination

Attorneys Cho Hun-soo et al. and 10 others

Defendant 1, four years of imprisonment, Defendant 6 (Co-defendant 1 of the original judgment of the Supreme Court), Defendant 9 (Co-defendant 2 of the original judgment of the Supreme Court), 10 (Co-defendant 3 of the original judgment of the Supreme Court), 11 (Defendant 3 of the original judgment of the Supreme Court), and 12, two years of imprisonment, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 (Defendant 4 of the original judgment of the Supreme Court) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and Defendant 8 (Defendant 2 of the final judgment of the Supreme Court) for one year.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments for three years against Defendant 6, 9, and 12 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for two years against Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13, respectively.

From Defendant 1, KRW 87,350,00, KRW 25,893,270 from Defendant 9, KRW 32,50,000 from Defendant 10, and KRW 15,60,000 from Defendant 11 shall be additionally collected.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 8 and 9’s entry into the public electronic records, etc., and the exercise of false entry into the public electronic records, etc., Defendant 1-4 on April 16, 2008, and Defendant 12-4 on April 16, 2008, respectively, are acquitted.

【2010Gohap30-1】

From October 1, 2003 to June 25, 2008, Defendant 1 was a public official of Grade 8 in the local technical skilled position who was in charge of vehicle registration in the above military office construction disaster management and traffic administration division. Defendant 2 and 3 are currently engaged in the used vehicle trading business as of the present person who was operating the “○○ used vehicle trading company” at the village of Ycheon-si. Defendant 4 operated the “non-indicted 6 corporation” from August 2003 to March 2006 in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu. Defendant 5 was working as the place of business of the “non-indicted 6 corporation” and “non-indicted 9 corporation”, Defendant 6 was a public official of Grade 8 in the above military office construction disaster management and transportation administration division, Defendant 7 was a person who was in charge of the management business of the non-indicted 1 corporation at Bupyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-si, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 was a person who is in charge of the sale of the bus at Grade 26.

In order to ensure the safety of passengers and prevent the occurrence of traffic accidents, the Defendants knew that vehicles for which three years have passed from the date of initial registration can only be registered for their own use and that they cannot be registered as commercial chartered buses.

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 10 and 11, who is a public official of the office of Eunpyeong-gu Office, proposed that Defendant 6, etc., who requested the registration of a charter bus for business use, will receive an honorarium for operating charter bus in the name of the above travel agency when three years or more have elapsed since the date of the first registration, and registered the bus as a charter bus for business use in the name of the above travel agency and received the honorarium for receiving the honorarium.

(a) An unjust disposition after the acceptance of a bribe;

Defendant 1, along with Defendant 10, 11, around June 2007, received the request from the auditor of the non-indicted 1 corporation, to register a bus that cannot be registered as a chartered bus for business purposes after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration from Defendant 6. Defendant 1 subsequently received the reward for the registration of his business use of four buses for private use (registration number 1, 10, 11, 12 omitted), from Defendant 6, to the agricultural cooperative account of Defendant 1 on June 8, 2007, as the honorarium for the registration of his business use of the four buses for private use (registration number 1, 10, 11, and 12 omitted).

Defendant 1, including that, from September 2003 to February 2, 2008, from around 15, 2008, had registered 42 buses that cannot be registered as a business chartered bus from Defendant 6, etc. with an honorarium for business registration as indicated in the crime sight table 1, as well as 69,550,000 won. Accordingly, Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 10 and 11 with regard to the number of parcels Nos. 13 in the crime sight table 15, in collusion with Defendant 10, received a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties and committed an unlawful act.

(b) Any event, such as public electronic records, forgerys, and electronic records;

Defendant 1, along with Defendant 10 and Defendant 11, received an application for registration of four transfer of buses from Defendant 6 on June 2007, such as the registration number 1 omitted, and received request from Defendant 6 to request for registration as a chartered bus for business use on June 11, 2007, and dealt with the automobile transfer registration affairs in the building disaster management office and office office of Pyeongtaek-gun Office, and as such, Nonindicted Co. 1 took over the said bus from Nonindicted Co. 5 for business use and took over the said bus from Nonindicted Co. 5, and disposed of the registration as a chartered bus for business use of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the vehicle register among the vehicle registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record.

However, there was no fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 made an application for change of the business plan with the content that Nonindicted Co. 1 will increase a bus for business use.

In addition, from July 21, 2003 to April 24, 2008, Defendant 1, as shown in the list of crimes, took over a total of 49 buses from July 21, 2003 to registered for the purpose of business, Defendant 1, as if Nonindicted Co. 1, etc. acquired a total of 49 buses and registered for the purpose of business, was treated as a pre-use bus in the register of automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, as a pre-sale

Thus, Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, and forged a motor vehicle registration file, which is a public electronic record, for the purpose of handling administrative affairs. Around that time, Defendant 1 stored and kept it at the same place and exercised it.

2. Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5

A. Defendant 2, 3, and 4

(1) Offering of bribe

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, knowing that the bus for business use is much more well sold than that for private-use buses, they would offer to Defendant 4 to register the bus that cannot be registered as a chartered bus for business use after the lapse of three years from the date of the initial registration that Defendant 2 and 3 purchased and possessed with Defendant 4 as a chartered bus for business use in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6, and Defendant 4 accepted the above proposal and conspired to acquire profits by transferring it to another chartered bus for business use.

On February 7, 2005, Defendant 2, 3, and 4: (a) on the road side of Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, would pay Defendant 1 a honorarium if he/she registers his/her bus that cannot be registered for business after the lapse of three years from the date of initial registration to Defendant 1 for his/her business use; and (b) requested the registration of the bus of one bus (vehicle registration number 28 omitted) that cannot be registered for business use as above, and delivered KRW 1,00,000 in cash along with the registration document.

Defendant 2, 3, and 4 conspired, from February 23, 2005 to December 2, 2005, requested Defendant 1 to register the business use of 7 buses, such as (vehicle registration number 28 omitted) which cannot be registered for business after the lapse of 3 years from the date of initial registration, and delivered a total of 7,00,000 won along with the registration documents. Defendant 2 and 3 conspired with Defendant 1 on June 23, 2006, by requesting the registration of 5 buses such as (vehicle registration number 29 omitted) which cannot be registered for business use after the lapse of 3 years from the date of initial registration, and delivered KRW 5,00,000 in total with the registration documents.

As a result, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 conspired to give a bribe in relation to the official duties of public officials.

(b) any event, such as public electronic records, etc.;

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asked Defendant 4 to have the bus for private use registered as the chartered bus for business use as above, and Defendant 4 prepared an application for the registration of the transfer of the bus (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) at the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City in Gyeonggi-gu around September 2003, and asked Defendant 1 to register the bus as the chartered bus for business use, and request Defendant 1 to register the said bus as the chartered bus for business use.

Defendant 1, upon receipt of the above request from Defendant 2, 3, and 4, dealt with the automobile transfer registration in the building disaster management department and office office of Eunpyeong-gu Office on September 15, 2003, as Nonindicted Co. 6 took over a business bus from Nonindicted Co. 7 and made a transfer registration, Defendant 1 dealt with the automobile registration as a commercial chartered bus in the automobile register of Nonindicted Co. 6’s name in the vehicle register of the vehicle registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record of the vehicle registration information processing system.

However, there was no request to revise the business plan that Nonindicted Co. 6 would increase the bus for business use.

In collusion with Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 3, and 4, including that, from September 19, 2003 to June 28, 2006, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 engaged in the management of automobile registration information system, as if the non-indicted 6 corporation acquired a total of 21 business bus and completed the transfer registration after taking over the total of 21 business bus from September 19, 2003 to June 28, 2006, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 engaged in the management of automobile registration electronic records in the above bus register of the non-indicted 6 corporation’s business chartered bus in the name of the non-indicted 6 corporation, and used them by keeping and keeping them at the same place.

In addition, Defendant 4, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 8, as shown in Nos. 2, 11, and 13 of the crime sight table, took over a total of two commercial buses and registered for the transfer, Defendant 4, as in the bus registration information processing system of the vehicle registration information system, made the registration of transfer as a commercial chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted 6 Co. 1’s name, and used the registration file for the purpose of making administrative affairs smooth, and stored and kept it at the same place around that time.

B. Defendant 2, 5

(1) Offering of bribe

Defendant 2 proposed that Defendant 5, the head of the business office of Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 2, who purchased and held Defendant 2, will offer a reward on the face of a bus that cannot be registered as a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, by registering it as a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6’s business in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, and Defendant 5 conspired to accept the above proposal and register it in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 in the name of Defendant 1 through Defendant 1 of the public official in charge of the registration of the vehicle in Pyeongtaek-gu Office, and to acquire profits by transferring it to another chartered bus transportation business entity.

Defendant 2 delivered money to Defendant 5 on July 2007 to Defendant 1, and Defendant 5 issued KRW 2,00,000 in cash, along with the registration document, to Defendant 1’s business registration for two buses (vehicle registration number 3,4 omitted) that cannot be registered as a commercial bus, as shown in No. 2 No. 14 of the crime sight table, on the road side of the Bupyeong-gu Office in Pyeongtaek-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, the first registration date of the business.

As a result, Defendant 2 and 5 conspired to give a bribe in relation to the official duties of public officials.

(b) any event, such as public electronic records, etc.;

Defendant 2 requested Defendant 5 to register his own bus as a chartered bus for business use as above, and Defendant 5 prepared an application for the registration of the bus transfer from the Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do (vehicle registration number 3 and 4 omitted) around July 2007, and requested Defendant 1 to change the registration of the bus as a chartered bus for business use by requesting Defendant 1 to register the bus as a chartered bus for business use.

Defendant 1, upon receipt of the above request from Defendant 2 and 5, dealt with the registration of automobile transfer as a business chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 in the register of automobile registration information processing system, as if Nonindicted Co. 6 acquired a business bus from Nonindicted Co. 8 and made a registration of transfer by transfer from the construction disaster management office and office of Pyeongtaek-gu Office on July 9, 2007.

However, there was no request to revise the business plan that Nonindicted Co. 6 would increase the bus for business use.

Defendant 2 and 5, including this, conspired with Defendant 1 and 10, from that time until January 11, 2008, dealt with the registration of transfer with a chartered bus under the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 in the vehicle registration information processing system, as if the non-indicted Co. 6 and the non-indicted Co. 9 acquired a total of four business buses and made the registration of transfer by transfer from that time until January 11, 2008.

Thus, Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 entered a public electronic record, which is a motor vehicle registration file, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 10, for the purpose of handling administrative affairs, and stored and kept it at the same place around that time.

C. Defendant 5

(1) Offering of bribe

Defendant 5, around April 2007, requested the registration of two buses (vehicle registration number 30,5 omitted) that cannot be registered for business as a result of the lapse of three years from the date of the first registration to Defendant 1 on the roads in front of Pyeongtaek-gu Office of Eunpyeong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-si, and issued KRW 2,000,000 in cash along with the registration document.

Defendant 5, including this, requested Defendant 1 to register the six business use of the bus from the date of initial registration to the police officer in the middle of February 2008, including the number of 11,16, and 17, and issued the total amount of KRW 6,00,000,000 as well as the registration documents.

As a result, Defendant 5 offered a bribe in relation to the official duties of public officials.

(b) any event, such as public electronic records, etc.;

Defendant 5, around March 2007, prepared an application for the registration of the transfer of a bus at Bupyeong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (vehicle registration number 5 omitted), and requested Defendant 1 to transfer the bus to a chartered bus for business purpose by making the application for the registration of the transfer of the bus, etc.

Defendant 1, upon receipt of the above request from Defendant 5, dealt with the registration of automobile transfer in the building disaster management office and office office of Pyeongtaek-gu Office on March 16, 2007, as if Nonindicted Co. 6 acquired a business bus from Nonindicted Co. 10 and transferred the registration, Defendant 1, who was registered by transfer as a business chartered bus in the register of automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record of the vehicle registration, as if it had been registered by transfer from Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 10.

However, there was no request to revise the business plan that Nonindicted Co. 6 would increase the bus for business use.

Defendant 5, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 10, had, from that time until February 13, 2008, registered the transfer of the above bus in the register of automobile registration information management system, which is a public electronic record, with Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 9, with the business chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 9, as the crime scene Nos. 27, 28, 45, and 46, from that time to February 13, 2008.

