Defendant 1 and eight others

Defendant 1 and four others and the Prosecutor

The title of interference (prosecutions, public trials), and Park Sung-dong (public trial)

Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al.

1. Incheon District Court Decision 2010Gohap778, 817, 881, 201Gohap51, 302 (merged), and 2.2. Incheon District Court Decision 2011Gohap109 Decided October 6, 201

1. Defendant 1

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part on Defendant 1 is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and by a fine of thirty-five million won.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by KRW 50,000 into one day.

Samsung T&BE 40 ELD TV ( Model Name: LN-40A610A3F) shall be forfeited from Defendant 1.

3,1690,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

2. Defendant 2

Each judgment of the court below on the defendant 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Under seizure, 38 game machines, 840 free gift chips, 10 USB mobile diskss, 242 paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper.

3. Defendant 3

Each judgment of the court below on the defendant 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 3 shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

When Defendant 3 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by KRW 50,000 into one day.

4. Defendant 4, 9

All appeals by Defendant 4 and 9 are dismissed.

5. Defendant 5, 6, and 7

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant 5, 6, and 7 shall be reversed.

Defendant 5, 6, and 7 are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant 5, 6, and 7 shall be announced publicly.

6. Defendant 8

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 8 is dismissed.

1. Judgment on Defendant 1

A. Determination ex officio on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and on the illegal action after the bribery

The prosecutor prosecuted Defendant 1 on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that he/she received a bribe amounting to KRW 3,1640,000 from January 2009 to April 17, 201, but applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) on January 31, 201. According to the written application for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “the receipt of bribe amounting to KRW 3.6 million in total from June 12, 2009 to November 24, 2009” and “the receipt of bribe amounting to KRW 3.6 million in total from January 2, 2009 to February 20,” and the lower court permitted the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act).

Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes includes not only simple bribery charges (Article 129 of the Criminal Act), but also illegal bribery charges (Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act). Thus, the above application for the amendment of a bill of indictment does not aim at adding the charges of the illegal wife after the acceptance of the bribe to a separate independent crime, but also adding the applicable provisions of the Act by supplementing the facts charged as to the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act (Bribery) after the acceptance of the bribe (Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act).

Nevertheless, the first instance court found that “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the acceptance of bribe equivalent to KRW 35,240,00 and “the illegal act after acceptance of bribe” were prosecuted for an independent crime, and found the Defendant guilty of the part equivalent to KRW 3,324,00,000 and the remainder not guilty. In so doing, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of adjudication and the number of crimes. As such, the first instance court’s judgment against Defendant 1 should reverse the part on “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)” and “the illegal act after acceptance of bribe,” among the first instance judgment against Defendant 1, the part on “the guilty of the guilty and the part on the acquittal of each of the grounds for the comprehensive crimes, as well as the part on the remaining guilty and the part on the acquittal of each of the conviction, should

The judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above, but there is still a ground for misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 1 and prosecutor who is not related to the above.

B. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 1

1) The part of KRW 1 million received on January 2009

A) Summary of the argument

Around January 2009, Defendant 2 sent an envelope containing one million won unilaterally within the vehicle of the upper-tier defendant 2, who was parked on the road in the vicinity of Defendant 1’s house. Defendant 1 was stored as a returnable idea later.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized as having an intention to obtain the above one million won as a bribe, and thus, Defendant 1’s allegation in this part is not acceptable.

① From January 2009, Defendant 2 started to operate the △△ Gameland (hereinafter “△△ Gameland”) on the second floor of the building located in Incheon (hereinafter omitted) from around January 2009, Defendant 1 was introduced through Nonindicted 2, the office chief of the attorney-at-law office around December 2008. At the time, Defendant 2 was introduced as Defendant 1 as a slope belonging to the living order division of the ○ Police Station, and Defendant 1 became aware that Defendant 2 was not a police officer of the ○○ Police Station, but a public official in technical service.

② Defendant 1, while working in the ○○ Police Station’s Living Order System, received an envelope of KRW 1 million in cash from Defendant 2, who operated the illegal speculative game site, and did not attempt to return it thereafter. Rather, Defendant 1 received a bribe by means of account transfer, cash card withdrawal, etc. over several times, as mentioned thereafter.

③ As Defendant 1’s assertion, if an envelope was received from the upper-tier Defendant 2’s vehicle, it could have been lowered at the time of unloading the envelope. As such, it is difficult to readily understand that Defendant 2 unilaterally provided a plastic bag.

2) The portion of KRW 9 million in total, No. 1 through 4 of the crime sight table (1) Nos. 1 through 4 in the attached Form 1 of the judgment below

A) Summary of the argument

In this part, 9 million won was the money borrowed by Defendant 1 from Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 paid all the amount.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized to have had the intent to obtain the total amount of KRW 9 million as a bribe, and thus, Defendant 1’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

① Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 3 million from the upper-tier Defendant 2 through the account transfer on March 4, 2009, and again repaid KRW 3 million by account transfer. However, Defendant 1’s total sum of KRW 9 million is separate from this, and later did not return to Defendant 2).

② Although Defendant 2, a donor, was subject to criminal punishment, he/she consistently stated this part of the offering of bribe from the prosecution to the court of first instance.

③ The deposit of KRW 9 million was made between February 24, 2009 and March 27, 2009, where the second floor of the Incheon, which was operated by Defendant 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2 omitted), the second floor of the game room in the building in which Defendant 2 had been in operation, and the second floor of the game room in which Defendant 2 had been in operation. From the perspective of Defendant 2, Defendant 1 was willing to give a bribe to Defendant 1, who was known as a police officer belonging to the above living order division at the time, was in possession of the part already controlled and was in operation of a new game room. As such, Defendant 2 had the motive to give a bribe.

3) Parts 5, 6, and 8 of the list of crimes (1) Nos. 5, 6, and 8 attached to the judgment of the court below

A) Summary of the argument

Defendant 1 did not know Nonindicted 3 and 4 who was the depositor, and did not know the fact that the above money was deposited into Defendant 1’s account before the prosecutor’s investigation.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized to have had the intent to obtain the total sum of KRW 1.6 million as a bribe, and thus, Defendant 1’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

① Nonindicted 3 is Defendant 2 and a person who was engaged in the business of △△ Game Co., Ltd., and Nonindicted 4 also engaged in the business of operating the △△ Game Center in the second floor located in the building located in Defendant 2 and Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “3 omitted), and Nonindicted 3 also engaged in the business of operating the △△△ Game Center in the second floor of the building in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “△△△ Game Center”).

