2017Gohap1173, 1247(combined), 2018Gohap43(Consolidated)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery A);

The name of a crime recognized for the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

【Violation of the Rate (Loss of National Treasury, etc.)】

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss to National Treasury);

Non-Preliminary Crime Name: Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes

【Violation (Embezzlement)】

C. Acceptance of bribe

(d) Violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly;

1.(a)(d) B

2.(a)(c)(d) C

3. A.

The jury decoration (prosecutions, public trial), Kim-Ik, Kim Sim, and final leather (public trial)

1. Defendant B: Han Law Firm's sight;

2. Defendant C: Attorney Kim Jong-ho

Law Firm Seogwon (Attorney Kim Jae-soo in charge, Lee Jae-young)

3. Defendant A: Law Firm Jung-ro (Attorney Su-jin in charge);

July 12, 2018

[Defendant B] Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Of the facts charged against the accused, the charge of aiding and abetting the Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) is not guilty. [Defendant C] shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and a fine of twenty seven million won. Where the accused fails to pay the above fine, the accused shall be confined in the workhouse for the period of one million won converted from

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Of the facts charged against the accused, the charge of aiding and abetting the Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery A) shall be acquitted.

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

1) 【Status of Defendants and Related Persons】

Defendant B served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from D to E, and Defendant C served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from D to G, and the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from I to E, and Defendant A served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from K to E.

Since around 1998, the Defendants assisted the N president for a long time since the election of the former president, and the former president was appointed as a secretary for the Blue House after the election of the former president, which is called ‘AH', and have been used to assist in various exercise of authority, such as personnel affairs, budget, policies, etc. of the President, and to exercise their influence.

N (hereinafter referred to as the "former President") has served as the President of the Republic of Korea R from P to Q, and has legal and factual authority over the whole country, such as the personnel affairs, budget, organization, etc. of the NIS, such as the head of the State, the head of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Staff") and the Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service, the Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Staff") and the Deputy Director of the Planning and Coordination Office, and the Director of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Staff") and the Director of the National Intelligence Service, upon receiving a report on the pending issues of the National Intelligence Service.

S From the point of view to the point of view, from the point of view to the point of view to the point of view, U is a person in charge of personnel affairs, budget management, organization management, and implementation of policies, information and security, etc. under the direction and supervision of the President who is the appointing authority while holding office from the point of view to the point of view of from the point of view of the Republic of Korea. According to the National Finance Act, the National Accounting Act, the National Accounting Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the independence and confidentiality are particularly guaranteed unlike other State agencies. In particular, the president of the State shall submit a mid-term project plan, budget request, budget allocation request, and settlement report to the Minister of Strategy and Finance, and shall directly perform the audit and inspection of the budget under his/her jurisdiction and the performance of the duties of the staff. In addition, according to the FW, the internal regulations of the State Council, the head of each department shall submit the annual project plan, budget bill, annual budget settlement report, agency operation expenses report, etc., and shall be reported to the president of the State Council, who is under his/her direct control and inspection.

AA worked for AB through AC as the NIS (hereinafter referred to as the "AD"), assisting the president in the affairs of the NIS, and dealt with the affairs delegated to him/her, such as personnel, budget, organization management, etc. In particular, among the affairs of the NIS, he/she was in charge of the execution and management of the special activities activities, etc. of the NIS as the BV in the accounts of the NIS.” “In the accounts of the NIS,” Defendant B, and Defendant B, and N1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Activities”) require the president to grant some of the special activities, etc. of the Director of the NIS (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Project Expenses”) to the President in order to enable him/her to comply with the above President’s request, and the Director of the NIS allocated the special project expenses of KRW 4 billion per year that may not be proven among the budget of the NIS to A by the specialization of the NIS.

From the project cost, AA instructed the NIS to provide money equivalent to KRW 50 million to KRW 50 million or KRW 200 million each month. Upon receipt of the order from the president of the NIS, AA prepared and approved a plan for expenditure, which is an internal document of the NIS, to withdraw the special project cost, and then required to withdraw the special project cost managed by AE, etc., in cash. On August 2013, 2013, the president of the NIS knew that he/she continued to use the portion of the special project cost for the purpose unrelated to the duties of the NIS, such as providing it to the Cheongbu, etc., and even after he/she became aware that he/she continued to know the source of the fund is used for the purpose irrelevant to the duties of the NIS, he/she prepared to deliver money every month by inserting it in the form of paper bags or paper bags prepared by the NIS, etc., or paper bags.

A. Defendant B’s crime at the time of employment

around May 2013, Defendant B received instructions from the N pre-former President “The State Council,” and “the State Council,” and “the State Council,” as the State Council.

On the other hand, around May 2013, Defendant C had talked about S in connection with the N pre-former budget for support of Cheongdae-dae at the same time, and there was no talk thereafter. C’s instructions were given to S, and around that time, Defendant C sent to S the request of N pre-former president to the effect that “I would like to receive a balance between the president and the speech in relation to the support of the president and the president’s budget at the same time with the presidential thickness,” while “I would like to receive a balance between the president and the speech from S in relation to the support of the Cheongdae-dae-dae budget at the same time with the president’s thickness.”

Accordingly, S listen to the above remarks from Defendant C, “A was known,” and asked the NIS to send KRW 50 million each month from the NIS as it is, and at the office of the president of the NIS located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a contact has been made with AF to the effect that “AF will forward money from the Cheongbu”. Of the special project cost, S instructed the NIS to the effect that “A would create KRW 50 million in cash and deliver money to the Cheongbu” through AG, and ordered the NIS to “Special project cost by sending money to AF.”

AF kept the special project cost equivalent to KRW 200,000 from AE in cash, and around May 2013, 2013, after having kept AG’s bags containing KRW 50,000,000 from the special project cost in custody of AG, and requested “to deliver documents to B’s secretary,” and Defendant B contacted Defendant B and consulted on the date and time of promise in advance.3) Defendant B sent the first plastic bag received around May 2013 to N, but the President again stored the bags in the F Secretary’s depository without opening the plastic bag, and then, Defendant B continued to have received from NF’s secretary 200,00,000,000 from NF’s office and 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and 50,00,000,00,000,00 won and 50,00,00,00.