Thus, the defendant, in collusion with the defendant 1 and 10, forged the official electronic records, which are automobile registration files, and stored and kept them at the same place around that time, and exercised them.

3. Defendant 6, 7

Defendant 7 suggested that Defendant 6 will register a bus that cannot be registered as a chartered bus after the lapse of at least three years from the date of initial registration with Nonindicted Co. 1’s business chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and offer a reward for face value. Defendant 6 accepted the above proposal, registered the bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company through Defendant 1 through Defendant 1 of the public official in charge of the registration of vehicles in the office of Eunpyeong-gu Office, and conspired to acquire profits by transferring it to another chartered bus transportation business entity.

(a) Bribery;

Defendant 7, from April 2007 to November 2007, requested Defendant 6 to register for business use of three buses (vehicle registration number 6, 31, 32 omitted) that cannot be registered for business use as above, and delivered KRW 62,00,000 in cash, along with the registration documents, to Defendant 6, on April 2007, when Defendant 6, on the road side of Pyeongtaek-gun Office located in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, for which the first registration date has been three years or more from the first registration date.

Defendant 6 and 7, including that, from that time until the end of November 2007, requested Defendant 1 to register the business use of 11 buses, such as (vehicle registration number 6 omitted), which was later than 3 years from the date of initial registration, and issued and remitted the total amount of KRW 35,550,000,000, as well as the registration documents.

As a result, Defendant 6 and 7 offered a bribe in relation to the official duties of public officials.

(b) Any event, such as public electronic records, forgerys, and electronic records;

Defendant 7 requested Defendant 6 to register the private bus as a chartered bus for business use as above, and Defendant 6 prepared an application for the registration of the transfer of the bus from (vehicle registration number 6 omitted) in Bupyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-do around April 2007, and requested Defendant 1 to change the registration of the bus as a chartered bus for business use by requesting Defendant 1 to register the said bus as a chartered bus for business use.

Defendant 1, upon receipt of the above request from Defendant 6 and 7, dealt with the registration of automobile transfer with a business chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Company 6 in the register of automobile registration information processing system, as if Nonindicted Company 1 acquired a business bus from Nonindicted Company 5 and made a registration of transfer by transfer from the construction disaster management office and office of Eunpyeong-gu Office on April 27, 2007.

However, there was no request for change of the business plan that Nonindicted Co. 1 would increase the bus for business use.

In collusion with Defendant 1, Defendant 6 and 7, from that time until November 21, 2007, Nonindicted Co. 1 took over 29 through 35, 38 through 41 a total of 11 business buses and took over and took over registration of transfer, Defendant 6 and 7 dealt with the registration of the car registration information management system, which is a public electronic record, with a pre-business chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1.

Defendant 6, in collusion with Defendant 1, took over a total of four business buses from December 7, 2007 to April 24, 2008, as shown in No. 42, 47, 48, and 49, Defendant 6 dealt with the registration of transfer with a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 in the register of automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, as if the non-indicted Company 1 acquired a total of four business buses, and made a registration of transfer with a total of four business buses.

Thus, Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 entered official electronic records, a motor vehicle registration file, in collusion with Defendant 1, for the purpose of facilitating administrative affairs, and stored and kept them at the same place around that time.

4. Defendant 8

A. On July 2003, Defendant 8 prepared an application for the registration of transfer of a bus (vehicle registration number 7,8 omitted) at Bupyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and asked Defendant 1 to make an application for the registration of transfer of the above bus with a chartered bus for business use by requesting Defendant 1 to make the registration of transfer of the above bus with a chartered bus for business use. Defendant 1, upon the above request from Defendant 8, handled the registration of transfer with a chartered bus in the name of business in the vehicle register management system of the vehicle registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, as soon as Defendant 1 received the above request on July 21, 2003.

However, there was no fact that Nonindicted Co. 11 filed an application for change of the business plan to increase the number of buses for business use.

In collusion with Defendant 1, from that time until July 25, 2003, Defendant 8 took over three business buses from the time to July 25, 2003, and registered the transfer as to the above bus of the automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, as the non-indicted 11 corporation took over three business buses, and registered the transfer as a commercial chartered bus in the name of Non-indicted 11 corporation.

Thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 forged official electronic records, which are registration files, and stored and kept them at the same place at that time for the purpose of facilitating administrative affairs in collusion.

B. Around November 2003, Defendant 8 asked Defendant 4 to request Defendant 4 to register a private chartered bus for which three years have passed as a business chartered bus. Defendant 4 prepared an application for registration of transfer of a bus (vehicle registration number 9 omitted) in Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul, and requested Defendant 1 to allow the registration of transfer of the above bus with a “business chartered bus.” Upon Defendant 1’s request from Defendant 8 and 4, Defendant 1 entered into a construction disaster management office of the Eunpyeong-gu Office and its office on November 10, 2003, and registered the registration of transfer of a car with a pre-use bus in the name of Nonindicted Company 6 as if Nonindicted Company 6 acquired a commercial chartered and registered the registration of transfer of a car in the above automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record book, as if it had been registered for transfer of a commercial chartered in the name of Nonindicted Company 6.

However, there was no request to revise the business plan that Nonindicted Co. 6 would increase the bus for business use.

In collusion with Defendant 4 and 1, from November 10, 2003 to January 3, 2004, Defendant 8, as stated in No. 11, and No. 13 of the Crimes List 2, Defendant 8, in collusion with Defendant 4 and 1, dealt with the registration of transfer with a chartered bus in the register of automobile registration information management system, which is a public electronic record, as if the non-indicted 6 corporation acquired a total of two business buses, and registered transfer.

Thus, Defendant 8, in collusion with Defendant 4 and 1, forged official electronic records, which are automobile registration files, and stored and kept them at the same place around that time, and exercised them.

5. Defendant 9

Defendant 9 was requested by Defendant 8, a used bus dealer, to register as a chartered bus for business use after the lapse of three years from January 2006, which cannot be registered as a used bus for business use. Defendant 9 demanded Defendant 8 to pay money, stating that “The inside is an executive of Nonindicted Cooperative 15 and is well aware of the president or executive officers of the association, and is also closely related with the public official in charge of vehicle registration, it is possible to register as a chartered bus for business use by the association and the public official in charge of the management of the vehicle.”

After that, Defendant 9: (a) received KRW 30,00,000 from Defendant 8, KRW 30,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 40,000, KRW 40,000, KRW 60,000; (b) received KRW 30,00,000, KRW 30,00,000, KRW 70,000, KRW 30,000; (c) KRW 60,00,000, KRW 30,00,000; (d) KRW 60,00,000; (e) KRW 30,00,00,000; (e) KRW 30,00,000; (e) KRW 40,00,00,000; and (e) KRW 30,06,00,00,00; and (e) KRW 30,60,000.

As a result, Defendant 9 received total of KRW 25,893,270 under the pretext of solicitation or mediation for cases or affairs handled by public officials.

[2010Gohap39]

From January 2, 2007 to March 9, 2008, Defendant 10 was a public official belonging to the Pyeongtaek-gun Office, who takes charge of permission, such as changes in business plans for passenger bus and trucks, in the construction disaster management division of the Bupyeong-gu Office from January 2, 2007 to March 2, 2008.

In order to ensure the safety of passengers and prevent the occurrence of traffic accidents, Defendant 10 was well aware that the vehicle for which three years or more have passed since the date of its initial registration can only be registered for its own use, and that the vehicle for business use can not be registered with the chartered bus. The person who intends to operate the trucking transport business is aware that the new permission of trucking transport business was prohibited pursuant to Article 204-89 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation notification on April 20, 2004 and the report of the transfer and acquisition of trucking transport business should be accepted in order to resolve the excessive supply of the cargo transport market which has been unstable after the disturbance of the logistics stand.

1. Subsequent to the acceptance of a bribe; and

A. (1) Defendant 10, in collusion with Defendant 1 in charge of the registration of a vehicle in Pyeongtaek-gun Office, received a proposal from Defendant 6 to offer a reward for operating chartered buses which cannot be registered as a business chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the first registration date, and registered as a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 for business use for more than three years from the first registration date, and received the reward for receiving it. Defendant 10, along with Defendant 1, 11, Defendant 10, Defendant 10 and Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 6, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 6, and Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 6, and Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 6, and Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 16, and Defendant 16, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 6.

(2) In addition, Defendant 10, along with Defendant 1, was transferred KRW 3,00,00 on October 26, 2007 to Defendant 1’s agricultural cooperative account under the pretext of the honorarium for the business registration of four buses for private use (vehicle registration number 13, 14, 15, 16 omitted), which cannot be registered for business use as seen above with Defendant 1, and registered the four buses with Nonindicted Company 1’s business bus on November 21, 2007. Accordingly, Defendant 10, in collusion with Defendant 1, received a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties and committed unlawful acts.

B. Defendant 10, along with Defendant 11 at the above construction disaster management office and office around October 2007, upon Defendant 11’s request for the issuance of a new freight trucking services. Defendant 10, on October 31, 2007, ordered Defendant 10 to grant KRW 4,000,000 in total for four copies of the cashier’s checks of KRW 1,000,000, under the pretext of honorariums, who had attempted to perform the business of new permission and trucking registration at the temporary closure room of Pyeongtaek-gun Office. Defendant 10 instructed Defendant 10 to be a new permit for trucking freight trucking services of Nonindicted Company 14, and Defendant 10 instructed Defendant 10 to be a new permit for trucking freighting services of Nonindicted Company 14, Dec. 2, 2007. Accordingly, Defendant 10 conspired with Defendant 10 to give and receive a bribe in relation to his official’s duties and provided an unjust act.

2. Improper bribery;

On November 21, 2007, Defendant 10 received KRW 2,500,00 from Defendant 12 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of Nonindicted 41 managed by Defendant 10, under the pretext of a honorarium for the grant of a new permit for trucking transport business of Nonindicted 14. Accordingly, Defendant 10 received 17 bribe in relation to his duties after receiving a solicitation from Nonindicted 14 to Nonindicted 13 for the transfer of trucking transport business (vehicle registration number 38 omitted) without the receipt of a report on the transfer or acquisition of trucking transport business with respect to 17 vehicles registered as 14 from Nonindicted 13 to Nonindicted 13 in order to obtain a new permit for trucking transport business of Nonindicted 14.

3. Any event, such as public electronic records, fraud, and electronic records;

In fact, there is no fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 applied for the change of business plan with the content that the bus for business is increased.

Nevertheless, around June 2007, Defendant 10 was issued with Defendant 1, 6, and 11 in collusion with Defendant 1-A on or around June 1, 2007, and received an application for registration of four cars (registration number 1, 10, 11, and 12 omitted) from Defendant 6 for the transfer of the above private bus from Defendant 6, and was requested to request the registration as a chartered bus for business use, and on June 11, 2007, Defendant 10 was transferred and registered for business use from Nonindicted Co. 5 in the construction disaster management department and office of the Pyeongtaek-gu Office of Construction and Management, and as if Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired and transferred the above bus from Nonindicted Co. 5 for business use, the registration was processed as a chartered bus of Nonindicted Co. 1’s business use in the automobile register of the above bus of the vehicle management system, and stored and kept the electronic records in the same place at that time.

In addition, Defendant 10, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6 on November 21, 2007, took over five private buses (registration number 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 omitted) that cannot be registered for business purposes as seen above in the above construction disaster management department and office office around November 21, 2007, and as if Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired them for business purposes and registered them, Defendant 10 used them by means of a transfer registration as a commercial chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s business registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, and used them at the same place around that time.

[2010Gohap64]

Defendant 11 was the head of the Dong-gu Office Construction Disaster and the transportation administration department from July 2, 2006 to December 30, 2008.

1. Events, such as writing, public electromagnetic records, etc., of Defendants 11, 1, and 10;

If a person who has obtained permission for trucking transport business changes the permitted matters accompanying the increase of the number of vehicles, he/she could not register the increase of the number of trucks because the permission for the change is prohibited.

Nevertheless, Defendant 11, 1, and 10 conspired with Defendant 12 of the actual operator of Nonindicted Co. 13 Co., Ltd., on October 207, upon Defendant 12’s request from Nonindicted Co. 44 Co., Ltd. for the increase of 10 vehicles, Defendant 11 instructed Defendant 1 through Defendant 10 to have the increased truck registered. On October 31, 2007, Defendant 1 entered 10 trucks (vehicle registration number 18 to 19 omitted) in the above truck register of the vehicle registration system, which is a public cell cell, in collusion with Defendant 12 of the actual operator of Nonindicted Co. 13 Co., Ltd., and stored and kept the electronic records of the vehicle registration file at the same place and exercised them at that time.