② Defendant 2 stated that: (a) although he was asked to appear as a witness in the court of first instance to receive money from Defendant 1; (b) he did not contact with Nonindicted 5 (a woman’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son), Defendant

4) The portion received in total of KRW 20,090,000 using the cash card in attached Form 1 List of Crimes (2) in the holding of the court below

A) Summary of the argument

Defendant 1 does not have to receive KRW 20 million as a bribe, since there is no difference in the fact that he received the said cash card from the Defendant 2, who is the first instance party. The “North Incheon Branch” and “Yananan 6 Dong”, the place of withdrawal by the said cash card, are located apart from Defendant 1’s residence and place of work, and there is no reason to withdraw cash as far as Defendant 1 does not have to do so.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant 1’s withdrawal of the money by using the said cash card with the intent to obtain it as a bribe, and thus, Defendant 1’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

① Defendant 2 was present as a witness in the first instance court’s trial and stated in the first instance court that Defendant 1 received money from his own national bank account from his witness on May 2009, and Defendant 1 was not too heavy, and he also thought that Defendant 1 did not receive money from his own national bank account. In this case, upon deposit of money into the said account, Defendant 2 made a proposal that “I would like to make a card in the name of Non-Indicted 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s No. 1’s bank account.” In addition, Defendant 2 made a proposal that “I would deposit money from the said account with the said bank card,” and made Defendant 1 use the cash card that can withdraw money from the said No. 1’s account, and stated that Defendant 1 was not returned thereafter.”

② On November 5, 2010, Defendant 1 stated that “When Defendant 2 received the No. 3’s cash card from Defendant 2, Defendant 2 borrowed money from Defendant 2, Defendant 2 deposited money to the said NA’s account and contacted Defendant 2, Defendant 2 borrowed money from the said account in the form of cash card with the said NAC’s account.” On November 6, 2010, Defendant 1 led Defendant 3 to the third protocol of interrogation of a suspect by the Prosecutor’s Office No. 3 as of November 6, 2010, Defendant 1 testified this part of the facts charged, and Defendant 1’s defense counsel did not withdraw money from Defendant 2 with Defendant 2’s opinion from his defense counsel on February 7, 2011.” On the second day of the first instance trial, Defendant 1 testified this part of the facts charged.

③ After May 2009, the Agricultural Cooperative account in the above non-indicted 1 was used mainly for the purpose of withdrawing cash deposited on the day or following the day by the person holding the cash card connected to the above account if the money was deposited by the non-indicted 1 and 6 (the wife of the non-indicted 2) and the non-indicted 5 to pay money through the phone banking or the Internet banking. On the day immediately before and after the payment and withdrawal were made, the detailed statement was presented in several currencies between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2.

④ Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that, on the basis of the following table, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s “cash time” were not in the vicinity of the relevant cash automatic withdrawal machine at the time this part of cash was withdrawn. However, Defendant 1 appears to be able to sufficiently move within the “place of cash withdrawal” and “base border connection” between the time of cash withdrawal and the time of cash withdrawal (in the case of Defendant 1’s moving to a vehicle, the difference between 30 seconds, but the number of hours was only 30 seconds. However, it appears that Nonindicted Party 7’s withdrawal of cash was impossible immediately after Nonindicted Party 7’s withdrawal of cash from the base station to a vehicle, and that Defendant 1’s withdrawal of cash within 30 seconds (in the case of Nonindicted Party 1’s moving to a mountain base station, it appears that Nonindicted Party 4’s defense counsel could not withdraw the cash within 1,000,000 prior to the base station’s address (excluding this part).

The number of ballot withdrawals contained in the main text: 22:0 on December 3, 2009, the distance between the base station (In Incheon-gu, Bupyeong-gu) access to the base station and the base station: 22:03:06 non-indicted 7 church (KCI1337), 22:03:3:36 m. 4, 137-13: 240-300m. 669m. on December 24, 2009, 203: 2:5:30m. 2:52:30m. 4: 2:50m. 12:52,56:30m. 24: 30m. 4:30,000,000,000,000,000: non-indicted 22: 381m. 381-2,504m. 24: 208m. 208m. 201.

⑤ 또한 피고인 1의 변호인은, 제1 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(2) 순번 14번의 ‘2009. 9. 26. 11:30:38 30만 원 공소외 7 교회(KCI1337) 인출 주16) ’ 부분은 피고인 1이 친척 문병을 위해 같은 날 11:00경 서울 용산구청 근처에서 차량에 탑승하여 춘천시 ▷▷병원으로 이동하던 중이었으므로 위 현금을 인출하였을 수 없다고 주장하면서, 피고인 1의 친척들의 사실확인서들을 제출하였다. 그러나 오래전 일에 대한 불명확한 기억에 의존한 위 사실확인서들만으로는 위 변호인의 현장부재 주장을 받아들여 피고인 1이 위 금원을 인출하는 것이 불가능했다고 보기 어렵다.

6. Even if some of the cash withdrawals was made, it is located in a large city where Defendant 1’s residence or place of work is not located, and thus, Defendant 1 may use the cash withdrawal machine installed at the place other than his/her residence or place of work by personal use.

5) The portion of receipt of Samsung ELDTV

A) Summary of the argument

This is not received as a bribe, but received as a gift, and Defendant 1 also delivered clothes, cosmetics, Kim, etc. to Defendant 2 as a supplementary answer to the above gift.

B) Determination

The legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of the act of duties is the legal interest of the person directly, and it is not necessary to consider the violation of the duty or the existence of solicitation. Thus, a bribe is sufficient to receive a bribe in relation to the duties, and there is no need to specify the act of violation of the duty. When a public official receives money, valuables, or other benefits from a person who is subject to the duty, it is deemed that the person is merely an ordinary price in light of the social norms, or it is clearly deemed that there is no relation with the duties unless there are special circumstances, such as the case where the public official received money in relation to the duties of a public official, or where it is clearly deemed that the person received money, valuables, or other benefits from the person who is subject to the duty, or where it is deemed that there is a need for decentralization. If a public official received money, in relation to the duties of a public official, it is not related to the duties of the public official, even if it received money and other valuables in relation to the duties of the public official.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, it cannot be deemed clear that the above TV number was due to the intention or the need for religious and social decentralization that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it was given and received in relation to Defendant 1’s duties, and furthermore, the intent of acceptance of bribe is sufficiently recognized.

① From August 5, 2005 to August 11, 2009, Defendant 1 was working as a public official of Grade 8 in the function of the life order division of the ○○ Police Station, and was engaged in administrative assistance related to the control of the speculative game site. Defendant 2 operated the speculative game site in Incheon (hereinafter omitted) within the jurisdiction of the ○○ Police Station. Defendant 1 was able to identify and inform Defendant 2 of the control information on the speculative game site within the ○○ Police Station, and was in a position to request the control police officers to request the preference of Defendant 2’s game site.

② Defendant 1, at his own house located in Incheon (hereinafter omitted), around May 2009, received the amount of KRW 1.550,000,00 from Defendant 2 to Defendant 1’s house, on the grounds that Defendant 1 purchased the television from Defendant 2, who was in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu operations operation Dong, and sent Defendant 1’s house to Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s house.

