2018Gohap558 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

A

Red pets (prosecutions, public trials)

Law Firm Rate of Law

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm Driedul

Attorney Cho Nam-sik et al.

November 1, 2018

The accused shall notify publicly the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Facts charged;

From February 14, 2007 to July 24, 2008, the Defendant worked for the female juvenile community of the B police station, and was in charge of the duties of regulating and investigating the illegal sexual traffic entertainment bars, entertainment taverns, etc. in the Gu C, from February 25, 2010 to July 11, 201, the Defendant worked in D, and from March 201 to July 2, 201, the Defendant was in charge of the investigation into the instant case, such as violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as "F"), such as the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc.") against G, called "F," along with the E police station violent six teams.

The Defendant is working in the Women’s Juvenile System in B police station as above, and when the East Police Officers, who worked in the above Women’s Juvenile System for the same period as the Defendant, came to know that he received money and valuables periodically from ten business establishments, such as the prevention of control, provision of enforcement information, and control affairs, etc., and managed the above business establishments, he received some of the money and valuables collected by H from H under the pretext of regulating and regulating the above illegal business establishments managed by H.

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in cash from H under the pretext of preventing crackdowns on illegal establishments within the jurisdiction of B police station female juvenile department offices in B police station in I or taking measures such as reducing related investigation cases.

The Defendant, as above, received KRW 3 million from H from around July 2008 to around July 12, 2008, a total of KRW 36 million in cash under the same name as H, from around 12 times in the same place as indicated in the list of crimes. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in connection with his duties as a public official. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant and the defense counsel were in accord.

The Defendant did not receive a bribe from H. A around 2010, the Defendant investigated G as a member of the investigation team centered on J, and tried to be bound by G. G. G, a police officer who is related to him/her and knows his/her weak points, and made a false statement as if the Defendant received a bribe.

I. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged in the instant case is H, K, L, and G, each prosecutor’s protocol of statement, investigation report (the result of tracking the financial account of a suspect A and his relatives), investigation report, etc. Among them, the evidence directly proving the facts charged in the instant case can be proved by H’s prosecutor’s statement.

IV. Judgment on the credibility of H prosecutor's statement

1. H’s statement at the prosecutor’s office was given and received from February 2007 to July 2008 the sum of KRW 10 million from 10,000,000 per month from 200 to 36,000,000,000 from 10 illegal business places within the jurisdiction of B police station from February 2007 to 2008. He does not control or investigate the illegal business places subject to H’s management in preparation for a case where the Defendant crackdowns on or investigates, and even if crackdowns, H’s statement means that it is well-known, from August 2007 to July 2008, at the office located at B police station’s office, he gave the Defendant a total of KRW 36,00,000 per 12 times in cash.”

2. Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money, the Defendant denied the receipt of money and provided money when there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money.In order to acknowledge a guilty only by a person’s statement, the admissibility of evidence is required, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, it is necessary to also examine whether there is a relationship between the person’s own rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement, as well as his human being, and in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him, and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or if there is a possibility that his/her suspicion of the crime may be initiated or investigation may be conducted, and if there is no possibility that the admissibility of the statement would be denied, there is a possibility that he/she would have an effect on his/her efforts to escape from the imminent place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009; 2014Do41817).

3. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the defendant, H and G

1) From February 14, 2007 to July 24, 2008, the Defendant and H worked for the guard and slope in the female juvenile community in B police station, respectively. The Defendant and H engaged in the duties concerning the crackdown on illegal sexual traffic entertainment bars, etc. and the investigation.

2) G operated 'O' in M around December 199, and operated 'O' and entertainment establishments in C from around 2005. Since around 2005, G operated 12 entertainment establishments, including 'O' and 'P' in C around 2010.

B. The relationship between the Defendant and G

1) On January 11, 2010, Q (hereinafter “ Q”) prohibited a call, interview, ceremony, money transaction, etc. between the police and employees of a sexual traffic business establishment in order to promote a flexible relationship between the police and employees of a sexual traffic business establishment, and issued instructions to make voluntary reports by not later than February 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant instructions”).

2) Around February 2010, it was confirmed that a runaway juvenile who was reported missing had worked in an entertainment drinking house operated by G. Q constituted an investigation team centered on the J of the Director of the D Criminal Department and ordered the investigation into G. At the time, the Defendant, who was affiliated with the D criminal and violent violence two teams, was involved in the said investigation.

3) On March 2, 2010, G was arrested on June 24, 2010 while an emergency arrest was released and was under non-detained investigation. On July 20, 2010, G was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.). On November 28, 2011, Seoul Central District Court sentenced G to three years and six months of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 3 million,000,000 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gohap1056), and both the prosecutor and the Defendant appealed on July 17, 2012. The Seoul High Court sentenced G to three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended sentence, five million won of fine, five million won of fine, community service, and three million won of working hours (the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Do1375, May 27, 2015).

4) On the other hand, around May 2010, G had been under undetained investigation, and around 200 million won for S entertainment tavern (T entertainment tavern after alteration) in the hotel underground. G sent to the Defendant the relation between WW and the Defendant, who had been an operator of the S entertainment tavern before it, was infinite between W and the Defendant, and U organization V had threatened himself with KRW 250,000,000,000 as he threatened him who was under undetained investigation of W and the Defendant’s friendship. It considered that G was the Defendant in the hinterland of this case. Accordingly, G sent the relation between W, which was under detention, to “W” on December 19, 201 and December 29, 2011, so that it can receive a refund of KRW 250,000,000.”