2. Events, such as blank electronic records, etc., of defendants 11 and 1 and 1;

As seen earlier, permission for change accompanying the expansion of trucking transport business was prohibited.

Nevertheless, on April 8, 2008, Defendant 11 and Defendant 1 conspiredd with Defendant 13 of the actual operator of Nonindicted Company 14 and instructed Defendant 1 to register the truck for business use, and Defendant 11 instructed Defendant 1 to register the truck. Defendant 1 issued a registration certificate for the truck (20 omitted) to add one truck to the truck register for business use of Nonindicted Company 14 (20 omitted) on the truck register of the vehicle registration system, which is an official storage cell record, and exercised it by keeping and keeping it at the same place.

3. The preparation of false official documents by the defendant 11 and 10 and the display of false official documents; and

Pursuant to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice No. 2007-622, a truck for freezing and freezing from January 1, 2008 was prohibited from new permission and a transitional measure was newly available until March 31, 2008 only for vehicles manufactured under a contract prior to December 31, 2007.

Nevertheless, around January 11, 2008, Defendant 11 and 10 conspired with the Construction Disaster Management Division and Office of Eunpyeong-gun Office, Nonindicted 14 Co., Ltd., Nonindicted 42 Co., Ltd., 50, and Nonindicted 13 Co., Ltd., who received an application for permission to change trucking business, but did not purchase and manufacture the truck, and Nonindicted Co. 14 did not have any fact that Nonindicted Co. 14 had a garage at Gyeonggi-gun-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which was less than 976 square meters, but the garage was less than 524 square meters, and Nonindicted Co. 42 did not have a garage at least 310 square meters, and it was insufficient for Nonindicted Co. 13 Co., Ltd., Ltd. to have a trucking 440 square meters and less than 179 square meters, respectively, with the knowledge that it was insufficient for Nonindicted Co. 14 Co., Ltd., Ltd. to have a truck trucking 54 square meters as above.

4. The defendant 1 and the defendant 10's accepted bribery after an illegal disposition.

Defendant 1 and 10 conspired, around October 2007, upon Defendant 12's request from Nonindicted Co. 44 to increase the ten truck 10, and around October 31, 2007, Defendant 1 and 10 had registered the ten truck 10 to Nonindicted Co. 13 for business purposes (vehicle registration number 18 to 19 omitted), and Defendant 10 received at the above construction disaster management and office around December 12, 2007 the cashier's checks total 20,000,000 in return, and Defendant 1 received 4,000,000,000 won from the agricultural bank account on December 18, 2007, and received a bribe with respect to the public official's duties.

5. Defendant 11

(a) An unjust disposition after the acceptance of a bribe;

(1) Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 10 on June 2007, in relation to the above construction disaster management office, he was aware of Defendant 1’s elementary school line, and at the time of Defendant 11’s first registration with Defendant 6, Defendant 1’s managing director of Nonindicted Co. 1, who was unable to register as a chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the first registration date, was asked to offer a honorarium if he had been registered as a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd. 1, and was unable to register for business use from Defendant 6 upon Defendant 6’s request to offer a honorarium, he was entitled to receive a honorarium for business use of four buses (vehicle number 1,10,11,12 omitted). The honorarium for business registration of Defendant 1’s agricultural bank account on June 8, 2007, and Nonindicted Co. 10,000,000 on June 5, 207, 2007.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 10, Defendant 11 received a bribe in relation to the official duties of the public official and committed an unlawful act.

(2) At the above construction disaster management office around October 2007 with Defendant 10, Defendant 11 received the request from Nonindicted 14 Co. 13 to issue a new permit for freight trucking services. After that, Defendant 11 received from Defendant 12 on October 26, 2007 KRW 2,400,000 from Defendant 13, respectively, and around October 26, 2007, Defendant 11 received from Defendant 12 the Japanese travel expenses KRW 600,000,000 from Defendant 13 on October 29, 2007; Defendant 10,000,000 Japanese travel expenses and KRW 30,000,000 from Defendant 12 on October 31, 2007; Defendant 10,000,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won of the new truck’s checks issued from Defendant’s office.

Accordingly, Defendant 11 in collusion with Defendant 10 received a bribe in relation to the official duties of the public official and committed an unlawful act.

(3) On May 22, 2008, Defendant 11 received from the above Construction Disaster Management Department and the office of the office of the company, Defendant 13, with a request on May 23, 2008, the registration number of 2,00,000 in cash as the 6 truck registration number on May 29, 200, and the 1,00,00,000 won as the 6 truck registration number of 1,00,00,000, 3,000, 4,000 for one truck on May 30, 208, 208 (5, 2,00,000,000,000 for 2,00,000,000 for 2,000,000 or more for 2,000,000 won for truck on June 5, 200, 2008).

B. Acceptance of bribe

At around December 20, 2007, Defendant 11 received a bribe in relation to his duties from the warehouse located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, 436, upon the request of Defendant 12 to properly process the application for a truck for freezing or freezing trucks. In response, Defendant 12 received a board equivalent to KRW 1,300,000 at the market price, and received the bribe in relation to his duties.

(c) Any event, such as public electronic records, forgerys, and electronic records;

In fact, Nonindicted Co. 1 did not have taken over the above bus from Nonindicted Co. 5 for business use, and there was no application for change of business plan with the content that Nonindicted Co. 1 would increase the bus for business use. Nevertheless, Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6 on June 11, 2007, in the above construction disaster management department and office, Defendant 1, in carrying out the automobile transfer registration business, was transferred from Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 5 for business use, and was transferred and registered for transfer from Nonindicted Co. 1’s private bus registration system (vehicle No. 1, 10, 11, 12 omitted), which is a public electronic record for the vehicle registration information processing system (vehicle No. 1, 10, 11, and 12 omitted). At that time, Defendant 1 entered a public electronic record, which is a motor vehicle file, for the purpose of handling the vehicle registration as a pre-use bus for business use of Nonindicted Co.

6. Defendant 1

On March 11, 2008, Defendant 1 received a bribe in relation to his duties from Defendant 13, a director of Nonindicted Co. 14, at the request of Defendant 13, who was a director of the said Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 21, who was employed as a director of the said Nonindicted Co. 14, to transfer KRW 10,000,00 to the account of Nonindicted Co. 21, who was employed for the said Nonindicted Co. 14.

[2010Gohap76, 90]

Defendant 13 is a director or actual operator of Nonindicted Co. 43 in Gyeonggi-gu, who has been engaged in passenger transport business.

Defendant 3 and 13 sold at least 3,00,000 won per bus registered for business purpose, and purchased a bus which cannot be registered for business purpose after the lapse of 3 years from the date of its initial registration, and Defendant 1 registered the bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 43 with the business bus registered in the name of said Nonindicted Co. 43, and sentenced Defendant 1 to the profits of selling it in other passenger transport companies.

1. Defendant 1

A. around September 2006, Defendant 1 received a proposal from Defendant 3 to pay honorariums if he registers a bus which cannot be registered for business after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration from Defendant 3 at a cafeteria-si, Gyeonggi-gu Gam-si, and accepted such proposal. On November 7, 2006, Defendant 1 received three registration documents from Defendant 3 in the building disaster management office of Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu and the traffic administration office of which it is impossible to register as above from Defendant 13 as business buses in the name of Nonindicted Co. 43 and received KRW 3,00,000 from Defendant 3 to the No. 30,000 from November 18, 2006, and received the total amount of KRW 10,000 from Defendant 1 to the No. 300,000 from November 22, 2006, and received the registration in the name of Nonindicted Co. 41, 2007.

B. As above, Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that the actual operator of Nonindicted Co. 43 was Defendant 13 and Defendant 13 illegally registered a bus for business purpose with Defendant 1 through Defendant 3, and sold it to other companies and took profits therefrom. As such, Defendant 1 was willing to demand money and valuables to Defendant 13.

On January 11, 2007, Defendant 1 received 1,300,000 won from Defendant 13 to the Agricultural Cooperative account in Defendant 1’s name on the same day on the same day as the doping was changed. Defendant 1 received 500,000 won from Defendant 13 to the Agricultural Cooperative account in Defendant 1’s name on December 28, 2007 at the flusium meeting in which Defendant 13 wants to hold a flusium in which he knows, and was remitted from Defendant 13 on December 28, 2007 to Defendant 1’s Agricultural Cooperative account in Defendant 1’s name on December 28, 2007. Accordingly, Defendant 1 received flusium after having engaged in any unlawful act in the course of his duties.

2. Defendant 3

Defendant 3 registered a bus for business on an illegal basis through Defendant 1, as described in the above Section 1-A(A), and remitted a total of KRW 12,00,000 to Defendant 1 as an honorarium. Accordingly, Defendant 3 offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

3. Defendant 13

Defendant 13 registered a bus for business on an illegal basis through Defendant 1, as described in the above paragraph 1-b., and remitted a total of KRW 1,80,000 to Defendant 1 as an honorarium. Accordingly, Defendant 13 offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

[2010Gohap78]

Defendant 12 was a de facto operator with the head of Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 42, and the representative director of Nonindicted 24.

1. Defendant 12, 13

(a) Violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act;

(1) A person who intends to run a trucking transport business may obtain permission from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in 2003; however, in order to resolve oversupply of the cargo transport market due to the unstable logistics shortage, Defendant 12 and 13 had been prohibited from obtaining new permission for trucking transport business (including permission for modification accompanying the increase of the number of trucks) in accordance with Article 204-89 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notification on April 20, 204. Nevertheless, Defendant 12 and 13 conspired to request Defendant 11, who is the chief administrative officer in charge of traffic and disaster management in the office of Pyeongtaek-gu Office, and Defendant 10, who is the public official in charge, to grant new permission for trucking transport business, and Defendant 12 provided KRW 1,30,000,000 to Defendant 11 and KRW 10,000,000,0000,000 cashier’s cashier’s checks on October 26, 2007.

(2) Pursuant to Article 207-622 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, a truck for freezing or freezing purposes was prohibited from being newly permitted from January 1, 2008 and was newly permitted from December 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008 only for the vehicles being removed under a contract concluded on or before December 31, 2007 due to the transitional measures. Nevertheless, Defendant 12 and 13 agreed to obtain a permit to change the number of trucks for freezing or freezing purposes by submitting a false contract, and agreed to obtain a permit to change the number of trucks for freezing or freezing purposes from the above construction disaster management and office around December 18, 207, upon obtaining a permit to change the number of trucks for trucking transport businesses from Nonindicted 10, Defendant 14, upon obtaining a false contract to purchase 100 trucking trucks from Nonindicted 44, and obtained a permit to change the number of trucks for trucking transport businesses from Nonindicted 14, 2008.

(b) Offering of bribe;

(1) On October 207, Defendant 12 and 13 conspired with Defendant 11 and 10 at the above construction disaster management office asked Defendant 1 and 10 to the effect that they are well considered about the new permission for the trucking transport business of Nonindicted Co. 14. In response, Defendant 12 delivered to Defendant 11 the amount of KRW 1,30,000 to Defendant 11. around October 26, 2007, Defendant 13 delivered to Defendant 11 2,40,000 cashier's checks of KRW 10,000 to Defendant 11, and Defendant 12 delivered KRW 4,00,000 to Defendant 10 on October 31, 2007 and delivered KRW 1,00,000 to Defendant 10 on each of the bribe duties.

(2) On November 21, 2007, Defendant 12 and 13 conspired to obtain a new permit for trucking transport business of Nonindicted Co. 14, and subsequently transferred 17 vehicles from 18 vehicles registered by Nonindicted Co. 13 to 13 with a view to having an appearance to obtain a new permit, and requested the registration in a state where the transfer and acquisition was not reported, and subsequently, remitted KRW 2,500,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 41 managed by Defendant 10, thereby giving a bribe in relation to Defendant 10’s duties.

2. Defendant 12

(a) Violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act;

(1) If a person who obtained a license for trucking transport services modifies the permitted matters involving increase in the number of trucks, he/she shall obtain a license for change from the competent authority. However, on October 31, 2007, Defendant 12, without obtaining a license for change of trucking transport services, recommended Defendant 11, 10, and Defendant 1, who is a public official in charge of vehicle registration, to increase the number of trucks for business in the name of Nonindicted Co. 44 Co., Ltd., in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13, registered to increase the number of 10 vehicles (number 18 to 19 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13.