U was replaced by the president of the NIS on July 18, 2014, and the office of the president of the NIS located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, received a business report from AA that “A sent KRW 50 million per month from the time it was transferred to Cheongdae-dae,” and instructed AA to the effect that “A shall deliver twice increased amount of 4 billion capital to the president, and deliver cash of KRW 100 million per month from the special project cost of KRW 4 billion per year to the President.”

On the other hand, around July 2014, Defendant C requested from AA to deliver money brought to the audience from the National Assembly to F Secretary B. Defendant B stated that “I will deliver money that he would go to the F.I. to the F.B.” Defendant B agreed that “I will receive and deliver the money that he would go to the F.I. to the F.B.” Defendant B received from the F.I.D.’s office, and Defendant B agreed that “I will be able to deliver the money that he would go to the F.I. to the F.C.’s office.” Defendant C set the place for delivery in advance with the F.A. around July 2014, and moved to the a nearby alley way to the B.C., Defendant C’s vehicle carrying A. to the B’s office, and received KRW 50 million from the F.A. to the F. 250,000,000,000 from the F.A. to the F.250,000 won.

C. The Defendants’ X-at-law co-principal conduct

Around March 18, 2015, X was replaced by the president of the NIS and received a business report from AA to the office of the president of the NIS located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “A sent KRW 100 million per month from among the special project costs from the relocation of the president,” and ordered AA to the effect that NB would deliver the cash of KRW 100 million per month to the President from among the special project costs of KRW 4 billion per year to the President. In addition, X was instructed by the President that “I would not have any funds provided by the NIS.” The liquor tax on continuous support is the main issue.

Defendant C received documents in which KRW 100,000 cash 10,000 won was 100,000,000 won from A, by means of the same method as 3.3 and around 1-B, 2015, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 1] from March 2015 to July 2016, Defendant C received KRW 1,90,000,000,00 won per month from A through A, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 1] from March 2015 to July 2016.

As a result, the former president: (a) from May 2013 to April 2014, U.S., and U.S.A. from July 2014 to February 2015, the former president: (b) knowingly, while being aware of the fact that the former president would incur loss to the National Treasury by public offering in sequential order from March 2015 to July 2016, the former president incurred 3.3 billion won by arbitrarily withdrawing the funds of the NIS, regardless of “information and the instant investigation that require confidentiality,” regardless of the fact that the former president would have obtained an order of the former president from July 2015 to provide assistance to the National Treasury; and (c) even from July 7, 2013 to July 2016, Defendant B, while being aware of the fact that the former president would have received an order of the former president to temporarily transfer the funds to KRW 3.2 billion from July 2013 to July 20, 2016, Defendant B consulted the former president’s 3.

2. Acceptance of bribe from Defendant C’s NIS A

On May 19, 2013, the Defendant received cash of KRW 2 million from AJ hotel in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, in relation to the Defendant’s duties to assist the President in exercising various powers, such as the performance of duties of the NIS and the handling of various pending issues. From around that time to February 1, 2015, the Defendant received cash of KRW 13,500,000 in total eight times, as shown in attached Table 2, from around that time to February 1, 2015.

As a secretary of the NIS, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 13.5 million in cash from AA in relation to his/her official duties as a secretary of the NIS. The Defendant violated the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly on 2017 Man-Ma1247, Defendant B, and C3.

A. Defendant B

The defendant is a person who has served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat of the Cheongdae-gu Office.

around November 29, 2016, the Defendant served a summons under the name of the chairperson of the instant special chairperson to attend the meeting room No. 245 of the National Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul as a witness at around 10:00 to examine the Defendant’s residence in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the “Special Committee on the Investigation of State Affairs” (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Committee”) and the leakage of documents from the government ministries and government ministries at around 10:00, and the Defendant did not appear without justifiable grounds despite being served a summons to attend as a witness at the above meeting at around 10:00 at the above place on December 15, 2016.

B. Defendant C

The defendant is a person who has served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat of the Cheongdae-gu Office.

On November 29, 2016, the Defendant was served with a summons issued under the name of the Chairperson of the instant Special Committee to attend the meeting room No. 245 of the National Assembly at around 10:00 to examine the Defendant’s residence in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Committee and on the “scription, etc. of documents from the government ministries and agencies, etc.,” and on December 15, 2016, the Defendant did not appear without justifiable grounds despite being served with a summons to attend the above meeting as a witness at around 10:00 at the above place.

“2018Gohap43, Defendant C, A”

4. Special cases as stated in the criminal facts of Article 1-a of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) committed by Defendant C while in office as Defendant C, from May 2013 to April 2014

In order to assist the National Treasury in loss of the project cost of KRW 600 million, the N president sent the request for special payment of the N president to S, with the knowledge that the request for special payment of the project cost was received by the N president at the order of the former president in order to assist the National Treasury, and assist the N president in committing the crime by making it easy to receive special payment of the project cost in cash after consultation with S in advance after receiving the time of receipt.

5. From September 2016, Defendant A was aware that, around 2013, Defendant A received the phrase “the President is receiving KRW 50 million every month from Defendant C” from Defendant C at around 2013, and even around 2014, Defendant C sent KRW 50 million every month from Defendant C to the existing fixed number of the State. The amount was increased to KRW 100 million. This money was delivered to the President through B’s secretary, so the President was aware that he received monthly money from the NIS.

On the other hand, Defendant C received orders from N pre-former president to suspend the number of KRW 100 million received each month from N, and Defendant C suspended the delivery of KRW 100 million paid each month from N to N under X’s direction after reporting to X. In addition, Defendant C suspended the delivery of KRW 100 million paid each month from N to the NIS’s order.

At around September 2016, Defendant C asked A to the effect that “I would like to be harmful to the President at the national quota, and would be hump to what things,” Defendant C requested A A to the effect that “I would stop the money provided by the national quota and would be likely to be hump, and the President would be hump and would be hump to provide money for the use of the name, and AA sent Defendant C’s request to X.

A through A, X, which received Defendant C’s horses, ordered AA to provide support of KRW 200 million from the special project cost of the NIS to the President. A around September 2016, A had A0 million from the special project cost of the president of the NIS take out KRW 200 million from the special project cost of the NIS and contacted Defendant C for the purpose of delivering KRW 200 million to him.