③ Defendant 1: (a) around that time, Defendant 1 demanded that Defendant 2 of the upper-tier shop “products and products sold at the lower-tier store with the trine electronic direct retail store are different from their types.” (b) Defendant 1 actively demanded gifts, such as notifying the new director’s home address and TV model name.” (c)

④ Defendant 1 was demanded by Defendant 2 without personal friendly relations and received high-priced TV in a gift, and there is no reason for Defendant 2 to make the said gift to Defendant 1, if the gift was not offered as a price for the provision of information related to the control of illegal gambling games.

6) The assertion that there is no fact that the defendant 2 was informed of information in advance or requested for a reduction investigation concerning the crackdown of the game room.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant 1, in return for the receipt of bribe from the upper-tier defendant 2, was informed to the upper-tier defendant 2 of the information about the crackdown on the game site, which he directly becomes aware of in the course of performing his duties from January 2009 to February 2010, or which he had been transferred from the enforcement officers, and in the process, he was asked by the upper-tier defendant 2 to the effect that the case is well handled by the upper-tier defendant 2 who was controlled several times in the process, it can be sufficiently recognized that the lower-tier defendant 5,6 et al. requested the same purport to the enforcement officer. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant 1 cannot be accepted.

① At the ○○ Police Station’s living order division, Nonindicted 8, Defendant 5, 6, 7, Defendant 1, who was a superior superior officer, Defendant 1 was in charge of the management of documents, such as violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and lost articles. However, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 was frequently in charge of the management of documents, such as a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and lost articles. However, there are frequent cases where only Defendant 1 is in the office of the ○○ Police Station’s living order division. In such a case, Defendant 1 received a report call related to the game room, which was left to the office, and transferred it to the police officer (Article 18).

② In the daily life order community, documents files, such as a game room control report, inspection report for the hearing and audit room report of the Incheon Regional Police Agency and the ○○ Police Station, and an investigation report for regulating and preparing a game room, were kept. Defendant 1 was able to peruse such documents.

③ As seen earlier, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were able to obtain information related to the regulation of a game room while working in the life order division of the ○○ Police Station; Defendant 2 appeared as a witness at the first court of first instance on November 201, 2010; and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were analyzed the contents of the mobile phone calls of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 from November 2, 2009 to April 8, 2010. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were sent a cell phone call call and text message over about 587 times each day; Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 were not personal-friendly relations; Defendant 1 appeared as witness at the first court of first instance to regulate the contents of the video call from October 21, 2010.

④ Defendant 1 also was subject to the call from Defendant 2 on February 24, 2009, when investigating the prosecution, and on which Defendant 1 also stated that Defendant 6 asked Defendant 6 to conduct an investigation by calling to Defendant 6 to “a well-known inquiry.”

⑤ On November 26, 2009, Defendant 5, 6, and 7, a police officer belonging to the living order division of the ○ Police Station, sent a text message once to Defendant 7, Defendant 1 at the time of the control of the Gun game room located in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “Sk Game Center”) in which Defendant 2 was operated on November 26, 2009. Defendant 1 did not belong to the Gunn Game Center, but called Defendant 1 at any time after receiving calls from Defendant 2 on the same day. The call was made nine times to Defendant 5, Defendant 6 on September 21, 219:42 of the same day, and sent a text message to Defendant 7 on September 1, 2009; Defendant 1 at the time, considered Defendant 2’s request from Defendant 2 on May 6, 2000, Defendant 1 appears not to have been seen to have been subject to a bribe continuously given by Defendant 2 on May 6, 2004.

7) The assertion that a testimony that did not accept a bribe and did not act such as providing information on the crackdown of a game room is not a statement contrary to memory.

According to the above 1) through 6, the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant 1 had presented a false statement contrary to memory in relation to this, is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant 1.

8) Violations of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

A) Summary of the argument

"Criminal proceeds" as the object of the crime under Article 3 subparagraph 2 (a) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment refers to "property generated by a serious crime or any property acquired as a remuneration for such crime" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the same Act. It can only be deemed "criminal proceeds" under the same Act only when it is possible to specify the object of the crime, "property generated by an act of crime" when the crime of the corresponding serious crime is committed.

Even if Defendant 1 received KRW 20,90,000 as a bribe, Defendant 1 did not commit any act of concealing and inducing the above criminal proceeds separately after each acceptance of bribe was taken place. However, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 received a bribe in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged, and thus, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 pretended to acquire criminal proceeds.

B) Determination

Article 3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment stipulates as follows:

Article 3 (Harboring and Consuming Criminal Proceeds, etc.) (1) Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won:

1. A person who disguises the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc.;

2. A person who disguises the origin of criminal proceeds;

3. A person who conceals criminal proceeds for the purpose of encouraging specific crimes or pretending criminal proceeds as legitimately acquired.

“Act pretending the fact of acquiring criminal proceeds, etc.” may include the act of withdrawing money using a cash card connected to an account in the name of another person called the so-called borrowed account, as if it did not acquire criminal proceeds. In a specific case, in determining whether the act of withdrawing criminal proceeds deposited in the borrowed account constitutes “an act that disguises the fact of acquiring criminal proceeds, etc.”, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: the relationship between the actual user and the account holder of the cash card connected to the relevant account; the motive and background of the user’s use of the relevant account; and the specific circumstances of the deposit transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1004, Feb. 28, 2008).

1. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① Defendant 1’s bank account card from Defendant 2 at around May 2009. The fact that, upon deposit of money in the above account, Defendant 1 appears to have used Nonindicted 1’s account for offering a bribe to a police official in charge of controlling the speculative game site, ③ Defendant 1’s deposit of money from the above account with Defendant 2 at the above bank card, obtained a proposal and opened the No.C.’s cash card from Defendant 2 and received KRW 20,90,000 by withdrawing the money deposited in the No. 1’s account from Defendant 2 at any time; ② Defendant 2’s deposit of money from the above account constitutes a bribe receipt by Defendant 2 at any time, and thus, Defendant 1 appears to have used the above account as a bribe receipt by Defendant 1 at any time, and Defendant 1 appears to have received money from Defendant 2 at any time under the name of the above Defendant 1’s account.

The judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged is correct, and it does not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by Defendant 1 [the judgment cited by Defendant 1’s defense counsel (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3039 Decided August 24, 2006) is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case differently from the case].

C. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Part of KRW 100,000,000,00 won in cash on the pretext of a single-use cash on the list of crimes (1) No. 7 No. 5 of the attached Table 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below and two occasions

A) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 1은 상피고인 5, 6, 7과 공모하여, ① 2009. 7. 13. 상피고인 2로부터 상피고인 2의 게임장 단속 무마 등의 명목으로 상피고인 2의 처 공소외 6 명의의 은행 계좌에서 피고인 1의 국민은행 계좌( 계좌번호 1 생략)로 100만 원을 송금받고, ② 2009. 7.경 인천 이하 생략에 있는 ‘ ◈◈◈’ 식당에서 상피고인 2에게 전화를 걸어 ‘ 상피고인 5, 6, 7 등과 회식을 하고 있는데 돈이 부족하다. 회식비를 좀 보태달라’고 하여 위 전화를 받고 위 식당으로 달려온 상피고인 2로부터 식당 문 앞에서 현금 50만 원을 교부받고, ③ 2009. 12.경 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 ‘ ◐◐◐’ 식당에서 상피고인 2에게 전화를 걸어 ‘생활질서계 회식을 하고 있는데 지금까지 식대가 90만 원가량 나왔다. 노래방에도 가야 하는데 돈이 부족하니 50만 원을 ◐◐◐ 주차장으로 갖다 달라’고 하여 위 전화를 받고 위 식당으로 달려온 상피고인 2로부터 식당 주차장에서 현금 50만 원을 교부받음으로써, 공무원의 직무에 관하여 총 200만 원 상당의 뇌물을 수수하였다.

B) Determination

Based on its reasoning, the first instance court determined that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and judged Defendant 1 not guilty on the grounds of the judgment. In light of the records, the first instance court’s determination is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal.

2) Part of the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment [part of the attached Table 1 (1)]

A) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 received a bribe as stated in Article 1. A. 2 of the Criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below for the provision of information on the control of the game room and the control failure of Defendant 2, as stated in the judgment of the court below. Defendant 1 pretended to the acquisition of criminal proceeds by receiving a bribe of KRW 1,60,000,000 from the No. 1's national bank account in the name of Defendant 2 on February 24, 2009, which was transferred from Defendant 2 to Defendant 1's national bank account in the name of Defendant 1, as well as receiving a bribe of KRW 3,00,000 from Defendant 2's children, wife, game room partner, and Defendant 4 and 3 by receiving money from the bank account in the attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court below.

B) Determination

Based on its reasoning, the first instance court determined that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and judged Defendant 1 not guilty on the grounds of the judgment. In light of the records, the first instance court’s determination is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal.

3) Partial perjury

A) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 1은 제1 원심 판시 범죄사실 제1의 라.항 기재와 같이 인천지방법원 형사12부 법정에서 증언을 함에 있어, 사실은 피고인 1이 2009. 1.경 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 ♡♡ 일식집에서 상피고인 2와 저녁식사를 하던 중, 상피고인 2로부터 '내가 이제 ○○에서 게임장을 하려 하는데 좀 도와 달라, 미리 단속 정보도 알려 주고, 단속을 좀 하지 말아 달라'는 취지의 부탁을 받고, 이를 승낙하면서 '내가 도와줄 수 있고 단속 정보가 있으면 알려 주겠다. 당신 게임장 뒤를 봐 주겠다'는 취지로 대답하였고, 한 달에 200만 원은 주어야 하고 회식비 등 명목으로 따로 좀 더 챙겨주어야 한다는 내용으로 상피고인 2와 상납 부분에 관하여 이야기를 하고, 식사 후 상피고인 2로부터 현금 100만 원이 든 봉투를 건네받으며 '이 돈은 생활질서계 직원들과 나눠서 사용하겠다'라는 말을 하였으며, 그 후 상피고인 2의 사행성 게임장 단속 관련 정보 제공 및 단속 무마 등에 대한 대가로 제1 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(1), (2) 기재와 같이 뇌물을 수수한 것 외에도 상피고인 2로부터 회식비 등 명목의 현금으로 뇌물을 수수하였는데, 피고인 1은 상피고인 2에게 뇌물을 빨리 보내라고 독촉하는 경우가 많았으며, 상피고인 2로부터 받은 위 뇌물을 상피고인 5, 6, 7 등 경찰관들과 나눠 사용하였고, 위 뇌물을 상피고인 2에게 돌려준 사실이 없으며, 위 경찰관들과 함께 상피고인 2의 게임장에 대하여 단속을 하지 않은 사실이 있음에도,

1. As to the prosecutor’s question, “I swear that I testimony that I do not have any way to share the money received from the above defendant 2 in this court with the above defendant 5, 6, 7 who is a senior police officer in charge of living order,” the defendant 1 bears the testimony as follows:

② At that time, the prosecutor testified to the effect that “the witness may help him to do so, and if there is any regulatory information, he will inform him that he will do so.” As to the question whether there was a fact that he talks about Defendant 2 and the upper part of the payment with Defendant 1 in the name of meeting expenses, etc. that he would give 2 million won per month and give her a separate opinion under the pretext of meeting expenses, etc., Defendant 1 is “I do not have anything.”

③ Defendant 2 testified that Defendant 1 does not mean that Defendant 2 provided a witness with an envelope containing KRW 1 million in cash, and the witness received the envelope from Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 provided a statement that “this money will be used by dividing it into a part of daily life order workers.”

④ 검사의 “증인은 ♡♡ 일식집에서 두 번째로 상피고인 2를 만나 게임장 관련 청탁을 받은 후에 계속 상피고인 2로부터 돈을 받으면서 인천 ○○경찰서 생활질서계 경찰관 상피고인 5, 6, 7과 나눠 가지며, 상피고인 2의 사행성 게임장을 단속하지 않거나 경찰 단속 정보를 상피고인 2에게 사전에 알려 주는 방법으로 상피고인 2의 사행성 게임장 뒤를 계속 봐주게 된 사실이 있는가요”라는 질문에 대하여, 피고인 1은 '없습니다'라고 증언하고,

⑤ On May 2009, the Prosecutor testified that, if the upper defendant 2 deposited money into the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the non-indicted 1, the witness received the money from the upper defendant 2 by withdrawing the money from the cash card held by the witness in advance, and on the other hand, the witness testified that the defendant 1 does not have any "if there is any money received from the upper defendant 2 in cash";

6. Defendant 1 testified that “I cannot make a false statement against one’s memory when the witness did not pay the money to the above defendant 2. I urge the above defendant 2 to pay the money promptly, and the above defendant 2 paid the money to the witness by telephone at all times, and if so, the witness testified that I cannot have immediately withdrawn the money from the account.”