(2) On December 18, 2007, Defendant 12 applied for a permit to change trucking services with the content that Nonindicted Co. 42 would purchase 50 trucking trucks from Nonindicted Co. 44; Nonindicted Co. 13 would purchase 50 trucking trucks from Nonindicted Co. 45; and Defendant 10, Nonindicted Co. 42; and Nonindicted Co. 13 applied for a permit to change trucking services with the content that the trucking transport services would increase 50 trucks; and Defendant 12 operated trucking transport services with the alteration of trucking transport services after obtaining a permit to change the trucking transport services with the content that Nonindicted Co. 42 and Nonindicted Co. 13 would increase 50 trucking trucks from the office of the foregoing building disaster management and office.

(b) Offering of bribe;

(1) On October 29, 2007, Defendant 12 delivered KRW 300,00 to Defendant 11 a bribe in relation to the duties of Defendant 11, at the above construction disaster management and office, to the effect that Defendant 11 is well aware of the registration of the truck of Nonindicted Company 13 and others.

(2) On December 12, 2007, Defendant 12 issued 20,000 won of the cashier’s checks to the above construction disaster management office and the above construction disaster management office, in return for the illegal registration of 10 trucks (vehicle registration number 18 to 19 omitted) to Nonindicted Co. 13, Defendant 10, in grouped with Defendant 11, Defendant 11, and issued 20,000 won in total. On December 18, 2007, Defendant 1 transferred 4,000,000 won to the agricultural bank account of Defendant 1, Defendant 10, and offered a bribe in relation to Defendant 10, and Defendant 1’s duties.

(c) Any event, such as public electronic records, forgerys, and electronic records;

As above, the permission to change the number of trucking vehicles was prohibited and could not be registered to increase the number of trucking vehicles. Defendant 12 conspiredd with Defendant 11, 10, and 10 on October 31, 2007, Defendant 12 requested Defendant 11, 10, and 1 to register the ten number of trucking vehicles of Nonindicted Co. 44 with Nonindicted Co. 13 as a truck for business use. Defendant 1 requested Defendant 1 to register the ten number of the above trucking vehicles of the motor vehicle registration system, which is an electronic record, as a truck for business use of Nonindicted Co. 13, and exercised it by keeping and keeping it at the same place around that time.

3. Defendant 13

(a) Violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act;

In a case where a person who has obtained a license for trucking transport services modifies the permitted matters involving trucking transport services, he/she is required to obtain a license for change from the competent authority. Nevertheless, on April 8, 2008, Defendant 13 operated trucking transport services by increasing the number of trucking transport services (number 20 omitted) by increasing the number of trucking transport services to Defendant 11 and 1 as trucking transport services for Nonindicted Co. 14 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14 without obtaining a license for change of trucking transport services. However, on April 8, 2008, Defendant 13 operated trucking transport services by increasing the total number of 41 trucking transport services for Nonindicted Co. 14, such as the list of crimes No. 4, from around that time, until June 12, 2008.

(b) Offering of bribe;

(1) On October 26, 2007, Defendant 13 offered a bribe to Defendant 11 on the duties of Defendant 11 by using the freight trucking services for Japanese training expenses to the effect that Defendant 11 is well aware of the new permission, etc. for the freight trucking services of Nonindicted Company 14 at the above construction disaster management and office office.

(2) On March 11, 2008, Defendant 13 transferred KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant 1’s public officials in charge of the registration of vehicles employed as directors to obtain convenience in the business of increasing the trucks of Nonindicted Co. 14, Defendant 13, who were in charge of the registration of vehicles in the Eunpyeong-gu Office, to Nonindicted 21, who were employed as directors, for the illegal registration of the truck for business use, and delivered a bribe in relation to Defendant 1’s duties.

(3) On May 22, 2008, Defendant 13 asked Defendant 11 to submit for registration to increase the number of trucks for business use at the above construction disaster management office and office office. On May 23, 2008, Defendant 13 issued cash of KRW 2,000,000 in return for illegally registered six trucks on May 29, 2008, and delivered KRW 1,000,000 in cash to Defendant 11 in return for illegally registered six trucks on May 30, 2008, and KRW 2,00,000 in cash in return for illegally registered six trucks on June 5, 2008.

(c) Any event, such as public electronic records, forgerys, and electronic records;

As above, Defendant 13 conspired with Defendant 11 and 1 on April 8, 2008, when Defendant 13 asked Defendant 11 and 1 to accept the registration of the trucking transport business. Defendant 1 had registered one trucking vehicle (number 20 omitted) on the registration ledger of the vehicle registration system, which is a public electronic record, as well as had a registration of the increase of the number of trucking transport business into the trucking transport business of Nonindicted 14 corporation from around that time until June 12, 2008, Defendant 13 forged the registration electronic record of Nonindicted 14 corporation’s trucking 41 trucking business until June 12, 2008, and stored and kept it at the same place.

[Attachment 2010 Gohap30-1] (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2010 punishment No. 4628, 6538)

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in this Court by the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation protocols of Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 46 and 47 on the prosecutor’s preparation of each statement corresponding thereto;

1. Reporting each register of automobiles prepared by prosecution officials, submitting a copy of the audit and inspection report of Gyeonggi-do, attaching a copy of the audit and inspection report of Gyeonggi-do, attaching a copy of the passenger vehicle reduction disposition and the cooperation document for lawful measures, attaching the register of automobiles and the certificate of vehicle transfer, attaching a copy of the statement of account transfer, attaching Nonindicted 18, attaching a copy of the document of registration, such as attachment of the statement of account transfer, attaching the statement of transaction, attaching the report of transaction, attaching the register of vehicle registration, attaching the register of vehicle and the automatic register of vehicles for restoration registration, attaching the rules of vehicle transfer, preparing the current status of registration and acceptance of bribe, submitting the register of automobiles presumed to be unfair restoration registration, submitting the register of automobiles presumed to be unfair restoration registration, submitting the register of automobiles to be attached, Nonindicted 41 account analysis, Nonindicted 222, submitting the statement of account transfer to Defendant 10, submitting the register of automobiles registered in the name of Defendant 5, reporting the account transfer to Defendant 10, submitting the register of automobiles attached to the prosecutor's office, reporting attached 20 201-1-1-1-20 of each one of the account.

1. Each statement prepared by Nonindicted 46 and Defendant 8, which corresponds thereto

[2010Gohap39] (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2010 punishment, 4628, 6538, 8658)

1. Statement corresponding thereto by Defendant 10 in this Court;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation records of suspects 1, 6, 7, and 10 prepared by the prosecution;

1. Statement on Nonindicted 48’s written statement prepared by the prosecution, which corresponds thereto;

1. Attachment of the statement of account transactions in the name of Nonindicted 18 in the Prosecutorial Department, Nonindicted 41 account analysis suspected of Defendant 10 as the borrowed account of Defendant 10, presumption of delivery to Defendant 10 of the account transfer amount, attachment of audit data on Defendant 10, attachment of audit data on business cargo registration, attachment of the present status of business cargo, attachment of the trucking transport business, attachment of the public notice of the supply standard for permission for trucking transport business, attachment of the trucking transport business, tracking of account tracking of Nonindicted 41 by the clerk of the Prosecutorial Office, and each entry of Defendant 12 in the report of remittance in the name of Defendant 10.

[2010Gohap64] (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2010 penal code 13426)

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this Court by Defendant 10

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation records of the suspect as to Defendant 6, 10, 12, and 13 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each protocol of examination of suspect as to Defendant 1 prepared by the public prosecutor, containing some statements corresponding thereto;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 49, 48, and 50 in the prosecutor’s preparation of each statement corresponding thereto;

1. Attachment report of the Gyeonggi-do audit report prepared by the Prosecutor General, attachment report of the Gyeonggi-do application for registration of transfer, attachment of a copy of the application for registration of truck transfer, attachment of illegally registered passenger vehicle reduction and legitimate measures cooperation document, attachment of the register of automobiles and the certificate of transfer of automobiles, attachment of the entry money, attachment of Nonindicted 18 statement of account, attachment of the records of transactions in the name of Nonindicted 18, analysis of financial transaction, attachment of audit data of Defendant 10, hearing report of telephone statement of each witness, attachment of truck trucking transport business, receipt of partial report of transfer or transfer of freight, attachment of trucking transport business, attachment of notification of supply standard for permission of trucking transport business, attachment of Nonindicted 51 and 12, attachment of the statement of entry in the name of Nonindicted 3, attachment of the application for registration of trucking transport business to Nonindicted 10, attachment of the application for registration of change, attachment of Nonindicted 10, attachment of Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 41, attachment of the application for registration to Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 51, and attachment of documents.

[Attachment 2010 Gohap76,90] (Law No. 22039 of 2009 by the District Prosecutors' Office of the Government)

1. Each statement corresponding thereto by the defendant 3 and 13 in this Court;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of Defendants 3 and 13 prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to the same;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 23 and Defendant 4, each of which corresponds to the statements made by the prosecutor

1. Each statement in each statement made by the police with respect to Nonindicted 53, 54, 55, and 56;

1. Each statement consistent with the investigation report ( obtaining official documents related to registration of restoration of a passenger vehicle) prepared by police, investigation report ( filing of the report on acquisition of a consolidated passenger vehicle and confirmation and investigation into the records);

1. A statement that complies with the investigation report of preparation of prosecution officials in charge (report on Nonindicted Party 25 telephone reception);

1. As a result of a civil petition, each question and answer to Defendant 1, 10, and 11, each letter of confirmation issued by Defendant 11, and Nonindicted 2, each document issued by Defendant 11, and Nonindicted 2, the improper status of cancellation of a passenger vehicle registration, improper registration of a truck for business use, improper improvement of the number of vehicles for business use, cooperation in disposal of reduction of the number of automobiles for electronic payment and lawful measures, submission of registration data on passenger transport service, acceptance of registration of passenger vehicle (tax charter bus) transport business, certificate of employment for Defendant 1, tea, vehicle register, automobile register (tax register) inquiry by Defendant 1, and Pyeongtaek-gun, No. 31, Agricultural financial transaction specifications, copy of application form for registration of transfer, etc., details of passbook transfer to right line, notification of illegal increase of the report on the illegal increase of the number of vehicles for business use, notification on the illegal increase of the number of vehicles for business use, notification on the change of the number of vehicles for business use, application form for registration and cancellation of the passenger vehicle register tax, copy of the passenger vehicle and freight report.

[2010Gohap78] (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office, 11017, 11441, 12907)

1. Each statement corresponding thereto made by the defendant 12 and 13 in this Court;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation records of suspects 1, 10, 12, and 13 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement written by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 49, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 48, and 50 in the prosecutor’s preparation and each statement corresponding thereto

1. Report of the inspection report prepared by the Prosecutor General of the prosecution branch attached to the Gyeonggi-do audit report, analysis of financial transactions by Defendant 1, submission of audit data by Defendant 41 who is suspected as Defendant 10, attachment of audit data by Defendant 10, attachment of business cargo vehicle registration, attachment of the supply standard announcement for permission for trucking transport business, attachment of Nonindicted 51 and 12, attachment of deposit and withdrawal of money in the name of Nonindicted 51 and 12, current status of truck registration, etc., issuance of checks to Defendant 10 in the account of Defendant 10 of the prosecution clerk, report on the results of Nonindicted 41 account tracking, report on the results of check tracking from Nonindicted 51 account, report on the amount remitted by Defendant 12 from Nonindicted 57, submission of documents related to permission for change of trucking transport business prepared by Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 242, and attachment of the application for change of registration of trucking transport business attached to Japan 18, etc.

1. Defendant 1 A. 2010 Gohap30-1

(1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1 received KRW 16,00,000, total of KRW 16,000,000 from Defendant 6 on June 8, 2007 and June 11, 2007, and KRW 3,000,000 on October 26, 2007 and August 8, 2007, in relation to the registration of chartered bus as indicated in the holding, from Defendant 1, in relation to the registration of a crime set forth in the list of crimes, from Defendant 6, as the expenses for the registration of a vehicle, and there was no fact that the remaining money was received.