피고인 C은 AA에게 "2억 원은 대통령에게 직접 올려드리는 돈이니, 전달방법은 A비서관과 상의 하라"고 말하고, 그 무렵 피고인 A에게도 "AA과 연락해서 A 비서관이 이번에 한 번 돈을 받아 대통령께 올려드려 달라"고 말하였다. X의 지시를 받은 AA는 2016. 9.경 AO으로부터 위 현금 2억 원을 건네받아 국정원에서 준비한 서류가방에 담고, 피고인 A에게 미리 연락하여 만날 시간과 장소를 정한 다음 2016. 9. 중순경 청와대 연무관 인근 골목길에서 피고인 A과 만나 "추석 때 쓰실데도 많은데 잘 올려 달라"고 하며 현금 2억 원이 든 서류가방을 건넸고, 피고인 A은 청와대로 복귀한 다음 대통령 관저에 바로 올라가 N 전 대통령에게 "국정원에서 추석 때 쓰시라고 좀 보내왔습니다"라고 말하면서 위 서류가방을 직접 전달하였다. 이로써 X, 국정원 AA는 순차 공모하여 국고에 손실을 입힐 것을 알면서 그 직무에

Defendant C arbitrarily released funds of KRW 200,000,000, regardless of the information required to maintain secrecy and the investigation of the case, etc., which were planned and kept as special project costs. Defendant C, knowing that the former president would use funds of KRW 200,00,00, regardless of the purpose of the special project cost set by the president of the NIS in order to assist the loss of the National Treasury by the National Treasury; Defendant A proposed to pay the funds of KRW 200,00,00,000 to the former president; Defendant A had Defendant A receive the special project cost and request the NN to deliver the funds to the former president; and Defendant A aided and aided Defendant A to use the funds of KRW 20,00,000 in order to assist the loss of the National Treasury by using the funds of KRW 10,000,000,000,000, regardless of the purpose set by the special project cost set by the president of the National Treasury; and aided and aided the crime by receiving the special project cost in cash and

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, C and A;

1. Legal statement of witness S;

1. Each relevant protocol of trial against a witness AF, AG, and A;

1. Trial records on Defendant AP in Seoul High Court 2017No1967;

1. Each protocol of the trial on the witness AG, AF, AA, S, U, and X in the case, including Seoul Central District Court 2017 Gohap1233;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendants B, C, and A by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on AA, S, U, and X;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement with respect to AF, AG, Q, AR, AP, AS,T, AU, and C;

1. - A copy of the photograph of the place of receipt of KRW 200 million;

1. Investigative Report (AA and C in exchange for money and valuables), - Two copies of the CE photograph, - Two copies of the CE photograph at the entrance of the Board of Audit and Inspection, two copies of the CE photograph, one hundred million won photograph, twelve photographs of KRW 12,00,000, KRW 5000,000, KRW 12,000,000, KRW 12,000,000, KRW 12,000,000, KRW 12,000,000, KRW 12,000,000,000,000,000,000

1. Application of the NISW Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

A. Defendant B: ① as there is no status as provided in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc., and Articles 355(1), 32(1) [Generally, aiding and abetting National Treasury Loss, and Defendant is limited to a person who assists in National Treasury Loss, and is in charge of part of the accounting affairs as an assistant of a person as provided in subparagraph 1 or 2) of Article 2 subparag. 1, 2, or 4 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., under the proviso to Article 33 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 35(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act], ② as there is no status as provided in the former National Assembly Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. (amended by Act No. 14757, Mar. 21, 2017)

(2) Defendant C: ① Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., Articles 35(1) and 32(1) (generally, Article 1-2(1) (b) and (c) of the Criminal Act, and Article 32(4) of the same Act; the Defendant does not have the status as provided for in the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., as stated above ① Articles 33(1) and 50 of the Criminal Act; ② Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 355(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., Article 355(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 51 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.) of the Criminal Act).

[1] Whether the president of the NIS is a person responsible for accounting affairs under the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc.: ① The FW stipulates that the head of each department of the NIS shall prepare a business plan, draft budget, application for budget, report of settlement of accounts, report of accounts, etc., and submit them to AD; ② Articles 6 and 7 of the National Accounting Act provide that the head of the general central government agency shall have the officer responsible for accounting affairs to manage and supervise the accounting, settlement of accounts, etc.; ② Article 14 of the National Accounting Service Act provides that the head of the relevant central government agency shall be responsible for the direct audit of the budget under his/her jurisdiction; ③ The special project cost of the NIS is included in the budget statement, and is allocated KRW 4 billion per year. The specific project cost is not entirely stated in the detailed project plan or execution target; and ultimately, the head of the relevant agency exclusively entrusts the head of the relevant central government agency with the execution of the special project cost, specific project purpose, execution period, execution period, execution method, execution method, etc., and it is reasonable to ascertain the legality of the special budget.

1. Aid and mitigation;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act [the crime of aiding and abetting in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 1-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss of National Treasury, etc.) concerning Article 1-3 of the same Act;

(b) Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and Article 1-3 of the Judgment with the largest sentence;

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the reason for the two-dimensional sentence”), which is favorable for Defendant A

1. Additional collection:

Defendant C: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

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

Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

1. Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss to National Treasury, etc.)

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant received the funds from the NIS according to the direction of the President at the time, but did not have a situation that could decide whether to receive or receive the funds, and thus, there is no reason to dismiss the responsibility.

B. Determination

A public official’s superior in performing his/her duties does not have authority to order a subordinate to commit an unlawful act, such as a criminal act, etc., and a subordinate officer does not have a duty to obey a legitimate order of his/her superior, and in cases of an unlawful or unlawful order, which is obviously unlawful, this cannot be said to be an order to issue an official order, and thus, he/she does not have a duty to comply therewith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do636, Apr. 23,

Although the Defendant asserts that it is difficult to consider the illegality of the presidential instruction, even though the Defendant, as a secretary of the Presidential Secretariat, caused the crime of aiding and abetting loss to the National Treasury, etc. by the presidential instruction, it cannot be said that there was no possibility of expectation for the lawful act at the time. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected, but it is to be considered as the cause

2. As to Defendant C’s crime of aiding and abetting loss to the National Treasury

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant had been unaware of whether the N former president’s direction delivered to S was related to the funding of the NIS, and the Defendant’s statement that stated that the Defendant “NJ 50 million won” was not reliable, and that the money received through AA was either the budget of the NIS or the special account of the president of the NIS.