B) Determination

Based on its reasoning, the first instance court determined that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and judged Defendant 1 not guilty on the grounds of the judgment. In light of the records, the first instance court’s determination is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant 2

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

1) Part of KRW 100,000,000,00 won in cash on the pretext of a single-use cash on the list of crimes (1) No. 7 No. 5 of the attached Table 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below and two occasions

A) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 2는 ① 2009. 7. 13. 자신의 게임장 단속 무마 등의 명목으로 처인 공소외 6 명의의 은행 계좌에서 피고인 1의 국민은행 계좌( 계좌번호 1 생략)로 100만 원을 송금하고, ② 2009. 7.경 피고인 1로부터 ‘ 상피고인 5, 6, 7 등과 회식을 하고 있는데 돈이 부족하다. 회식비를 좀 보태달라’는 전화를 받고 인천 이하 생략에 있는 ‘ ◈◈◈’ 식당으로 가서 식당 문 앞에서 피고인 1에게 현금 50만 원을 교부하고, ③ 2009. 12.경 피고인 1로부터 ‘생활질서계 회식을 하고 있는데 지금까지 식대가 90만 원 가량 나왔다. 노래방에도 가야 하는데 돈이 부족하니 50만 원을 ◐◐◐ 주차장으로 갖다 달라’는 전화를 받고 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 ‘ ◐◐◐’ 식당으로 가서 식당 주차장에서 피고인 1에게 현금 50만 원을 교부함으로써, 피고인 1에게 총 200만 원 상당의 뇌물을 공여하였다.

B) Determination

Based on its stated reasoning, the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on Defendant 2 on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and in light of the records, the first instance court’s determination is acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2) misunderstanding of facts as to the failure of each court below to order the collection of penalty

It is natural that the reason for confiscation and collection, such as whether the subject of confiscation is subject to confiscation or the recognition of collection amount, is not related to the elements of crime composition, so strict certification is not necessary, but also should be recognized by evidence (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9858 Decided April 7, 2006).

Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 are not only disputing the share ratio and the amount of profit distributed to each game room as stated in each judgment of the court below, but also there is a lack of evidence to support the amount of revenue other than the generally estimated amount. Thus, it is right that each court below's failure to issue an order of collection to Defendant 2, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts, such as the prosecutor's assertion.

B. Ex officio determination

Defendant 2 and the prosecutor filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and the party members decided to jointly examine all the above appeal cases.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant 2 guilty of the crime of offering of a bribe (part of the crime of offering a bribe), the violation of the Promotion of Game Industry Act, the crime of aiding and abetting an offender and the crime of aiding and abetting an offender under Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be reversed. As long as the part of the part of the crime of offering a bribe, which is a single comprehensive crime of offering a bribe, is reversed, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant 2 should be reversed together

3. Ex officio determination on Defendant 3

Defendant 3 filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and the party members decided to jointly examine all the above appeal cases.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below which found Defendant 3 guilty has the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part of each judgment of the court below against Defendant 3 among each judgment of the court below is reversed.

4. Determination as to Defendant 4 and 9 (Joint and Undue Claims)

The first instance court’s sentencing, which the second instance court sentenced Defendant 4 to Defendant 9 by taking account of the favorable or unfavorable sentencing factors expressed in the course of each pleading (Defendant 4’s fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant 9’s fine of KRW 7 million) is highly harmful to society, such as that the head of the gambling game room is in fact equipped with the same system as the gambling place and has a large number of persons who run a business with the same system, lose their desire to work and have their premiumed. In light of the high social harm and injury, it cannot be said that the above Defendants are too heavy even if considering the circumstances in which the said Defendants were inside.

The above Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing cannot be accepted.

5. Determination on Defendant 5, 6, and 7

A. Ex officio determination

With respect to Defendant 5, 6, and 7, the prosecutor indicted Defendant 5, 6, and 7 as “the total amount of KRW 3,524,00 won and the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by illegal disposal after the acceptance of the bribe (the facts charged by the illegal disposal company after the acceptance of the bribe are added to the facts charged by the violation of the Act on

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on all of the above Defendants on the premise that “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) based on the acceptance of bribe amounting to KRW 35,240,000” and “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)” were separately prosecuted for an independent crime, and that there is a relation of commercial concurrence. In so determining, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of adjudication and the number of crimes, so the first instance judgment on

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, there are grounds for ex officio reversal as seen above, but the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake without relation to the above Defendants and the ancillary charges added in the trial are still subject to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are determined below.

B. Judgment of erroneous determination of facts as to the prosecutor's primary charges

1) Summary of the facts charged

From February 12, 2009, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, from March 5, 2008, Defendant 7, from November 29, 2007 to February 8, 2010, are police officers who were engaged in the same duty as ○ Police Station’s living safety and living order.

위 피고인들은, 제1 원심 판시 범죄사실 제1.의 가. 1)항 기재와 같이 상피고인 2로부터 불법 사행성 게임장에 대한 단속 정보 제공 및 단속무마 부탁을 받고 이를 승낙한 피고인 1로부터 2009. 1.경 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 식당에서 위와 같은 내용의 부탁을 전해듣고 이를 승낙한 후 피고인 1과 공모하여, 상피고인 2의 사행성 게임장을 단속하지 않거나 경찰 단속 정보를 상피고인 2에게 사전에 알려 주는 방법으로 상피고인 2의 사행성 게임장 뒤를 계속 봐주는 것에 대한 대가로서, 피고인 1이 ① 상피고인 2로부터 제1 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(1), (2) 기재와 같이 총 3,169만 원을 받고, ② 2009. 7.경 인천 이하 생략에 있는 ‘ ◈◈◈’ 식당에서 상피고인 2에게 전화를 걸어 ‘ 피고인 5, 6, 7과 회식을 하고 있는데 돈이 부족하다. 회식비를 좀 보태달라’고 하여 위 전화를 받고 위 식당으로 달려온 피고인 2로부터 식당 문 앞에서 현금 50만 원을 교부받고, ③ 2009. 12.경 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 ‘ ◐◐◐’ 식당에서 상피고인 2에게 전화를 걸어 ‘생활질서계 회식을 하고 있는데 지금까지 식대가 90만 원 가량 나왔다. 노래방에도 가야 하는데 돈이 부족하니 50만 원을 ◐◐◐ 주차장으로 갖다 달라’고 하여 위 전화를 받고 위 식당으로 달려온 상피고인 2로부터 식당 주차장에서 현금 50만 원을 받음으로써, 공무원의 직무에 관하여 총 3,269만 원 상당의 뇌물을 수수하였다.