(2) Determination

Of the statements made by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the above Defendants stated that the above Defendant 1 paid the above money from January 15, 200 to September 10, 204, NEW EF straws from September 21, 2006 to June 4, 2008 on behalf of Defendant 1’s KF 2, and that it is difficult to recognize that the above amount was included in Defendant 1’s MT 2, 6, and the above amount of registration tax, instead of the above amount of money, according to the evidence of Defendant 1’s statement that the above Defendants issued to Defendant 2, including the above 6, EM 207, and the above 6, EF 2, which was written on behalf of Defendant 1’s public prosecutor, were written on behalf of Defendant 1’s office, and there is no reason to recognize that the above Defendants issued the above amount of registration tax to Defendant 1’s new bank’s account submission.

(b) 2010Gohap64;

(1) Summary of the assertion

With respect to Paragraph 4 of the holding, KRW 4,00,00 received from Defendant 12 was paid as a partial repayment of KRW 6,000,000 for loans, and in relation to Paragraph 6 of the holding, KRW 10,00,000 paid by Defendant 13 to Nonindicted 21 for project expenses and is irrelevant to this case.

(2) Determination

(A) In relation to Paragraph (4) of the holding, Defendant 12 delivered KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant 10, and Defendant 12 delivered KRW 20,000 to Defendant 10, but Defendant 10 again delivered KRW 5,00,000 among them, and Defendant 10 made a consistent statement to this court until this court does not have paid KRW 5,00,000 in repayment. Defendant 10 also stated that Defendant 10 received KRW 20,000 from Defendant 12 and delivered KRW 5,00,000 among them, and according to each evidence duly examined by this court, it is sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 1 received KRW 10,00 from Defendant 12 as a bribe, or that Defendant 1 did not accept the above fact that he received KRW 5,00,000 from Defendant 12 as a bribe. According to the detailed statement of admission (Evidence No. 1) submitted by Defendant 10, Defendant 2018, Defendant 207.

(B) In relation to Paragraph (6) of the holding, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 received the above money as a bribe from Defendant 13 in full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant 13 stated that the above money was delivered to Defendant 13 as a bribe in this court; and (b) Nonindicted 21 also took office on August 30, 2007 with Defendant 1’s introduction without investing in Nonindicted Co. 14 with Defendant 1’s wife; (c) Defendant 1 took office as a director of the above company on August 30, 2007 with Defendant 1’s introduction; and (d) Defendant 1 appears to have received the above money upon Defendant 1’s introduction. Accordingly, the above assertion is also rejected.

(c) 2010Gohap76, 90

(1) Summary of the assertion

The 12,00,000 won remitted from Defendant 3 and 4 settled the development expenses for the 1,132 square meters prior to the filing of the gold agent (number 3 omitted), and 1,133 square meters prior to the same Ri (number 4 omitted), which he purchased jointly with Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, and the 500,000,000 won and 1,30,000 won transferred from Defendant 13, were paid in lieu of the expenses for the registration of vehicles, such as acquisition tax, registration tax, purchase of local development bonds, etc. for buses operated by Defendant 13.

(2) Determination

(A) As to whether Defendant 1 received the above money from Defendant 3 due to the settlement of development activity costs, Defendant 3 delivered the above money as a bribe, and Defendant 1 subsequently agreed to cover the development activity costs for each of the above land purchased by Defendant 1. According to the evidence duly examined in this court, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 received the above money as a bribe because it is proportional to the number of registered vehicles, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot accept the above assertion.

(B) According to the evidence duly examined in this court, whether Defendant 1 paid and settled expenses for vehicle registration on behalf of Defendant 13 or not, and Defendant 13 stated that the above money was delivered as a bribe. According to Nonindicted 56 and 55’s statements, it is very rare for Defendant 1 to recognize that Defendant 1 received the above money as a bribe. According to Nonindicted 56 and 55’s statements, it is very rare for the public official in charge of vehicle registration to pay the expenses for vehicle registration on behalf of Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 56 in charge of the receipt of acquisition tax and registration tax are also unable to associate with the paid amount of acquisition tax and registration tax (in the investigation record, 808 pages), each of the descriptions of each regional development bond purchase certificate, copies of each registration certificate, and registration tax (registration number 49 omitted), each of the documents on mortgage registration of vehicles submitted by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel, and each of the statements on the register of automobile register, Defendant 1’s assertion that the above amount was different from Defendant 1’s vehicle registration expenses on behalf of Defendant 13, around May 25, 20075,717.

2. Defendant 8

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) Upon amendment by Act No. 6536 of Dec. 19, 2001, Article 75(2) of the Passenger Transport Service Act newly established Article 75(1) of the Addenda that the passenger transport business license, registration, increase of the number of automobiles, or automobiles appropriated for the scrapping of automobiles shall not exceed three years, and this Act enters into force six months after the date of its promulgation, but Article 75(2) of the aforementioned Act provides that the first application for a license, registration, certificate, or scrapping of automobiles after its promulgation shall apply to the buses for which the application for the scrapping of automobiles was filed before June 19, 202, since the above Article 75(2) does not apply to the buses for which the age exceeds three years, even if they registered buses, the false information is not input, and all buses listed in Table 2, 2, 3, 11, 13, and 13 are buses applied for the scrapping of automobiles before June 19, 2002.

(2) Defendant 8 did not directly contact the public official in charge, but asked Defendant 4 about whether there was a number plate which has not yet been appropriated, even before June 20, 2002, and then the procedure was conducted by Defendant 4. As such, Defendant 8 did not intend to mislead the criminal intent or conduct affairs concerning the crime in Article 4-B of the judgment, and there was no fact that Defendant 4 conspired with Defendant 4.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) First of all, as to whether each of the above buses applied for the scrapping prior to June 19, 2002, the facts that there was no application for the change of business plan or a report for the increase of the number of buses at the time when the registration of the transfer of the business plan for each of the above buses was made, according to the statement of each of the statements made by Defendant 1 and 4, and the report of attachment of a copy of the Gyeonggi-do audit report on the preparation of prosecutorial offices, can be acknowledged (the above argument is rejected on the premise that the application for the scrapping was made prior to June 19, 2002).

(2) Furthermore, as to whether Defendant 8 had an intention to mislead criminal intent or conduct affairs with respect to each of the facts set forth in the judgment below, Defendant 4 and 8 were examined, each statement made by Defendant 4 and 8, a copy of the Gyeonggi-do Audit and Inspection Report prepared by the Prosecutorial Police Officers, and circumstances acknowledged by Defendant 8’s report as a result of execution of a search and seizure warrant, namely, Defendant 8 did not have a scrapping report even at the time of filing an application for a transfer registration of a bus directly (vehicle registration number 7,8,50 omitted) with Defendant 1, and Defendant 8 requested Defendant 4 to register the bus for the purpose of using it as a tourist bus for the juditioning business purpose at Defendant 4’s request, and Defendant 4 did not accept the above facts with the intent to register the bus as a total amount of money to Defendant 1 with the intent to register Defendant 400-1400, and Defendant 4050.

3. Defendant 11

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) Regarding paragraphs (1) and 5-A (2) of the holding, Defendant 11 did not participate in the above crime since he was in Japan during the period from October 30, 2007 to November 3, 2007, and Defendant 11 received 2,400,000 won on October 26, 2007 from Defendant 13, and Defendant 11 received 2,40,000 won on October 26, 2007 from Defendant 13. In relation to Article 5-B (b) of the holding, Defendant 11 received from Defendant 12 a panel of KRW 1,30,000 on the market price of KRW 1,30,00 from Defendant 12, but it does not receive as a consideration for cargo rent.

(2) In relation to paragraphs (2) and 5-A (3) of the judgment, Defendant 11 did not instruct Defendant 1 to increase the truck of Nonindicted Company 14.

(3) In relation to Paragraph (3) of the holding, Defendant 11 only approved Defendant 10’s review protocol as it is and did not intentionally prepare a false official document.

(4) In relation to Articles 5-A(1) and 5-3(c) of the holding, Defendant 11 did not receive from Defendant 6 a request from Nonindicted Co. 1 to register his own bus as a chartered bus for business use, and KRW 4,000,000, which was received from Defendant 11’s account from Defendant 11 with Nonindicted Co. 22, is the down payment or construction work that Defendant 11’s partner Nonindicted Co. 3 received while carrying out the construction work with Defendant 13.

B. Determination

(1) As to whether Defendant 11 was involved in the above crime in relation to paragraphs (1) and 5-A (2) of the judgment, according to each evidence duly examined in this court, such as the fact that Defendant 11 was during the period of Japanese overseas training at the time, or that Defendant 11 promised to commit the above crime in advance, and Defendant 11 made a statement with the agreement that Defendant 11 paid the above amount, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant 11 participated in the above crime as stated in paragraphs (1) and 5-A (2) of the judgment, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

(2) In relation to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and 5-A (3) of the judgment by Defendant 11, the issue of whether Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 1 to increase the truck of Nonindicted 14 Co., Ltd., and Defendant 13 stated that Defendant 11 provided the above money in relation to the increase of the truck, etc., and according to each evidence duly examined in this court, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant 11 committed the above crime. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

(3) In relation to Paragraph (3) of the holding, as to whether Defendant 11 had no intentional intent in preparing a false official document, Defendant 10 stated that Defendant 11 had been well aware of the fact that the above official document was prepared by Defendant 11, and the content of the above official document was increased by 200 vehicles, and in light of its size, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant 11 also accepted the above official document even though it was possible to recognize that the above official document was false. Thus, the above assertion is also rejected.

(4) In relation to Articles 5-A(1) and 5-3(c) of the judgment, Defendant 10 stated that Defendant 11 was aware of the crime committed by Defendant 1 and distributed a bribe. Defendant 6 also stated that Defendant 11 was aware of the crime committed by Defendant 1, and according to Defendant 1’s financial transaction analysis as to Defendant 1’s preparation of prosecutorial protocol, Defendant 1 was transferred KRW 5,000,000 from Defendant 6 on June 8, 2007 and transferred KRW 4,00,000 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 22 of the same day on the same day. In full view of this, Defendant 11 can be recognized as having participated in the above crime, and the above 4,00,000,000 won cannot be accepted in light of Defendant 11’s assertion that Defendant 11 was the down payment or the construction cost that Defendant 1 and Defendant 13 were the down payment.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 131(1), 129(1), and 30(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 131(1) and Article 129(1)(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 129(1)(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 129(1)(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 227-2, 30(30-1, and 64 of the Criminal Act; Article 229-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 227-2, Article 30(1) of the same Act; Article 30-2 of the same Act; Article 227-2, Article 227-2, Article 30-2, Article 30-30, Article 327-2, Article 30-15 of the Criminal Act; Article 129(1) of the same Act; Article 20-130 of the same Act; Article 216(30-1 of the Criminal Act; Article 301 of the same Act

(b) Defendant 2, 4, 5, 6, 7: Articles 133(1), 131(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of offering a bribe), Articles 227-2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of entering into an electronic document, etc.), Articles 229, 227-2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of exercising an electronic document, etc.) of each Criminal Act;

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 133(1), 131(1), 30 (2) (2010 Gohap30-1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 227-2, 30 (2), 30 (2), 229, 227-2, and 30 (2010 Gohap30-1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 227-2, and 30 (2), 133(1), 131(2) (2) of the Criminal Act (2010 Gohap76, and 90) of the Criminal Act;

(d) Defendant 8: Articles 227-2, 30 ( point of entry into public electromagnetic records, etc.), 229, 227-2, and 30 of each Criminal Act ( point of exercise of public electromagnetic records, etc.);

(e) Defendant 9: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

(f) Defendant 10: Articles 131(1), 129(1), 30 (2), 131(2), and 131(1) (2), of the Criminal Act (2010 high-level and 39) of the Criminal Act; Articles 227-2, 30 (2), 227-2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (2010 high-level and 39, and 64) of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 227-2, 30 (2), 30 (2010 high-level and 39, and 64) of the Criminal Act; Articles 227, 30 (2), and 227 of the Criminal Act; preparation of false public documents); Article 229 of the Criminal Act; Article 227, Article 227 of the Criminal Act; Article 327 of the Criminal Act; Article 201 of the Criminal Act; Article 2301 of the Criminal Act provides false documents.