B. Determination

Defendant talked with S in connection with the N-President’s pre-former subsidy budget, and there is no other story thereafter. C’s secretary receives instructions from S on one occasion, and around May 2013, Defendant appears to be clearly aware that the direction made by N-former president to S is about the administration of the NIS budget and support of the NIS budget, in addition, Defendant’s defense counsel’s written opinion on June 8, 2018, and Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement on Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement about Defendant’s budget was paid to S, taking into account various statements about the developments leading up to Defendant’s payment of the NIS budget to the office. In addition, Defendant appears to be clearly aware that the direction made by N-former president to transfer to S was about the administration of the NIS budget and support of the NIS budget.

In addition, the NIS stated to the effect that it was 07 billion won when it was delivered to the Defendant at the time of delivery of KRW 100 million per month to A, and that the Defendant was able to know that the content of the case was money at the time of delivery (legal statement, 2017No. 1173, 1247(combined) and the evidence records of the case 2018No43(Consolidated) were combined with the evidence records of the case, and that it was difficult to view that the Defendant was 10 billion won in charge of the above-mentioned affairs and the Defendant was 10 billion won in charge, and that it was 70 billion won in charge of the above-mentioned affairs and the Defendant was able to know that it was 10 billion won in charge of public secrets, and that it was 10 billion won in charge of the information and communication of the case at the time of delivery of the Defendant’s budget, and that it was 2017No173,1247(Consolidated).

3. As to the crime of acceptance of bribe by Defendant C

A. Summary of the assertion

At the time, AA had been AD, and the defendant served as the secretary or secretary of the He Department, and the defendant's duties are not related to his duties at all.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) “Duties” referred to in the crime of bribery includes not only duties prescribed in the law, but also duties related thereto, customs or actual duties, acts of assisting or influencing decision-making authorities, acts of assisting or influencing decision-making authorities, and acts of performing duties other than duties in the past or to be in charge in the future, and duties of public officials, such as duties belonging to general duties and duties, are not actually performed according to the division of duties in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003; 2004Do1442, May 28, 2004).

2) Whether a public official’s benefit constitutes a bribe as an unfair benefit with a quid pro quo relation, must be determined by considering all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s official’s duty, the relationship between the provider and the beneficiary, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of profit and the process and timing of receiving the benefit. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is the process of performing his duties and the trust in society and the misappropriation of the act of performing his duties, the issue of whether a public official’s benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties due to receiving the benefit is also the standard for determining whether a public official’s benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5438, Sept. 18, 2001; 2005Do4204, Apr. 27, 2007).

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's duty relationship and 13.5 million won received from AA is recognized, and that the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

1) Details of the Defendant’s duties as secretary of the Office of the President

A) As to the duties of the Secretary General of the Presidential Secretariat, the Defendant: (a) was in charge of the duties of the Secretary General; (b) was in charge of the duties of the former President; (c) was women in the case of the former President; and (d) was in charge of the duties related to the President; (c) was in charge of the duties of the former President; and (d) was officially in charge of the duties of the latter President, such as conducting on-site visits, processing of civil petitions, and management of official duties; and (d) was in charge of the official duties such as reporting related to the ministry, etc. (Evidence Records 1763, 1764; 1764); (c) was in charge of the duties of the latter secretary; (d) was in charge of the duties of the latter secretary; (d) according to the internal duties of the latter secretary; (e) was in charge of the duties of the latter secretary; and (e) was in charge of the duties of the latter secretary; (e) was in charge of the duties of the latter director and the general administrative secretary within the scope of expertise.

B) Meanwhile, while the Defendant was in charge of planning and coordinating the presidential tasks and major policy issues, the planning and coordination of the public relations strategies of the ministries and agencies, the management of the public relations functions of the ministries and response to the issues of the official gazettes, the planning, management, and support of the media of national public relations, the operation and evaluation of various consultative groups related to national public relations activities, the Defendant was in charge of the management of the constituency for the National Assembly members and the handling of civil petitions from around 1998, the Defendant was in charge of the presidential affairs and the handling of the affairs of the National Assembly members while the former president was in charge of the management of the local constituency and the handling of civil affairs. After the presidential election, he was in charge of the presidential affairs and the former president was in charge of the former president as the administrative expert of the presidential affairs of the National Assembly, and the former president was in charge of the former president as the H secretary of the presidential affairs and was not directly subject to face-to-face reporting from the head of the government department. In light of the fact that it indirectly confirmed the presidential affairs of the former president through Mvi.

2) As to the circumstances of AA’s government office appointment, including the details, timing, and amount of money and valuables, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “IX secretary AY recommended a person suitable for AD, and IY recommended AD. I also received a recommendation from AY from the personnel management office to the effect that “I would be subject to the recommendation once. I also received the recommendation from AY. I would have known that I would have become aware of the Defendant through the introduction of AX secretary around May 2013 after I had taken office as AD,” while I introduced the Defendant. In light of the purport that “IY knew that I would have known that I would have known that I would have been appointed as a government office since I would have been involved in the appointment of the Defendant at the time of introduction.” I would have been aware that I would have been aware that I would have received the first appointment of the government office, and that I would have been aware that I would have been aware of the fact that I would have received the appointment of the Defendant only after I was introduced to AD.

In addition, AA was appointed to AD on April 2013 and the first introduction of the Defendant was made on May 19, 2013, which was about the first month after the appointment of AD, and the first introduction of the Defendant was made on May 19, 2013, which was not even until one month thereafter, as stated in paragraph 2 of the criminal facts in the judgment on the Defendant. The amount of the granted money was 6 times in eight times, which was 2 million won and 2 million won when considering that A and the Defendant were all public officials, the receipt of the said money was higher in terms of mutual friendship between the parties in mutual friendship. Considering the status of the Defendant and the AA, the receipt of the said money goes beyond the level of private intercourse, and thus, it seems sufficient to doubt the fairness of the Defendant’s execution of duties. On the other hand, if the Defendant was not the presidential secretary, it seems that there is sufficient reason for AA to give him answers to the Defendant or the Defendant and to give him money to questions (Article 67).