또한 피고인 5, 6, 7은 위와 같이 상피고인 2로부터 그의 게임장 단속 무마 명목으로 금품을 수수하면서 피고인 1과 공모하여 상피고인 2로부터의 수뢰 기간인 14개월 동안, 상피고인 2가 인천 (이하 1 생략) 소재 △△게임랜드, (이하 2 생략) 소재 ◇◇게임장, (이하 3 생략) 소재 ☆☆게임랜드, (이하 5 생략) 소재 ♤♤♤게임장을 순차적으로 운영하면서 경품 현금 환전 등을 통해 불법적으로 게임장을 운영하고 있음을 잘 알고 있음에도 인천 ○○경찰서 생활질서계가 주도하거나 단독으로는 상피고인 2의 게임장을 고의적으로 단속하지 않으면서, ① 2009. 1.경부터 2010. 2.경까지 인천 (이하 생략)에 있는 ○○경찰서 사무실 등에서, 싱 피고인 1이 상피고인 2와 거의 매일 1회 이상 전화 통화를 하거나 직접 만나 대화를 나누면서 수백 회에 걸쳐 직무 수행 중 직접 지득하거나 피고인 5, 6, 7로부터 전달받은 사행성 게임장 단속 관련 정보, 상피고인 2가 운영하는 게임장에 대한 112 신고 내역, 인천지방경찰청에서 112 신고가 다수 접수되고 있는 상피고인 2 운영의 게임장을 특정하여 집중 단속 지시 공문이 내려왔다는 내역 등을 상피고인 2에게 알려 주고, ② 2009. 2. 24.경 인천 (이하 2 생략) 소재 상피고인 2 운영의 ◇◇게임장을 인천지방경찰청에서 단속한 후 ○○경찰서 생활질서계로 사건 인계를 할 때, 피고인 6은 게임장 안에 있던 상피고인 2가 게임장 업주인 것을 알면서도 상피고인 2에게 눈짓으로 게임장에서 나가라고 하여 상피고인 2가 게임장에서 몰래 나가는 것을 방치하고, 피고인 1을 통해 상피고인 2로부터 게임장 단속 서류를 잘 작성하여 달라는 부탁을 받고는 상피고인 2가 게임장 실업주이며 2009. 1.경부터 위 ◇◇게임장에 대하여 112 신고가 접수되고 있어 그즈음부터 게임장이 운영되고 있었다는 사실을 잘 알고 있음에도 바지사장인 공소외 10의 진술을 그대로 받아들여 ‘게임장 실업주는 공소외 10, 게임장 운영 기간은 2009. 2. 21.경부터 같은 달 24.경까지’로 현행범인체포보고서 등 단속 서류를 축소 기재하고, ③ 2009. 5. 20.경 인천 (이하 1 생략) 소재 상피고인 2 운영의 △△게임랜드를 인천지방경찰청에서 단속한 후 ○○경찰서 생활질서계로 사건 인계를 할 때, 피고인 6은 피고인 1을 통해 상피고인 2로부터 게임장 단속 서류를 잘 작성하여 달라는 부탁을 받고 상피고인 2가 게임장 실업주이며 2009. 3.경부터 △△게임랜드에 대하여 112 신고가 접수되고 있어 그즈음부터 게임장이 운영되고 있었다는 사실을 잘 알고 있음에도 종업원들의 진술을 그대로 받아 들여 ‘게임장 실업주는 공소외 11, 게임장 운영 기간은 2009. 5. 19.경부터 같은 달 20.경까지’로 현행범인체포서 등 단속 서류를 축소 기재하고, ④ 2009. 11. 26.경 인천 (이하 5 생략) 소재 피고인 2 운영의 ♤♤♤게임장을 위 게임장의 손님이 인천 ▒▒경찰서에 신고를 하면서 ▒▒경찰서가 주도하여 ▒▒경찰서와 ○○경찰서가 합동으로 단속하게 되었을 때, 피고인 6은 피고인 1 및 피고인 5를 순차적으로 통해 상피고인 2로부터 잘 봐달라는 부탁을 받고는 ‘ ▒▒경찰서와 합동으로 단속을 하게 되어 어쩔 수 없다, 바지 사장과 종업원 한 명만 입건하여 간단히 조사를 할 테니 그렇게 알고 있어라’고 하고, 위 약속대로 상피고인 2가 게임장 실업주이며 이전부터 ♤♤♤게임장에 대하여 112 신고가 접수되고 있어 그즈음부터 게임장이 운영되고 있었으며, 단속 당시 게임장 안에 있던 피고인 3 및 공소외 12가 게임장 종업원이라는 사실을 잘 알고 있음에도, 피고인 3 및 공소외 12를 게임장 손님으로 처리하면서 귀가 조치하고, 공소외 13 등의 진술을 그대로 받아들여 ‘게임장 실업주는 공소외 13, 게임장 운영 기간은 2009. 10. 25.경부터 같은 해 11. 26.경까지’로 임의동행보고 등 단속 서류를 축소 기재하는 등, 상피고인 2로부터 뇌물을 수수하면서 상피고인 2에게 그가 운영하는 게임장에 대한 단속 관련 정보를 유출하고 인천지방경찰청 등 타 관서가 주도하여 상피고인 2의 게임장을 단속하게 되면서 부득이하게 상피고인 2의 게임장을 수사하게 되었을 때 상피고인 2의 게임장 운영 상황을 잘 알고 있음에도 게임장 바지 사장 또는 종업원의 진술대로 단속 서류를 작성하여 주는 등 부정한 행위를 하였다.

2) Determination

Based on its reasoning, the first instance court determined that Defendant 5, 6, and 7 cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt, as stated in this part of the facts charged, that the fact of accepting a bribe in collusion with Defendant 1 was not proven. In light of the records, the first instance court’s determination is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts, such as the allegation in the grounds for appeal.

As such, since the acceptance of bribe by the above Defendants is not recognized, this part of the facts charged, including the illegal action after the acceptance of bribe, constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

C. Judgment on the ancillary charges added at the trial

In the trial, the prosecutor applied for the permission of the modification of an indictment with respect to the preparation of false official document against the defendant 5, 6, and 7, the uttering of false official document, and the ancillary charge of the abandonment of official duty, and the court approved this part of this case.

1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 5, 6, and 7 conspired with Defendant 1 who is a public official in charge of the living order of the ○○ Police Station on January 2009 at the request of Defendant 2, who is a public official in charge of the living order division of the same ○○ Police Station. After that, for 14 months, Defendant 1’s upper-tier defendant 2's acceptance period, △△ Gameland located in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “1 omitted”), △△ Game Center located in the same Dong (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted), △△△△ Game Center located in the same Dong (hereinafter referred to as “3 omitted), △△△ Game Center located in the same Dong (hereinafter referred to as “5 omitted), △△△△ Game Center located in the same Dong (hereinafter referred to as “5 omitted), and operated illegally a game site through cash exchange, etc. although he was well aware of the fact that the Incheon ○○ Police Station led or alone does not control Defendant 2’s game site intentionally.