(g) Defendant 11: Articles 227-2, 30 (a) and 229, 227-2, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 227 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 227 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 229, 227, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (d) Articles 131(1), 129(1), and 30 (a) (2) of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 131(1), 129(1), and 30 (a) (a) and (2) of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 131(1), 129(1) (a) and (c) of the Criminal Act; and (e) Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act of the same Act;

(3) Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 1448, Dec. 3, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1882, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 19, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1882, Feb. 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1820, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 19, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 19, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 1881, Feb. 3, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1751, Feb. 3, 2008>

3. Defendant 13: (a) Articles 13(1), 129(1)(2), 76, and 90 of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 4 and 48 subparag. 1 of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8979, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Trucking Transport Business Act”); (c) Articles 13(1) and 38(1) of the Criminal Act; (d) Articles 30(1) of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 129(1)(2); (d) Articles 128(1); (e) of the Addenda of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Trucking Transport Business Act”); (e) Articles 20(1) and 37(1) of the Criminal Act of the former Trucking Transport Business Act; and (e) Articles 18(3) and 17(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

A. Defendant 1

-Concurrent punishment for each bus, etc. as indicated in the Decision 2010Gohap30-1, which is set forth in the crime of fraud, electronic records, etc. of each bus, the crime of uttering of an indictment, electronic records, etc., and each of the above buses, which is more severe and more severe than punishment;

-Concurrent punishment for any cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 1, 2010 or 64, for any violation of public electronic records, etc., for any cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 1, for any violation of public electronic records, etc., for any other cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 4, for any other violation of public electronic records, etc., for any other cargo vehicle,

B. Defendant 10

-Concurrent punishment for each bus of No. 3 of the Decision 2010Gohap39 as well as for the use of public electronic records, etc., and for the use of public electronic records, etc., of the same bus of the same bus of No. 1 Section A of the Decision, as well as punishment for unjust disposal after accepting the bribery of each bus of which punishment is more severe.

-Concurrent punishment for any cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 1, 2010 or 64, for any violation of public electronic records, etc., for any cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 1, for any violation of public electronic records, etc., for any other cargo vehicle in the judgment No. 4, for any other violation of public electronic records, etc., for any other cargo vehicle,

C. Defendant 11

-Punishment as provided for in Section 5(c) of the Decision 2010 High and sixty-four(2010 High and sixty-four(3) for each bus, such as public electronic records, etc., for the use of false public electronic records, etc., for the same bus as provided for in Section 5(a)(1) of the Decision 5-A, for the use of false public electronic records, etc., for the use of the same bus,

- The crimes of writing public electronic records, etc. concerning each cargo set forth in No. 2, No. 4, 19, through 41, the crime of writing public electronic records, etc. concerning each cargo set forth in Regulation 2, No. 2010, 64, and the crime of uttering of such public electronic records, etc., and the crime of uttering of such public electronic records, etc., as mentioned in Section 5-A (3).

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to the offering of a bribe, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the preparation of false public documents, the uttering of false public documents, the acceptance of bribe, and the violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

(a) Defendant 1, 10, 11: The punishment shall be imposed on a bus with the largest (number 1, 10, 11, 12 omitted) of the penalty, and the penalty shall be imposed on a concurrent offender with the penalty determined for the unlawful action after the acceptance of the bribe;

(b) Defendant 2: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the event of an electronic document, etc. concerning buses with the largest punishment, nature of crime, and circumstances (vehicle registration number 4 omitted);

(c) Defendant 3, 4: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment provided for in the event of an electronic document, etc. concerning buses with the largest punishment (vehicle registration number 23 omitted).

(d) Defendant 5: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the event of an electronic document, etc. concerning buses with the largest punishment, crime quality, and criminal situation (vehicle registration number 24 omitted);

(e) Defendant 6: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with regard to buses with the largest punishment (vehicle registration number 25 omitted); and

(f) Defendant 7: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with regard to buses with the largest punishment (vehicle registration number 16 omitted) as provided for in the event of a false, public, or electronic records, etc. concerning buses;

(g) Defendant 8: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the crime of uttering of electronic records, etc. concerning buses, the nature of crime and the heavy (vehicle registration number 26 omitted) of crime;

(h) Defendant 12: The heavier penalty (vehicle registration number 19 omitted) concerning any freight vehicle, as provided for in the event of an electronic document, etc., concerning any penalty, any crime, and any concurrent crime;

(i) Defendant 13: The heavier penalty (vehicle registration number 27 omitted) concerning any freight vehicle, as provided for in the event of an electronic document, etc., concerning any penalty, any crime, and any concurrent crime;

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances among the grounds for punishment)

1. Additional collection:

(a) Defendant 1, 10, 11: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act;

(1) Defendant 1: 87,350,000 won

The value of a bribe received directly by Defendant 1 is KRW 97,350,00 in total, as stated in its reasoning. However, according to each of the statements by Defendant 6 and 10, Defendant 11’s partial statement, Defendant 1’s analysis of financial transaction in the prosecution preparation, Defendant 10’s account analysis suspected of being a borrowed account by Defendant 10, Defendant 10’s presumption of delivery to Defendant 10 of the account transfer amount by Nonindicted 22, and the statement of witness’s telephone reception report, etc., Defendant 1 received the above bribe amount of the bribe amount of KRW 10 on June 11, 2007 with Nonindicted 41’s account, and KRW 1,00,000,000, KRW 1,000,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 000, KRW 1000, KRW 3005, KRW 3000, KRW 5,000, KRW 97,000.

(2) Defendant 10: 32,500,000 won

The value of a bribe received directly by Defendant 10 is KRW 26,50,000,00 in total, as stated in its reasoning. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 10 received from Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 41’s account on June 11, 2007, KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 1,000,000 on October 29, 2007, respectively. Accordingly, the value of a bribe received by Defendant 10 is KRW 32,50,000 (= KRW 26,50,000 + KRW 5,00,000 + KRW 1,00,000).

(3) Defendant 11: 15,600,000 won

The value of a bribe directly received by Defendant 11 is 11,60,000 won in total as stated in its reasoning. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 11 received 4,00,000 won from Defendant 1 to Defendant 22’s account on June 8, 2007, and thus, Defendant 11 was ultimately 15,60,000 won (= KRW 11,60,000 + KRW 4,000,000).

(b) Defendant 9: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Defendant 1

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one year and two years and six months. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 1, the sum of all the bribe amounts received as a bribe is KRW 87,350,000 among the crimes committed by Defendant 1, and there was an illegal disposition related to the bribery, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes the aggravated area of Type 4 (not less than KRW 50 million but less than KRW 100,000) from among the bribery to the bribe group, and the scope of sentencing of the recommended sentence is not less than six years but not more than eight years, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which is the lowest range of sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime.

In addition, Defendant 1 has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine, and there is no record of punishment for a bribe crime; some of the crimes committed by Defendant 1 appears to have been subject to the direction of Defendant 11, a superior. A significant portion of the bribe amount Defendant 1 received is the development cost of the land jointly purchased with Defendant 3, 4, etc., the vehicle registration cost of the bus operated by Defendant 13, etc., and it appears to have been used for Defendant 3, 13, etc. as the offerer of the bribe. Other factors such as Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, environment, the specific means and method of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered to have been recorded and shown in the pleading, the punishment against Defendant 1 shall be determined to be more than the minimum sentencing range of the recommending punishment.

2. Defendant 2

In this case, the applicable sentences are from 1 to 15 years. Of the crimes committed by Defendant 2, the sum of all the bribe amounts provided as a bribe amounting to 14,00,000 won among the crimes committed by Defendant 2 is related to the illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of category 1 (less than 30,000 won) among the bribe offers from the bribe offering group in this case, and the scope of sentencing is from 6 months to 16 months, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with electronic records, etc. in the holding that the sentencing guidelines have not been set. Thus, the lower limit is six months, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime.

In addition, Defendant 2 did not have any history of criminal punishment, but with Defendant 1, who is a public official in charge of criminal punishment, committed the crime of this case in collusion with Defendant 1 in order to obtain unjust profits, etc. In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, environment of Defendant 2, specific means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years.

3. Defendant 3

In this case, the applicable sentences are between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 3, the sum of all the bribe amounts provided as a bribe crime is KRW 24,00,000, and the contents of solicitation are related to illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of category 1 (less than KRW 30,000) from among the bribe offering provided as a bribe crime group in this case, and the scope of sentencing is between six months and one year, six months, and six months, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with electronic records, etc. in the holding that the sentencing guidelines have not been set. Thus, the lower limit is six months, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime.

Defendant 3 did not have any history of criminal punishment other than a fine, but in order to obtain unjust profits, it is not good that the crime is committed in collusion with Defendant 1, a public official in charge, etc., and, in consideration of the fact that Defendant 3 actively participated in the crime of this case, taking into account the age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleading and arguments, Defendant 3’s punishment against Defendant 3 shall be set as one year and six months, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years.

4. Defendant 4

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 4, the sum of all the bribe amounting to 7,000,000 won and the sum of all the bribe amounting to 7,000 won among the crimes committed by Defendant 4 is related to illegal execution of duties. According to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of category 1 (less than 30,000 won) out of the bribe amount of the bribe amount of the bribe amount of the bribe amount of the bribe amount of the bribe amount of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime

Defendant 4 did not have any past record of criminal punishment other than a fine, but in order to obtain unlawful profits, committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 1, a public official in charge, etc., and thus, the nature of the relevant crime is not good. Defendant 4’s age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, shall be set forth as one year and six months, and the execution of the said punishment shall be suspended for two years.

5. Defendant 5

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 5, the sum of all the bribe amounting to 8,000,000 won among the crimes committed by Defendant 5 is related to the illegal execution of duties. According to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of category 1 (less than 30,000 won) among the bribery amount of the bribe amount corresponding to the aggravated area of the offering of bribe amounting to six months to one year, and the scope of sentencing of the recommended sentence is not more than six months, and the above bribe amount is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the above bribe amount is a lower limit of the sentencing range in the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime, since it is six months, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range in the above crime.

In addition, Defendant 5 did not have any past record of criminal punishment; Defendant 5 committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 1, a public official in charge, in order to obtain unjust profits; and, in consideration of the age of Defendant 5, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc.; Defendant 5’s punishment against Defendant 5 shall be imposed for a period of one year and six months, and the execution of the said punishment shall be suspended for two years.

6. Defendant 6

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 6, the sum of the total amount of the bribe provided as a bribe is 35,550,000 won and the contents of solicitation are related to illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes the aggravated area of Type 2 (not less than KRW 30 million but less than KRW 50 million) from among the bribe offering provided as a bribe crime group in this case, and the scope of sentencing of the recommended sentence is between one year and three years, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are the lowest range of sentence on the sentencing guidelines of the above bribe crime.

Defendant 6 did not have any history of criminal punishment other than a fine, but committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 1 who is a public official in charge in order to obtain unjust profits, and thus, the nature of the instant crime is not good. The amount of offering of bribe is relatively large compared to the other Defendants. Defendant 6’s age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments are considered to be two years of imprisonment, and the execution of the said punishment is suspended for three years.

7. Defendant 7

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 7, the sum of the total amount of the bribe provided as a bribe is 35,550,000 won and the contents of solicitation are related to illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes the aggravated area of Type 2 (not less than KRW 30 million but less than KRW 50 million) from among the bribe offering provided as a bribe crime group in this case, and the scope of sentencing of the recommended sentence is between one year and three years, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are the lowest range of sentence on the sentencing guidelines of the above bribe crime.

Defendant 7 did not have any past record of criminal punishment other than the fine, but in order to obtain unjust profits, committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 1 who is a public official in charge, and committed the instant crime. The amount of offering of bribe is relatively large compared to the other Defendants. Defendant 7’s age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, the punishment against Defendant 7 shall be imposed for 1 year and 6 months, and the execution of the said punishment shall be suspended for 2 years.

8. Defendant 8

In this case, the applicable sentencing period is between one month and fifteen years. Defendant 8 has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine, and Defendant 8 has to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year, taking into account the following: the age, character and conduct, environment of Defendant 8, specific means and methods of committing the instant crime, circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and records, and the execution of the said punishment is suspended for two years.