3) After the provision of money and valuables, AA, such as the circumstances in which AA received assistance from the defendant, stated to the effect that "the fixed number of the State Council members BA considers that it is negative for the defendant, and there is a good talk within the State Council members to request that the defendant make a 'BA'. "At around October 2014, there is a problem of exceeding the retirement age of the State Council members of the State Council," and that there was a problem of exceeding the retirement age of the defendant's State Council members of the State Council, and that there was an example of sending the documents by facsimile to the defendant, and that there was a request to deliver the documents by facsimile to the defendant." Ultimately, I expressed to the effect that "the President returned the letter of apology submitted by the President." The investigative agency also maintained friendly relations with the defendant to give money to the defendant, and it seems that the smooth cooperation in business was for the defendant to have an interest in the affairs of the State Council members, and that it is a statement to the effect that BA's statement to the effect that it is against the defendant's official authority.

In particular, on October 9, 2014, when AA submitted to the President as a matter of excess of the age limit for AD, AA made a statement to the effect that "A was returned a letter of apology from U before 'I', but the defendant also made a statement to the effect that "A was returned a letter of apology." As such, the statement to the effect that "I notified 'I will make a letter of apology at the same time with the statement that I would like to offer a meal (Evidence No. 7479 of the evidence record) together with the statement to the effect that I would like to provide money with the expression that I would help the defendant in relation to the issue of excess of his retirement age."

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

A. Defendant B: Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months from 6 months to 62 years, and Defendant C: Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months from 22 months to 6 months, and fine of 27 million to 67 million won. Defendant A shall be imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months.

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant B and A do not set the sentencing criteria.

B. Defendant C

1) The sentencing guidelines are not set for aiding and abetting losses by the National Treasury, etc. and for violating the National Assembly Testimony Act.

2) The crime of acceptance of bribe

[Determination of Punishment] There is no type 2 (not less than 10 million won, less than 30 million won) of bribery.

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, One year to three years of imprisonment

3. Final recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year and six months (the lowest limit of applicable sentences under the law is higher than the lowest limit of applicable sentencing guidelines set for the sentencing guidelines, and the sentencing guidelines shall be set at the minimum limit of applicable sentences under the law, and shall be set at only the lowest limit, in the case of concurrent crimes with the National Treasury, etc., for which no sentencing guidelines are set, and

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months;

B. Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and fine of twenty-seven million won. Defendant A shall take into account the following circumstances as a whole: 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and the suspension of execution for a period of two years; the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, growth process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the scope of recommended sentences as indicated in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the following factors.

○ Conditions as to Defendant B

The Defendant, as a secretary in charge of the internal personnel affairs, financial management, and enforcement of the Office of the President of the Office of the President, was able to have been provided with the budget of the NIS to be used for the purpose of national security, such as collecting information and investigation, and was able to have it used regardless of the purpose of this year. However, the president of the NIS played an important role in directly receiving, managing, and executing the special project expenses paid to the President. Around June 2013, the amount of the special project expenses was continuously disbursed for personal purposes, such as the management of the NN president’s company house. Even after he became aware of the fact that cash was contained in the NNV bag, the Defendant offered a way to send BG access to the Cheongdaedaedae Park-dae-man without the access control procedure through the Cheongdaedaedae-dae-dae Flusical Information Office, and continued to have raised funds for the National Assembly. The amount of damage incurred by the Defendant to the National Treasury, etc. was 320 million won, and the amount of damage incurred to the National Assembly was not recovered from the former president’s.

On the other hand, even if the defendant knew that the direction of the President was illegal as a secretary who assists the President in the position of the defendant, it would not have been easy to refuse it. It appears that there was no fact that the former president's direct delivery of the direction of funding to the NIS to the NIS, and most of the facts of the crime of this case are recognized, and the fact of the crime of this case shows an attitude against the failure to fulfill his responsibilities as a secretary belonging to the Presidential Secretariat. There was no history of criminal punishment.

○ Conditions as to Defendant C

Defendant also served as secretary of the Presidential Secretariat and as assistant to the former president for a long time. Although it was well known that the budget of the NIS to be used in collecting information for national security should not be used regardless of the purpose of this year, the Defendant sent N former president’s order to provide funds as it is. From July 2014, 201 to July 2016, the U is in exclusive charge of receiving and delivering funds directly from the NIS for a long time, and the crime of KRW 200,000,000, which was the final crime, was led by the Defendant and the NIS around September 2016. Unlike the crime committed at the NN president’s request, the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that the Defendant did not participate in the crime before that time, and, unlike the Defendant, the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that the amount of funds incurred to the former president by providing funds to the former president to return the funds to the former president, and that the Defendant did not have been able to be considered to have been able to receive considerable damages from the Defendant’s total government loss.

Although a considerable amount of money has been received as a bribe for a considerable period of time and the circumstances leading to request related to the AA’s duties have been revealed, it does not seem that a mistake, such as asserting that the money received regardless of his/her duties, is a bribe, is not true. Such circumstances are disadvantageous circumstances.

On the other hand, even if the Defendant, who has been assisting the NN president for a long time, was illegal, it would not have been easy to refuse such instruction. The alternative facts of the instant crime are recognized. The management and enforcement of the special project cost were not directly involved. The Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment.

○ Circumstances against Defendant A

The Defendant, who has assisted the president of N prior to a long period of time as a secretary or secretary of the Office of the President, was aware of the fact that the budget of the NIS to be used in collecting information for national security, etc. was not used regardless of the purpose of this year, and received a considerable amount of KRW 200 million from AA to the former president without raising any particular issue. There are extenuating circumstances where the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not completely recovered, and the Defendant did not take any measures to recover damage. Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the former president.

On the other hand, unlike B and C, the Defendant only delivered the funds of the NIS to the President at the request of C at the request of C, and the degree of participation in the delivery of the funds of the NIS is relatively weak because it did not consult with or participate in the execution of the said funds. In most cases, recognizing the most of the crimes, an attitude against the fact that the Defendant was unable to perform his/her responsibility as a presidential secretary. There is no history of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by the Defendants

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Defendant B and C’s co-offenders (2017 Highest 1173, 2018 Highest 43)

The Defendants assisted the former president to accept the same amount of bribe from the president in relation to the official duties of public officials by receiving KRW 3.3 billion, from the president through AA, etc., the total amount of the special project cost of the NIS as stated in the attached Table 1, from May 2013 to July 2016, as indicated in the facts charged Nos. 1, 2013 to the National Assembly.