A) On February 24, 2009, when Defendant 2 controlled the game room located in Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter 2 omitted) and transferred the case to the ○○ Police Station Living Order System, Defendant 6 left the game room with the knowledge that Defendant 2 in the game room is the owner of the game room, left the game room, left the game room, and left the game room by leaving Defendant 2 in the game room. Defendant 2 neglected Defendant 2's duties, and Defendant 2 was the owner of the game room and received 112 reports on the game room from January 24, 2009 on the game room. Since Defendant 2 was the owner of the game room and Defendant 2 was the owner of the game room, Defendant 10 statement, the president, who was the head of ○○ Police Station, had been well aware of the fact that the game room was operated from that day, were accepted, and for the purpose of exercising this, Defendant 6 prepared “Nonindicted Party 10’s statement from February 24, 2009 to that of the game room.”

B) On May 20, 2009, when the case was transferred to the ○ Police Station Living Order System after regulating △△ Gameland operated by Defendant 2 in Incheon (hereinafter omitted) around May 20, 2009 to the Incheon Regional Police Agency, Defendant 6 was the owner of the game room, and Defendant 2 was notified of the fact that Defendant 112 was operating the game room from March 2009 to △△ Gameland, but he was well aware of the fact that Defendant 2 was operating the game room from around March 2009, he accepted the employee’s statement. For the purpose of exercising it, the ○ Police Station Living Order System Office around May 20, 2009; “Nonindicted 11 for the game room business; and the period of operation of the game room” from May 19, 2009 to “from May 20 to the same day, from May 19, 2009 to the day of the same month”; Defendant 6 prepared a false arrest letter of flagrant offender with respect to Nonindicted Party 1; and exercised it as an investigation record.

다) 2009. 11. 26.경 인천 (이하 5 생략) 소재 상피고인 2 운영의 ♤♤♤게임장을 위 게임장의 손님이 인천 ▒▒경찰서에 신고를 하면서 ▒▒경찰서가 주도하여 ▒▒경찰서와 ○○경찰서가 합동으로 단속하게 되었을 때, 피고인 6은 피고인 1 및 피고인 5를 순차적으로 통해 상피고인 2로부터 잘 봐달라는 부탁을 받고는 ‘ ▒▒경찰서와 합동으로 단속을 하게 되어 어쩔 수 없다. 바지 사장과 종업원 한 명만 입건하여 간단히 조사를 할 테니 그렇게 알고 있어라’고 하고, 피고인 6은 위 약속대로, 상피고인 2가 게임장 업주이며 2009. 9.경부터 ♤♤♤게임장에 대하여 112신고가 접수되고 있어 그즈음부터 게임장이 운영되고 있었으며, 단속 당시 게임장 안에 있던 피고인 3 및 공소외 12가 게임장 종업원이라는 사실을 잘 알고 있음에도, 피고인 3 및 공소외 12를 게임장 손님으로 처리하면서 귀가 조치함으로써 사행성 게임장 단속 경찰관의 직무를 유기하고, 공소외 13 등의 진술을 그대로 받아들여, 행사할 목적으로, 2009. 11. 26.경 ○○경찰서 생활질서계 사무실에서, ‘게임장 업주는 공소외 13, 게임장 운영 기간은 2009. 10. 25.경부터 같은 해 11. 26.경까지’로 임의동행보고서를 축소 기재하여 허위로 공문서를 작성한 후 이를 수사기록에 편철하여 행사하고,

D) On March 1, 2009, in front of △△ Gameland located in Incheon (hereinafter omitted), Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to the effect that the above game room was opened and attempted to open a room in order to regulate the above game room where illegal gambling businesses were conducted. Defendant 1 asked Defendant 5 to the effect that Defendant 2, the owner of the above game room business, asked Defendant 1 to “the request to stop the game room to stop the entry into the above game room,” and Defendant 1 did not stop the entry into the above game room where illegal gambling businesses were conducted, but did not investigate the above game room’s illegal acts against the above customers, but did not investigate the illegal acts of the above game room’s business against the above customers, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 5 to “the request to stop the game room’s regulation to stop the game room’s entry into the above game room.” Although the above game room’s building was involved in the game room’s game room’s business, Defendant 2 did not perform his duties by investigating the illegal acts of the above game room.

E) On August 2009, 200, around the △△△ Game Center located in Incheon (hereinafter 2 omitted), Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to the effect that “the head of the above game room would leave the phone and call the door of the above game room” and attempted to open the above door. Defendant 1 asked Defendant 5 to the effect that “the head of the above game room would interfere with the control of the game room in order to prohibit the entry into the above game room,” and Defendant 1 did not stop and regulate the entry into the above game room, which was operated by illegal gambling business.” Defendant 2 deserted Defendant 5’s duty of the police officer to regulate the game room.

2) Defendant 5, 6, and 7’s assertion

In the case of Defendant 5, 6, and 7's control and the preparation of a letter of arrest for a flagrant offender, the above Defendants dealt with the case lawfully in accordance with the practical control practice.

In the case of the above Defendants’ failure to regulate the said Defendants, the said Defendants were not calls from Defendant 1 to “non-control”. If the Defendants ceased to control, it would not be due to the fact that the said Defendants’ failure to enter the game room, which was accompanied by the door of the game room, could not be forced to enter the game room.

(iii) the basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

① Defendant 1, who is a public official in technical service, was the chief of the ○○ Police Station’s living order division, Nonindicted 8, Defendant 5, 6, 7, 9 (influence and game room-related administrative affairs), and Defendant 1, who is a public official in technical service.

② At around 2007, the Incheon Regional Police Agency established a standing control group, and three standing control groups were mainly controlled by themselves, but the standing control group was disestablished since 2008. Since then, the standing control group was re-established on May 1, 2009. While there was no standing control group in the Incheon Regional Police Agency, the public customs officers of the nine police station living order groups affiliated with the Incheon Regional Police Agency controlled game centers, and the public customs officers of the Incheon Regional Police Agency took the role of managing and supporting them.

③ In 2008, the emergence of a new game product deliberated as a “total user” was difficult to regulate without the aid of the Game Rating Board with professional knowledge. Therefore, the investigators of the Game Rating Board participated in the control and confirmed what kind of rating the game product was rated.

④ In principle, if a continuous control report has been published on the same place of business two or more occasions in a district, even though the illegal report was received, it was reported to the Audit Office of the ○○ Police Station, and if the control report has been published three or more times, it was reported to the Living Order System of the Incheon Regional Police Agency. However, since not only the game room but also the music room are too many establishments subject to control, it was difficult to grasp it properly, and it was also impossible to notify the Audit Office of the hearing because it was not easy to ascertain it, and there was a case where the report was not made to the Incheon Regional Police Agency.

⑤ 인천지방경찰청장의 ‘미단속보고체계 및 사후관리 실태 점검결과 하달 주28) ’ 에 의하면, 각 경찰서 공통으로 지구대 미단속 보고서 관련 경찰서 자체 점검 미흡이 지적되고 있고, 미단속 보고 누락과 미단속업소에 대한 사후점검 미흡이 개선되어야 할 점으로 지적되고 있으며, ○○, ∠∠, ●●경찰서의 경우 미단속업소에 대한 점검활동에 시간이 많이 소요되는 등의 어려움이 있다고 되어 있다.