9. Defendant 9

In this case, the applicable sentencing period is from 1 month to 15 years. Defendant 9 has no record of criminal punishment related to a bribe crime, and Defendant 9 has to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and suspended the execution of the above punishment for 3 years, taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

10. Defendant 10

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one year and two years and six months. Of the crimes committed by Defendant 10, the sum of all the bribe amounts received as a bribe, among the crimes committed by Defendant 10, is KRW 32,500,000, and there was an illegal disposition related to the bribery, but the degree of participation is relatively minor and the internal corruption is accused in this court. According to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes the mitigated area of Type 3 (not less than KRW 30 million but less than KRW 50,000) among the bribery of the bribe group, and the scope of the sentencing of the recommended sentence is between two years and six months, and four years, and the above bribe is in the concurrent relation of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit is two years and six months, which is the lowest limit of the sentencing range in the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime.

In addition, Defendant 10 has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine, and there is no record of punishment as a bribe crime; Defendant 10 has committed the crime of this case, committed the crime of this case in depth, reflects its depth, and confessions all of his own crimes; Defendant 10's age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions shown in the record and pleading shall be determined to be less than the minimum limit of the recommended sentence.

11. Defendant 11

In this case, the applicable sentencing is between one year and two years and six months. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 11, the sum of the total amount of the bribe received as a bribe is KRW 15,600,000 among the crimes committed by Defendant 11, and there was an illegal disposition related to the bribery. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of Type 2 (not less than KRW 10 million but less than KRW 30 million) among the bribery to the bribe group in this case, and the scope of the sentencing of the recommended sentence is between two years and four years, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines for the above bribe crime.

Defendant 11 did not have any past record of criminal punishment, but rather, it is not good that Defendant 1 and 10, a subordinate, did not fulfill his/her responsibility as a superior, and rather, instructed Defendant 1 and 10, who is a subordinate, to take into account the age, character and conduct, environment of Defendant 11, specific means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments and arguments, shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years.

12. Defendant 12

In this case, the applicable sentencing sentence is between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 12, the sum of all the bribe amounting to 33,800,000 won among the crimes committed by Defendant 12 is related to the illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes the aggravated area of Type 2 (not less than 30 million won but less than 50 million won) from among the bribe offering provided by the bribe crime group, and the scope of sentencing of the recommended sentence is between one year and three years, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are the lower limit of sentence on the sentencing guidelines of the above bribe crime.

In addition, in consideration of the age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., Defendant 12 shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and the execution of the said punishment shall be postponed for three years.

13. Defendant 13

In this case, the applicable sentences are between one month and fifteen years. Among the crimes committed by Defendant 13, the sum of all the bribe amounts provided as a bribe crime is KRW 22,50,000, and the contents of solicitation are related to illegal performance of duties. Accordingly, according to the sentencing guidelines, this case constitutes an aggravated area of category 1 (less than KRW 30 million) from among the bribe offering provided as a bribe crime group in this case, and the scope of sentencing of recommended sentences is between six months and one year and six months, and the above bribe crime is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range in the above sentencing guidelines, and thus, the lower limit is six months, which is the lower limit of the sentencing range in the above bribe crime.

Defendant 13 has no record of criminal punishment other than a fine, and has no record of being punished as a bribe crime; Defendant 13 repented, reflects in depth, and confessions all of the crimes of this case; Defendant 13’s age, character and conduct, environment, specific means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime was committed, etc.; Defendant 13’s punishment against Defendant 13 shall be imposed for 1 year and 6 months, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 2 years.

1. False entry, false entry, and electromagnetic records;

A. Summary of the facts charged

【2010Gohap30-1】

Defendant 8 and 9 issued a certificate of completion of alternative registration to the effect that a bus that cannot be substituted with a chartered bus in the name of the above travel company after three years or more from the date of its initial registration, which was held by Defendant 8, using the fact that Defendant 9 was an executive of Nonindicted Co. 15 and reported the scrapping of the said association, and that the bus could be substituted with a chartered bus in the name of the above travel company, and then registered the said bus as a chartered bus in the office of the Gun office in the area north of the whole country and intended to gain profits by transferring it to another chartered bus transportation company.

Defendant 8: (a) around January 2006, Defendant 9 was issued a certificate of completion of alternative registration for the instant bus with the purport that the said bus can be replaced by a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 16’s name at Nonindicted Co. 15 at around that time; (b) Defendant 8 was issued a certificate of completion of alternative registration for the instant bus with the purport that the said bus can be replaced by a chartered bus in the name of Nonindicted Co. 16’s name.

After that, Defendant 9 prepared an application for registration of transfer with the content that the above bus will be purchased and transferred from Nonindicted Co. 17, and filed an application for registration with a chartered bus for business use with a bus with the age of not more than three years, as if the above bus could be registered for business use, Defendant 9 submitted to the public official in charge of registration of the vehicle of the Republic of Korea, along with a written application for registration along with a certificate of completion of registration of substitution for the above bus issued by the above union.

However, the facts were that the bus purchased by Nonindicted 16 was not registered as a chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration.

Thus, the defendant 8 and 9 had the above public official who is aware of the fact enter false facts in the public electronic records by having the above bus registered as a bus for business use (vehicle number: 22 omitted) in the bus register of the bus registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record on January 25, 2006, and exercised it by having the above public official keep and keep it in the same place around that time.

From that time until August 2006, the Defendants acquired 17 buses from Nonindicted Co. 17, etc., such as Nonindicted Co., Ltd., from that time until August 3, 2006, and followed as if the age of the bus was replaced by a bus with a bus with not more than three years and can be registered for business purposes, the Defendants submitted a registration application to the public official in charge of vehicle registration along with the certificate of alternative registration for the bus issued by the said association, along with the certificate of alternative registration.

Thus, the defendant 8 and 9 had the above public official who is unaware of the fact enter false facts in the public electronic record by having the above bus registered for business use in the register of automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, and exercised it by having the public official keep and keep it in the same place around that time.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

(1) Defendant 8 did not participate in the registration of three buses No. 1, 3, and 15 (vehicle registration number 22, 51, 52 omitted) for business purposes.

(2) Upon amendment by Act No. 6536 of Dec. 19, 2001, Article 75(2) of the Passenger Transport Service Act newly established Article 75(2) of the Addenda that the passenger transport business license, registration, increase of the number of automobiles, or automobiles appropriated for the scrapping of automobiles shall not exceed three years, and this Act enters into force six months after the date of its promulgation, and Article 75(2) of the Addenda provides that Article 75(2) of the aforementioned Act applies from the first application for the license, registration, increase of the number of automobiles, or the scrapping of automobiles after the enforcement of the said provision. Since Article 75(2) of the above Act does not apply to the buses for which an application for the scrapping of automobiles was filed before June 19, 202, the above Article 75(2) does not apply to the buses for which the age of automobiles exceeded three years, each of the three listed in the list of sights of crimes applied for the scrapping of buses before June 19, 2002.

(3) The fact that the age limit exceeds three years is stated in the application and the change of the registration was made shall not be deemed to have been made false.

(4) Defendant 8 did not directly contact the public official in charge, but asked Defendant 9 about whether there was a number plate which was not yet appropriated, even before June 20, 2002, and then the procedure was conducted by Defendant 9. As such, Defendant 8 did not intend to mislead the criminal intent or conduct affairs of the above facts charged, and there was no fact in collusion with Defendant 9.

(c) Related statutes;

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

D. Determination

We also judge Defendant 9 who does not dispute the above facts charged.

(1) First of all, as to whether Defendant 8 participated in the registration of three buses Nos. 3, 1, 3, and 15 (vehicle registration number 22, 51, 52 omitted), the following facts are examined: Nonindicted 40, 8, and 9; and Nonindicted 40, the operator of Nonindicted 34-liability Company, purchased each bus from Defendant 8 through Defendant 9 on January 2006 (vehicle registration number 22, 51 omitted) and directly operated it (see Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010No. 4628, 6538, 2675); Defendant 9 cannot be acknowledged as having purchased and registered the bus under the name of Defendant 25, which was directly involved in Nonindicted 3’s business (see Supreme Court Decision 205No2865, Apr. 8, 2006).

(2) Furthermore, according to the following: (a) whether Defendant 9 and 8 filed a false report; (b) each statement made by Nonindicted 40; and (c) each statement made by Defendant 8’s defense counsel on the change of the passenger transport business plan or the certificate of completion of report submitted by their defense counsel, Defendant 9’s request for change of the above business plan; (b) the certificate of completion of report on change of the automobile transport business plan stating accurate awareness of each bus indicated in the list 3 of crimes from Nonindicted 15 cooperatives [the previous Passenger Transport Service Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8980, Mar. 21, 2008)] should be required to obtain authorization from the competent government office in order to change the business plan; (c) although it is a matter of principle, it would be required to make a false report on the change of the business plan; and (d) if it is found that there is no change of the business plan or any change of the business plan that requires the change of the business plan after obtaining authorization from the competent government office, it would be inconsistent with the order to change or change of the business plan within six months.

E. Conclusion

Thus, without examining the remaining arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325

2. Events of Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, such as public electronic records, etc., or public electronic records;

A. Summary of the facts charged

【2010Gohap30-1】

(1) Defendant 1, as indicated in the judgment, transferred a bus with Defendant 10, 11, and Nonindicted Co. 1 did not have acquired it for business purposes from Nonindicted Co. 5, and the above bus could not be registered as a "business chartered bus" for more than three years since the date of its initial registration, upon Defendant 6's request from Nonindicted Co. 1 to register it as a "business chartered bus", Defendant 1 took over the above bus from Nonindicted Co. 5 for business purposes. Defendant 1, as if Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired it for business purposes from Nonindicted Co. 5, the vehicle registration system, which is a public electronic record, and transferred a registration of transfer with a "business chartered bus" of Nonindicted Co. 1, 11, and Defendant 1 did not have acquired it for business purposes, and Defendant 1 did not have acquired it for business purposes for more than three years since the date of its initial registration, and Defendant 1 did not have acquired it for business purposes, and recorded it as Defendant 1's total of 201,7,000,00.

(2) The facts of Defendant 2, 3, and 4 as indicated in the judgment of the court below are as follows: (a) Nonindicted Co. 6 did not have received a business bus from Nonindicted Co. 7; and (b) the above bus could not be registered as a business chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration; (c) Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 1, and completed the registration of transfer of the vehicle register with Nonindicted Co. 6’s “business chartered bus” under the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 1, 8, 200, 200, 200 to June 28, 2006; and (d) as if Nonindicted Co. 6 acquired a total of 21,00,000 and transferred the registration of transfer of the vehicle register to Nonindicted Co. 6’s “business chartered bus” under the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 8, 200, 211, and 26, as it had been recorded in the said automobile register with an electronic data processing system.

(3) As indicated in Article 2-b (2) of the holding, Defendant 2 and 5: (a) did not have acquired any business bus from Nonindicted Co. 6; (b) in collusion with Defendant 1,10 even though the said bus could not be registered as a “business chartered bus” after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration; and (c) as of July 9, 2007 to January 11, 208, Nonindicted Co. 6, and Nonindicted Co. 9, as of the acquisition of a total of four business buses, transferred the registration of transfer by means of a “business chartered bus” in the said car register in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6’s name; and (d) in collusion with Defendant 1,10, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5, as of January 36, 207, 37, 43, and 444, the said bus was kept and kept at the same place around that time.

(4) As indicated in Article 2-3 (2) of the judgment, Defendant 5 conspired with Defendant 1,10 on March 16, 2007 to February 13, 2008 with Defendant 2-2, 27, 28, 45, and 46 on the day of crime, the fact that Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 9 acquired a total of four commercial buses and transferred a registration of transfer from Nonindicted Co. 10 to Nonindicted Co. 10, and that the said bus could not be registered as a "business chartered bus" after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration, and thus, Defendant 5 stored and kept an electronic file of registration at the same place of the vehicle registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, for the purpose of handling the registration of transfer as a pre-business bus under the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 9, and kept and kept it at the same time.

(5) As indicated in the judgment, Defendant 6 and 7: (a) did not have acquired any business bus from Nonindicted Co. 5; and (b) the said bus could not be registered as a “business chartered bus” after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration; (b) from that time in collusion with Defendant 1, until November 21, 2007, Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired a total of 11 business bus and transferred it to a “business chartered bus” in the vehicle register of the automobile registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, for the purpose of processing the said vehicle register, as if it had been registered by transfer of it to a “business chartered”; and (c) Defendant 6 took it over from December 7, 2007 to April 24, 2008, in collusion with Defendant 1, Defendant 204, 47, 47, and 41, an electronic document of the vehicle registration system, which is a public electronic record, for the purpose of processing the said vehicle register.