2) Defendant C and A’s joint criminal conduct (2018 Highly 43)

The Defendants, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 5, assisted the former president to accept a bribe in the same amount as X in relation to the official duties of public officials by receiving KRW 200 million from X through A, and delivering it to N all the president, as indicated in the judgment, by means of receiving KRW 200,000,000 from X around September 2016.

B. Determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier in the judgment of acceptance of bribe by Defendant C, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the former president received from the president of the State.

It is insufficient to view that the project cost was paid in consideration of the former president’s duties beyond the distribution of profits among the co-principals resulting from the crime of loss such as the National Treasury, etc. without reasonable doubt.

1) Relationship with the duties of the President and the Director of the NIS

The President shall appoint and dismiss public officials as accompanied by the Government under the conditions as prescribed by the Constitution and Act (Article 78 of the Constitution), and direct and supervise the heads of all central administrative agencies under the Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 11 of the Government Organization Act), and accordingly, shall exercise overall control over all administrative affairs, such as establishing and promoting important policies of the Government. The Government Organization Act, separate from each Ministry, stipulates that the NIS shall be under the control of the President in order to take charge of affairs concerning information security and criminal investigation related to national security (Article 17). The Office of National Security, along with the Office of National Security, provides that the Office of National Security, and the Office of National Security, separately from each Ministry, shall be under the control of the President, under the control of the President, (Article 2). The Office of National Intelligence shall be under the control of the President with the approval of the President, and the prescribed number of employees shall be determined by the President with the approval of the President (Article 5); the President, through a personnel hearing of the National Assembly, requires the President to appoint him/her on his/her recommendation; and it shall be determined as closely related to the State affairs and affairs.

2) The circumstances surrounding the payment of the special project cost by the Director of the NIS, and the recognition and will of the Director of the NIS

① Defendant C had talked with S in connection with the N.N.’s “N. N. president’s “N. N. president,” and there was no story thereafter. C’s instructions given to S on one occasion after the NSC conference was completed, Defendant C asked that S would have been divided into the president and the horse in connection with the presidential thickness, and the presidential budget support.” Defendant C asked that “I would like to see that I would have been able to get the president and the horse in connection with the presidential support,” and asked that “I would have been aware of the horses in the middle (Evidence No. 1104, 11045 page),” and that “I would have received 104, 11045 page in the written statement submitted in the case where the National Treasury, etc. was prosecuted for a loss of national treasury, etc., and that “I would have received 1,000 official instructions from one secretary of the office and three secretary of the N.N., who received from the National Assembly and the National Library report on the need to use of the budget.

② At this Court stated to the effect that “A part of the budget of the NIS is included in the special project cost of the Director General” was included in the budget of the NIS in the course of preparing the personnel hearing. On May 2013, 2013, S stated to the effect that “A secretary general of the NIS was paid KRW 50 million from the Secretary General of the NIS immediately after the NSC meeting was held by the Director General, and he stated to the effect that “A secretary general of the NIS’s budget was partly included in the budget of the Information Staff General of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the previous Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that “A secretary general of the NIS’s budget was paid KRW 50 million from the special project cost of the Director General by the intention to return it to the Secretary General.”

③ On July 21, 2014, U, upon receipt of a report from “A” to the effect that “A has been paying part of the special project cost to Cheongbu,” the U gave an order to continue to provide support (Evidence records No. 6530, 6531). On the other hand, U, from July 21, 2014 to KRW 100,000,000, the monthly special project cost was increased from KRW 50,000 to KRW 100,000,000, which is a representative of BC forces at the time, and the U appears to have voluntarily decided on the increase of BD, which is a representative of BC forces at the time.

④ After receiving a report from AD to the effect that X had been 100 million won each month from the former president, the former president gave an order to provide financial support (Evidence Records 4750, 4751, page 4751), the former U.S., working for BE, confirmed that X provided KRW 100 million each month to BE at the time of the president’s term of office (Evidence Records 4755, 4756, page 4756), and on May 2016, the former president directly received a demand from NN to the effect that the former president would continue to provide financial support (Evidence Records 7492, 7493 page 7493).

⑤ On the other hand, around August 2016, when the provision of the special project cost was suspended, and on September 2016, Defendant C stated that “A would have a concern about the subsidization of KRW 200 million, and then reported this to the president before N., and that “A would have sent the former president’s order to suspend the provision of the funds to N.A.” A, and X would have received a statement from N. to “A that the president would force the former president to money and delivered KRW 200 million to the president.” The direction had already been understood to be valid due to the suspension order in B. B., however, it did not seem that X voluntarily suspended the provision of the special project cost regardless of the intention of the former president, and that X’s decision to grant the subsidy would not be deemed to have been made again.

⑤ At the time including the NIS, the employees of the NIS stated to the effect that there were cases of providing funds to the NIS, even though they were irrelevant to the original purpose of the NIS from the time to the outside institution, such as the NIS, and that U and X were aware that there were cases of providing funds to the NIS while working in the past.

7) At S, the special project cost was delivered by the direction of the head of the policy severe alert or the chief of the secretary, but from U, the U had A deliver the special project cost directly to AA.

8) In light of these circumstances, the NIS is in a relationship of performing duties under the direct command and supervision of the President as a subordinate organization such as the Presidential Secretariat, and the special project cost for the president is not necessary to provide separate evidence for the purpose of use and use. In addition, the president of the NIS is likely to have received instructions or requests from the former president or to have received such instructions or requests, at least to have been recognized to the extent of customary financial support related to the administration of the Cheongdae-dae or the President.