H has maintained a close relationship with G before serving in the Women’s Juvenile System of the B police station. H was subject to disciplinary action on the ground that it violated the instant order and exchanged with G.

(d) Circumstances at the time H’s statement was made;

1) In the course of investigation into G, 63 police officers who violated the instant order were discovered, and 39 of them were subject to disciplinary action.

2) Based on G’s statement and relevant evidence, the prosecution commenced an investigation into the acceptance of bribe by police officers based on G’s statement, and was detained and convicted on the charge that many police officers received a bribe from G.

3) On June 11, 2012, June 15, 2012, June 15, 2012, June 19, 2012, June 19, 2012, and August 2, 2012, H was investigated by the prosecutor’s office of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office X-E of Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office on four occasions, and G was summoned as the same inspector on May 19, 2012.

In light of the following circumstances, H’s statement that offered a bribe to the Defendant cannot be deemed as having credibility to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

A. The non-official nature H of the statement did not give a bribe to the Defendant in this court. The statement at the prosecution was a false statement to the effect that “the statement was made with the intention of leaving it out.” The statement at the prosecution reversed the entire prosecutor’s statement by making a statement to the effect that it was a false statement.

(b) Possibility of return to the He's old site and G;

1) Comprehensively taking account of the fact that H was subject to disciplinary action in violation of the instant instruction, and that many police officers were detained or subject to disciplinary action by G’s statement at the time, H, maintaining a close relationship with G, which appears to have been in an unstable position that could be subject to investigation according to the contents of G’s statement.

2) Meanwhile, G was bound by the investigation team of the investigation team to which the Defendant belongs, and 250 million won was believed to have been a defendant in the hinterland of the U.S. organization. Moreover, as identified in the prosecutorial summons schedule, G and H were in the same prosecutorial office in light of the fact that the three days overlap between G and H’s summons date when G and H were investigated by the prosecutorial office, G were in the same prosecutorial office. As such, G were in an unstable position in which disciplinary action and criminal punishment may arise, and H were in an unstable position, leading the Defendant to make a statement of the fact of offering a bribe to the Defendant in order to go back. In fact, it may not be ruled that H, K, and L, which were unfavorable to the Defendant at the prosecutorial office, reversed their statements by the prosecutorial office as of the same day as G and H’s prosecutorial office on the same day as G and H’s summons date.

3) The following statements in H and K were supported by these circumstances. In other words, H was difficult at the time of being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office in this Court. At that time, police officers were arrested by the Prosecutor’s Office. G entered the Prosecutor’s Office and made a false statement to the effect that “I would like to go back.” Accordingly, at the time of 00 million won out of the money received by illegal establishments, the Defendant would not have been informed of the contact from the seat of 0G or G and the prosecutor’s office and would have been present at the time of 00 years. However, G did not appear to have been summoned from 00 to 000,000 won in total, and was asked from 00,000 won to 20,0000 won of the money received by the Prosecutor’s Office. However, G did not appear to have been summoned from 70,000,000 won of the money received by the Defendant and the prosecutor’s office. It was well aware that there was a false statement to the effect of the Defendant’s punishment.

5. The remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor

According to the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the circumstances inferred accordingly, ① the Defendant used the borrowed name account in the name of AA (bank AB), ② the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 236,280,00 in cash and cashier’s checks in the above borrowed name account for the period of working in B police station female juvenile circles; ③ the issuer of the above cashier’s checks includes a majority of the persons presumed to operate entertainment establishments; ④ the Defendant has failed to provide reasonable explanation of the above deposit details; ④ the Defendant has received money from the proprietor of entertainment establishments as the source of interest on loans or investment proceeds in this court; and the Defendant has also received money from the proprietor of entertainment establishments in this court. 6) The Defendant’s statement to the effect that there was no doubt about the Defendant’s performance of duties in B police station female juvenile circles, and that there was no suspicion that the statute of limitations has lapsed since her escape, and that there was no other indirect evidence that the Defendant’s acceptance of the above money and valuables was the only one of the instant charges.

I. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

1) The relationship between H and G is as seen in the above 3. Recognition C. Hmph G.

2) On May 22, 2012, K received KRW 300,000 per month from the Defendant from the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office from May 2008 to July 2008.

The above statement was reversed in this court. K became aware of the G around 2005 and around 2006 at the investigative agency and this court.

The relationship has been maintained closely, and G has given a total of KRW 21 billion to G, and it has been given 10% interest per month.

3) On June 5, 2012, L obtained investigative information from the Defendant and informed G of L at the prosecutor’s office X-gu Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.

Although this court stated that there was no such fact in this court, the above statement was reversed. L on the record maintained a close relation with G from around 2006.

In other words, L violated the instant direction and was subject to disciplinary action by using G currency. In particular, G is an entertainment drinking house through L.

40 million won shall be delivered to the Z in Chapter D Y's private village Y at the time for the purpose of preventing control of the business establishment that he/she operates or obtaining control information.

At the same time, L was asked to be issued to D's life order system.

A person shall be appointed.