(6) As indicated in Article 4-A of the judgment, Defendant 8: (a) did not have received any commercial bus; and (b) the said bus could not be registered as a commercial chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration; (c) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 11, as described in Nos. 2-1 through 3 of the Crimes List No. 25 of July 25, 2003, he, in collusion with Defendant 1, took over all three commercial buses from that time, and registered the transfer as a commercial chartered bus under the name of Nonindicted Company 11 in the register of the vehicle registration information processing system, which is a public electronic record, as if the registration was made by transfer; and (d) Defendant 1 and 8, together with Defendant 1 and 8, carried out a public electronic record, which is a motor vehicle file for the purpose of conducting administrative affairs, and stored and kept it at the same place around that time.

(7) As indicated in Article 4-2(b) of the judgment, Defendant 8: (a) did not have acquired any commercial bus; and (b) the said bus could not be registered as a commercial chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration; (b) in collusion with Defendant 4 and 1, from November 10, 2003 to January 3, 2004, Defendant 8, as indicated in No. 11, and No. 13 of the Crimes List No. 2, and No. 13, Defendant 6 acquired a total of two commercial buses and took it over and took it over as if the transfer had been made; and (c) Defendant 8, in the register of the automobile registration information processing system, a public electronic document recorded as a commercial chartered in the name of Nonindicted Company 6, a commercial chartered; and (d) Defendant 8, in collusion with Defendant 4 and 1, kept and exercised it at the same time.

[2010Gohap39]

Defendant 10, as indicated in the judgment with Defendant 1 and 6, did not have acquired a bus from Nonindicted Co. 1 for business use, and even though the bus could not be registered as a chartered bus for business use after three or more years have passed from the date of its initial registration, Defendant 10, in the register of automobile registration information management system, which is a public electronic record for each of the above buses of Nonindicted Co. 1, processed the registration as a chartered bus for business use of Nonindicted Co. 1 (vehicle registration number 1, 10, 11, 12 omitted), in collusion with Defendant 1, 6, and 11 (vehicle registration number 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 omitted), with respect to the vehicle registration number 1,6, and kept and kept the electronic record of the vehicle file at the same place for business use in collusion with Defendant 1 and 6 for the purpose of making the business use an error.

[2010Gohap64]

Defendant 11, in collusion with Defendant 1, 6, and 10, as stated in the judgment, did not have acquired a bus from Nonindicted Co. 5 for business use, and even if the above bus was not able to be registered as a chartered bus after the lapse of three years from the date of its initial registration, Defendant 11, as in collusion with Defendant 1, 6, and 10, posted a public electronic record of the vehicle registration file for the purpose of handling the vehicle registration as a chartered bus for business use of Nonindicted Co. 1 and conducting registration of transfer by transfer from Nonindicted Co. 5, as in the register of the vehicle registration information processing system (registration number 1,10,11,12 omitted), as if Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired it for business use from Nonindicted Co. 5, and exercised it by keeping and keeping it at the same place.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

(1) Defendant 1

In the event that a public official in charge of the registration of a motor vehicle is not well aware of the relevant laws and regulations concerning passenger vehicles, and a license, registration, authorization, report, etc. is invalidated or cancelled under the Passenger Transport Service Act in relation to Article 13 (1) 4 of the Automobile Management Act, the registration of the registration of the motor vehicle used by the business operator shall be completed, but the registration of the transfer or registration of the change to the motor vehicle shall not be entered in a false information even if the vehicle age exceeds three years, in light of the purport of authoritative interpretation that registration of the motor vehicle is permitted.

(2) Defendant 8

Since the age limit exceeds three years, it is stated in the application as it is and registered in the motor vehicle registration file, which is a public electronic record, it does not enter false information.

(c) Related statutes;

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

D. Determination

We also examine Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 who do not clearly dispute the facts charged.

The crime of preparing false public documents is established when the above defendants conspired to enter false information in a motor vehicle registration file which is a public electronic record, and the crime of preparing false public documents is established when the entry is contrary to the truth. Thus, even if the above defendants intentionally made an official document by applying the law, if the facts constituting the premise for applying the law are not false, the crime of preparing false public documents cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1858, Jun. 27, 2000, etc.). The same applies to the crime of writing of public electronic documents which create electronic records against the intent of the person who installs and operates the system by inputting false information.

(1) Although the age of an automobile cannot be registered as a chartered bus for more than three years, it is possible to examine whether each of the above buses was registered as an automobile chartered bus and enter false information into the automobile registration ledger as to the effect of automobile registration (Article 5 of the Automobile Management Act), and there is no provision that acquisition or loss of ownership of an automobile shall take effect (Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act) or that an application for registration of an automobile shall be filed as an attachment to the Seoul Office’s registration No. 1 and its registration No. 3 as an attachment or registration No. 8 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, because it is not possible to apply for registration of an automobile as an attachment to the above automobile register No. 1 and No. 12(6) of the Decree No. 8 of the Automobile Management Act, it is necessary to examine whether the above registration No. 3 as an attachment or registration No. 6 of the vehicle registration No.

(C) In addition, according to each statement of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as to whether each of the above buses was transferred for business use, the registration of transfer of each of the above buses was made, and the statement of Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office attached a copy of the Gyeonggi-do Audit and Inspection Report prepared by Prosecutor's Office in Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office in 2010, attached a copy of the investigation report, attached a register of automobiles and a certificate of vehicle transfer, and each entry of a copy of the registration documents, such as each registration of transfer of each of the above buses, and it can be recognized that the fact that the registration of transfer of each of the above buses was made with the consent of the registration titleholder to use the name of each of the above buses, regardless of whether the above registration titleholder actually operated each of the above buses, there is no evidence to find any false information about each of the above buses.

E. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of each of the crimes related to a single crime, it shall not be sentenced not to a separate verdict of innocence.

3. Offering of a bribe in relation to the buses of Defendant 1, 10 (vehicle registration number 17 omitted) (vehicle registration number 17 omitted) and Defendant 6, 7 (vehicle registration number 17 omitted);

A. Summary of the facts charged

【2010Gohap30-1】

(1) Defendant 1, along with Defendant 10 as indicated in the holding No. 1-A(A) as indicated in the judgment, illegally registered a bus which cannot be registered as a business bus with Defendant 6 and 7, together with each bus of No. 1-15 of the crime sight table (vehicle registration number 17 omitted) for the business registration of a private bus, as an honorarium for the business registration of a private bus, with money as in No. 1-15 of the crime sight table. Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Defendant 10, committed an act of accepting and denying a bribe in relation to public official’s duties.

(2) Defendant 6 and Defendant 7, along with each bus No. 15 of the crime sight table No. 3-A as indicated in the judgment, requested the registration of the bus operation (vehicle registration number 17 omitted) that cannot be registered for business after the lapse of three years from the date of the initial registration, and delivered and remitted money as set forth in No. 15 of the crime sight list, along with the registration document.

[2010Gohap39]

Defendant 10, like Defendant 1-A(2) of the judgment, received the above money as a honorarium for the business registration of a private bus under the name of Nonindicted Company 1 and registered the said bus as a business bus in the name of Nonindicted Company 1, together with Defendant 1’s each bus No. 1-15 of the crime sight table (vehicle registration No. 17 omitted). Accordingly, Defendant 10 received a bribe in connection with the public official’s duties in collusion with Defendant 1 and committed an unlawful act.

B. Determination

According to the statements made by the defendant 6, the non-indicted 25, and the non-indicted 25 request the defendant 1 to register the above (vehicle registration number 17 omitted) bus with the defendant 6's business bus under the name of the non-indicted 1 corporation with the consent of the defendant 1. Thus, the defendant 6 delivered the above amount upon the request of the government prosecutor's office of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office for the registration of the business of the above (see, e.g., Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office No. 4628, 6538, 201-20 of investigation records No. 201-162 of investigation records No. 22039 of 2009) and the defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have received the above amount for the business purpose of the bus, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

C. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or Article 1-1 of the Decision 2010 Gohap30-1 of the same Act, which is a single crime. A. No. 15 of the list of crimes 1 / 15 of the list of crimes, the offering of a bribe No. 3-15 of the list of crimes 1 / 15 of the list of crimes, and Article 1-A-2(2) of the Decision 2010Gohap39 of the same Act is found guilty, the sentence of innocence shall not be separately pronounced.

4. The offering of bribe on April 16, 2008 and April 16, 2008 by Defendant 12

A. Summary of the facts charged

[2010Gohap64]

On April 16, 2008, Defendant 11 requested Defendant 12 to give a bribe of KRW 10,000,000 on the grounds that Defendant 12 was well-managed by imposing an administrative fine of KRW 10,00,000 on the illegal increase of the vehicles operated by Defendant 12, and received a bribe of KRW 2,00,000 in connection with his duties by receiving Defendant 12 in cash from Defendant 12.

[2010Gohap78]

On April 16, 2008, Defendant 12 issued a cash amount of KRW 2,00,000 to Defendant 11 and offered a bribe in relation to Defendant 11’s duties on the grounds that Defendant 12 had been well handled by imposing an administrative fine of KRW 10,00,000 in connection with the illegal increase of vehicles by Nonindicted Company 24 operated by Defendant 12 at the front of the public service center of Eunpyeong-gu Office of Civil Service.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

Although Defendant 11 borrowed the above money from Defendant 12, Defendant 12 did not accept the above money as a bribe since he again remitted it to Defendant 12’s account next day.

C. Determination

According to the statement of Defendant 12, each of the statements of Defendant 11 and 12, the statement of passbook transaction submitted by Defendant 11 by his defense counsel, and each of the written confirmation of hospitalization, Defendant 11 can recognize the fact that Defendant 11 borrowed the above money from Defendant 12 on April 15, 2008 to Defendant 12 and immediately repaid the money. Thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant 11 borrowed the above money from Defendant 12 as a bribe and it is difficult to view that Defendant 11 received the above money as a bribe, and there is no other evidence to prove that Defendant 11 received the above money as a bribe.

D. Conclusion

Thus, each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, thereby not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

5. The offering of a bribe around October 2007, around October 2007, by Defendant 11-2, after the acceptance of the bribe, and around October 2, 2007

A. Summary of the facts charged

[2010Gohap64]

Defendant 11, as indicated in Article 5-A (2) of the judgment with Defendant 10, received the request from Defendant 12 and 13 to deliver a new freight trucking services at the above construction disaster management office and office around October 2007, and from the director of Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 13, Defendant 11 requested Defendant 12 and 13 to deliver a new freight trucking services. After that, Defendant 11 received KRW 1,700,000 from Defendant 12. Defendant 11 instructed Defendant 10 to grant a new freight trucking services of Nonindicted Co. 14 to Defendant 10, and Defendant 10 ordered Defendant 10 to grant a new trucking services of Nonindicted Co. 14. Accordingly, Defendant 10 received a bribe in connection with public official duties and received a bribe in connection with public official duties and received a bribe.

[2010Gohap78]

Defendant 12 and 13 conspired to the above construction disaster management and office around October 2007 upon Defendant 11 and 10 to the effect that they are well considered about the new permission for the trucking transport business of Nonindicted Co. 14. In response, Defendant 12 delivered KRW 1,700,000 to Defendant 11 for each of the duties of Defendant 11 and 10.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant 11 did not receive the above money, nor did he do so in October 2007.

C. Determination

Defendant 12 and 13, who do not clearly dispute the facts charged, together with the following: (a) the statement of Defendant 10, 11, and 12; (b) the results of the check from Nonindicted 51 account in the preparation of the prosecution clerk; (c) the attachment of the statement of deposit and withdrawal to the account in the name of Nonindicted 51 and 12; (d) the statement of deposit transaction submitted by Defendant 11 by his defense counsel; and (e) the statement of passbook transaction, each construction site; and (e) the family register, etc., Defendant 11 concluded the construction of the above stable on April 2007 and completed the construction work on May 11, 207; and (e) it is difficult to find the specific amount from the date of the above establishment of the warehouse attached to the prosecution clerk on April 2008; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge Defendant 1’s deposit and withdrawal on October 26, 2007.

D. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or as long as it is found guilty of the crime of offering of a bribe under Article 5-A(2) of the Decision 2010Gohap64, which is a single crime, each of the following facts charged shall not be sentenced separately in the disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Gangwon-hee (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-hee