(iii)the execution and delivery method of the special project cost, the timing and amount of payment;

① According to the statements of AG, U, and X, etc. that received orders from S to transfer special project costs, it appears that the NIS received orders from S to transfer special project costs in a sealed way to avoid the interest of people. However, there is insufficient evidence to deem that the president of the NIS gave instructions to, or received reports from, the specific method of delivery. Moreover, it seems that the fact that people involved in the delivery took such a method was derived from recognizing that it was inappropriate or problematic to support the NIS without following the process of budget diversion, etc. set forth in the NIS’s funds. However, it is insufficient to view that such circumstance alone received the delivery as a bribe.

② Even if the special project cost of the president of the NIS may be used without evidence, the president of the NIS regularly paid the amount of KRW 50 million or KRW 100 million once a month to the N-President, without paying it in a lump sum or adding a considerable amount of money, on a long-term basis. As such, if the special project cost is paid periodically over a long-term period, it would normally be an example in comparison with the case of a bribe ordinarily received in secret, in that it would have a high risk of being informed to the outside of the NIS, rather than paying a large amount of

4) The prosecutor asserts that there was business relationship or quid pro quo because the president expectations that he would be given various convenience in relation to the appointment and dismissal of the president and appointment of the president of the NIS, and the performance of duties as the president of the NIS and the pending issues of the NIS, such as future terms of office and personnel affairs, compilation of budget, etc. However, considering that the president directly directed and supervised as a direct organization under the direct control of the president is difficult to refuse the president’s instructions or requests, it is difficult to recognize business relationship with the funding, and the motive for the funding should be clearly revealed. However, it is difficult to view that the president of the NIS could not be deemed that there was any motive or reason to make a statement to the former president in return for the appointment and appointment of the president, and that there was no evidence or evidence that the president of the NIS actually received, or that there was a lack of evidence or evidence in relation to the pending issues of the NIS, which were actually demanded by the president of the NIS, or that some of the president of the NIS’s present issues were paid.

(v) Other circumstances.

① In light of the fact that the president, as a subordinate organization under the direct control of the President, has no choice but to perform duties in accordance with the direction of the President, and there is no evidence to deem that the president knew that the former president would use the special project cost delivered by the president for private purposes, or that there is no data to deem that the president would have pending issues requiring assistance or support or have received convenience from the President. As seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the fact that the president delivered the budget to the president of the NIS, solely based on the fact that the president delivered the budget to the president of the NIS, there is room for doubting the fairness of the president’

② Unlike the original purpose of the NIS’s special project cost, the president of the NIS committed a crime of loss to the National Treasury by granting the National Treasury, etc. to the president before the National Assembly. It may be assessed that the former president’s receipt of the budget for the special project cost from the NIS’s staff and the staff of the Presidential Secretariat through the NIS’s staff and the staff of the Presidential Secretariat is merely a result of reverting the embezzlement according to the method scheduled among the joint principal offenders who committed loss to the National Treasury, such as the National Treasury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do346, Feb. 25,

2. The point of Defendant B’s setting up the number of offenses Nos. 1 and 2 in the attached Table 1 from May 2013 to June 2013, as indicated in the list of offenses.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant B, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 1-A, around May 2013 and around June of the same year, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, shall consult in advance on the date and time to receive special operating expenses from the former president with the knowledge that S, former president, etc. received the special operating expenses from the former president under the direction of the former president in order to assist the National Treasury, and keep them in the F secretary Office by cash and keeping them in the F secretary Office under the direction of the former president.

The purpose of the crime was to facilitate the use, etc.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was in the envelope received through AG around May 2013 and around June 2013, and that the Defendant was in the money of the NIS thereafter.

① The Defendant received only orders from the NN, and did not hear about the contents of the envelope. The Defendant stated from AG to the effect that “G sent an envelope to the F Secretary’s Office, first of all, the contact was made with Blux mobile phones, and AG sent the envelope to the F Secretary’s Office (legal statement, evidence record, No. 1828, No. 1829),” and on the other hand, AG delivered the envelope to the Defendant for the first time around May 2013, sent the envelope to the Defendant, “S or AF sent the envelope to the Defendant,” referring to the hearing and contact point held by the Clux Office of the Cluxe of the NIS, but the Defendant did not call to the Defendant, but did not deliver the message to the Defendant for the NIS’s business purpose to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not make a statement to the Defendant to the extent that it was 5 that he did not first sent the envelope to the Defendant at the time of delivery of the envelope to the Defendant.”

② With respect to the form of an envelope delivered to the Defendant, AG sent the envelope to the Defendant, “The envelope was more than 1753 business.” From 2/3 to 2/3, the outer envelope was completely packed in the tape. There were two disputes compared to other friendships, but the outer envelope was sealed on the tape. However, the sealing of the outer envelope into the envelope was the same as other kind of plastic bags. The content contained in the envelope was first sent around May 2013, it was not considered that it was identical to the Defendant at the time of the first delivery of the envelope.” (Legal statement, evidence record No. 1753), ③ The President directly reported to the President on the confidential matters that need to be maintained in security, and reported to the President, North Korea’s political, economic situation, BF, North Korea’s trends, and major economic difficulties, etc., and reported to the President in writing, and reported to the President in relation to the 1st century’s plenary session’s present situation and results, 2013.

④ The Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant: (a) laid down the bags he was placed in a safe; (b) the Defendant sent the bags to the President; (c) the second envelope to the President; (d) the President was strictly managed at the time when he opened the bags; (c) the content was known to him; (d) AG sent a report of entry to the Blue House through an annual wind door, as when he sent other pro-Japanese bags to the Blue House; (d) the Defendant sent the bags to the BI neighboring parking lots; and (e) the Defendant sent the vehicle to the BI; and (e) the Defendant sent the vehicle to the Clue House to the Clue House to the effect that he was aware of the fact that the content was money (Evidence No. 1832); and (e) the Defendant sent the vehicle to the Clue House to the Clue House to the extent that he had 1 and 5G official statements to the Clue House to the extent that he had 17G official statements and 17G official statements.

⑤ In light of the above circumstances, it appears that AG had known that it had been in cash at the early stage in which it had been transferred to the Defendant with the NIS funds in the envelope by S. AG’s instruction, and the Defendant and the Defendant did not appear to have divided a special conversation on the content of the envelope in the first place at around May 2013, in the presence of delivering the envelope in the office of secretary general of the F secretary general. The Defendant also appears to have sent the Cheongdae vehicle and the vehicle to AG on the idea that it would be convenient and safe to use the Cheongdae vehicle, rather than by reporting the entry into the Cheongdaedaedaedaemunmunmunmunmun, with the fact that the content was known as cash when he received the first envelope from AG.

3. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the former president recruited to commit the crime under paragraph (4) of the crime, such as the National Treasury, etc. of KRW 200,000,00,00 for the special project cost of the National Treasury under X and AA around September 2016 only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① A had contact from AA before September 2016. The President received a report that “the money is required by the President,” and intended to deliver KRW 200 million to B B B B. The President made a statement to the effect that “I would like to deliver KRW 200 million to B.I. The President would like to make a statement to the effect that “I would like to make a statement to the effect that the money would be increased compared to the existing amount,” and that I would like to make a statement to the effect that “I will make a statement to the effect that I will not be able to make a statement to the effect that I would have been able to make a statement to the effect that I.I.D. I would like to make a statement to the effect that I.I.D. would make it difficult for B.I.D. to make a statement to the effect that I would have been able to make a statement to the effect that I.V. would have been able to make it difficult for B.I.D. to do so by making a statement to the effect that I would have been ever I.

② At around September 2016, A, who delivered KRW 200 million from A to N and delivered directly to N before the former president, made a bank with money of KRW 200 million, and made it out to N and the former president’s door, and then sent it out to the President by again moving to the waiting room used by the security guards to the president with a personal phone located in the waiting room and making a call to the President to the President in the waiting room and using it at the National Assembly. The foregoing is the first, the N and the former president stated that “I will know about what I will know?” In light of this, the former president did not have known in advance that the money was paid from the State Council at the time of receiving KRW 200 million.

③ As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, C had been ordered to suspend the number of KRW 100 million received each month from N president to N, and delivered it to A after reporting to X. As such, AA suspended the delivery of KRW 100 million, which was paid monthly from N president to X, to N in accordance with X’s order. As such, it appears that there was a public solicitation relationship between N president and X and AA with regard to the crime of loss by the National Treasury, such as the National Treasury, etc. among the existing N president and X and A. In addition, it appears that the existing relationship between B and B was severed.

Unlike the project cost delivered, around September 2016, 200 million won, A, who received money from AA, delivered money directly to the President's public interest.

④ The crime of this part of the National Treasury loss by the National Treasury, etc., committed by X, ordering A to prepare funds to be delivered to B to B and deliver it to B to B. Thus, even if the N had received the said funds directly through A, it cannot be said that the said funds were transferred to B after the receipt of the funds, as the joint principal offender of the loss of the National Treasury, etc., even though the N had received them directly through A.

4. Conclusion

A. Of the facts charged against Defendant B and C, the charge of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, not guilty under the latter part

B. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the aiding and abetting loss by the National Treasury, such as the No. 1 and No. 2 in the annexed Table 1 of the List of Crimes falls under the case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the aiding and abetting loss by the National Treasury, such as the annexed Table 1 in the annexed Table 1 of the List of Crimes

C. The offense of aiding and abetting loss by the National Treasury, etc., which is the primary charge of Defendant A, constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and thus, not guilty should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof of crime

D. As the above Defendants did not consent to the public announcement of the judgment of innocence, the summary of the judgment of innocence should not be disclosed in accordance with the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) The Defendants’ defense is not sufficient to prove the part of the facts charged of the instant case and the part of the specific facts charged.

To the extent that it does not disadvantage the exercise of power, part of the facts charged was revised.

2) AB NIS takes office in AB NIS and then took office in AD for one or two months, and, at the time of such taking place, “AF would bring an envelope to Blue House employees at the time of such taking place.”

AFN S’s instruction on August 2013, 2013, and as a result, the AFN S’s special project costs are paid to the Blux.

A stated that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she would bring about, and the special project cost is not paid by the S's instruction from May 2013 to August 2013.

evidence that the non-exploited special project costs in excess of those granted have been aware of the fact that the non-exploited special project costs are delivered to the Blue House

There is no finding.

3) In the facts charged, Defendant B entered the Cheongdae-Gyeong-Gyeong without having AG go through access control through the information room of the storm door from May 2013.

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the government sent a Cheongbu vehicle to have it enter the Cheongbuan, etc., and used a smuggling method, such as having AG enter the Cheongbuan.

However, as seen in the second part of the acquittal, when AG first delivers the special project cost to Defendant B, it is reported to B through a lush door.

Then, it seems that Defendant B entered the Cheong by using the vehicle sent by Defendant B later.

4) The Defendant C’s charge of aiding and abetting this part of the crime was added to and consolidated as 2018 Gohap43 (Article 4 of the crime in the market) and the Defendant B, unlike the Defendant B.

C all convictions on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) at around May 2013 and around June 2013

(c)

5) The prosecution was first prosecuted against Defendant A only on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and was the same as July 4, 2018.

In relation to the relation, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) was applied for amendment of indictment.

The Board permitted this on July 7, 2018.

6) Although the former president also becomes the accomplice of the National Treasury loss in this part of the facts charged, the former president's invitation is made only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to recognize that the detailed judgment was made. The grounds for the final judgment are as follows.

7) The crime of violation of Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is stipulated in the provisions of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc.

Since it is an aggravated provision for the simple embezzlement of a person above, there is a seriousness of the punishment due to the status relationship, such a new provision

If a person who does not have a decentralization aids and abets the person in violation of Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, such aiding and abetting.

As to a crime, a punishment for simple embezzlement should be imposed in accordance with the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act. Meanwhile, a specific Economic Crimes Act shall be aggravated punishment.

Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Simple Offense of embezzlement under Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act if the amount of profit resulting from such simple embezzlement is at least five hundred million won.

Aggravated punishment is stipulated that the amount of profit in this case is more than five hundred million won but less than five billion won, and thus the specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is aggravated.

Article 3(1)2 of the Punishment, etc. Act applies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2150, May 26, 201).

8) hereinafter referred to as "crime of aiding and abetting loss by national treasury, etc."

9) The Defendant served as the Secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from D to G, and as the Secretary of the Presidential Secretariat from H to E, and the number of bribes as indicated in the ruling eight times in total.

In addition to the last 2 million won on February 1, 2015, all of the numbers were served as the secretary of the Presidential Secretariat.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.