⑥ 상피고인 2가 운영하던 이 사건 게임장들과 같이, 평상시에는 심의를 받은 게임물과는 다른 ‘사행성 게임물’이 작동되어 영업을 하다가, 단속을 당할 시에 전원을 껐다가 켜면 바로 심의를 받은 게임물이 작동되도록 설비를 해놓은 경우에는, 내부자의 제보가 있거나 그곳에서 게임을 하던 사람의 제보가 있기 전에는 해당 업소가 여러 번 신고되어도 실제로 단속에까지 이르지 못하는 경우가 많았다. 그래서 결국 사행성 게임장 안이나 밖에서 환전이 이루어지는 것을 적발하는 것이 단속의 관건이 된다. 그래서 실제 단속 시에는 손님들로부터 환전 사실에 대한 진술서를 받고 환전 종업원이나 환전업자를 색출하여 불법 환전에 대하여 자술서를 받는 것에 우선순위를 둔다. 환전 종업원이나 환전업자를 색출하여 불법 환전 여부에 대하여 자술서를 받으면, 손님들은 바로 귀가 조치한다 주29) .

7) On the other hand, if an employee of the exchange or money exchange company, who is a business owner at the scene at the time of enforcement, he/she shall immediately go to a police station and immediately prepare an investigation report and control records, etc., and hand over the same to an intelligence team. A flagrant offender shall complete an investigation within 24 hours after arrest, and within six hours in the case of voluntary operation, 30 hours a week after completion of investigation. The time limit includes the time for preparation of a suspect examination, etc. prepared by the intelligence team, and thus, the time limit for investigating the relevant persons in the life order community where the enforcement duty is performed is short. As such, the life order community focuses on the confirmation of the core money exchange company, etc., and the remaining parts are transferred to an intelligence team by preparing an investigation report, etc. according to the statement of the game room-related persons. The investigation and intelligence team shall receive the relevant documents and re-examine the details of the investigation, business period,

(8) If there is no person who will engage in the job at the site, an intelligent team shall investigate the persons involved in the job conducted at the team and have the owner of the job attend the police. However, if it is difficult to ascertain whether the game room is actually operated without the cooperation of the relevant parties, a continuous investigation is required to determine whether the game room is actually operated.

9) Most illegal game resorts are mainly carried out in a depth where the actual operation of a game room is highly likely. In the event of a lower control, it is difficult to crack down on an illegal game room if it is impossible to verify the actual operation of the game room. In addition, if the game room is closed when the control took place, it is difficult to enter the game room by force for control. If the entrance is carried out by force after the entrance to the game room, and if the game room is not secured, it is difficult to enter the game room by force. If the illegal operation of the game room is not ensured, there is a problem that the civil petition will be caused and if the game room is not secured, it is difficult to enter the game room without permission by a traffic police officer.

In February 26, 2009, the "total Use Price" game room registered in Incheon (hereinafter omitted) was 29 game rooms as of February 26, 2009, and among them (hereinafter omitted) as of July 16, 2009, the total use price was 47 game rooms and 13 game rooms among them (hereinafter omitted). In July 16, 2009 (hereinafter omitted), the total use price was 10 game rooms, and the defendant 2's game rooms were 4.

11. △△ Gameland, which was launched by Defendant 2, is located in the way to collapse in the △△ Game site and the Don Game site, and the above game places are located within 100 meters in a straight line with each other.

(12) After running △△ Game, Defendant 2 was controlled on February 24, 2009, he moved to △△ Gameland and operated the business. On May 20, 2009, △△ Gameland was controlled, he again moved to △△ Game site and operated the business. On August 30, 2009, when △△ Game site was controlled, he re-transfered to △△ Game site and operated the business. On November 26, 2009, △△ Game site was controlled.

4) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the facts admitted as above and the records of the instant case, the ancillary facts charged against the said Defendants cannot be deemed as having been proven without reasonable doubt.

A) On February 24, 2009, control, etc. over △△ Game Establishments

① At the time of crackdown on February 24, 2009, Non-Indicted 14 stated in the court of first instance that “A witness who was investigated as an employee of ○○ Game site, Non-Indicted 14 stated that “I first see that Defendant 2 was dead, or that Defendant 6 et al. was put in the game room, or that the accurate situation is not memory.”

② 검사는 이 부분 공소사실에서 인천지방경찰청에서 단속이 이루어진 뒤 ○○경찰서 생활질서계로 인계된 것으로 적시하였다. 그러나 피고인 6은 위 단속을 위하여 2009. 2. 3. 게임물등급위원회에 업무협조의뢰(단속지원 요청) 주35) 공문 을 발송하였다. 당시는 인천지방경찰청의 상설단속반이 해체된 상태였기 때문에 인천지방경찰청에서 자체적으로 단속하여 일선 경찰서에 인계하는 사례는 없었다 주36) . 당시 인천지방경찰청 소속으로 단속에 참여했던 공소외 15는 검찰에서는 인천지방경찰청의 주도로 ◇◇게임장을 단속하였다고 진술하였으나, 제1 원심 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 “검찰청에서 조사를 받을 당시 ◇◇게임장의 단속이 인천지방경찰청의 주도로 단속한 것이라고 진술하였습니다. 그러나 위 진술은 증인이 2008. 9. 17. ◇◇게임장 건너편에 있던 △△게임랜드 단속 시 상황을 착각하여 잘못 진술한 것입니다. 증인은 2009. 2. 24. 게임물등급위원회 2명 함께 ▲▲경찰서와 ■■경찰서 쪽에서 단속을 하던 중 ○○경찰서의 연락을 받고 ◇◇게임장 현장에 진입했습니다. 당시 현장에 갔을 때 환전상으로 보이는 40대 중반의 남자를 ○○경찰서 경찰관이 추궁하고 있었던 것으로 기억합니다.”라고 진술하였다 주37) .

③ The reason behind the above Defendants’ contact with the police officers belonging to the Incheon District Police Agency, which was under control with the investigators of the Game Rating Board in other areas, in regulating △△△ Game site, was that △△ Game site was made by contact with the police officers belonging to the Incheon District Police Agency. Although the office of exchange in the structure of the building was not inside the game site and the office was arrested in a separate office, even if the office of exchange was arrested, if the office of exchange denies the relationship with the game room, it would not be able to obtain evidence that it is illegal

④ In full view of the fact that the above Defendants led to the control of this part, that 10 persons at the time of the control, were in the situation where the site was mixed, and that Defendant 6 appears to have been driving to secure the personal illness of the money exchanger and collect the evidence thereof, and that the above Defendants were arrested Nonindicted 10 (members of the game room), Nonindicted 1 (son’s children), and Nonindicted 14 (employee of the game room) on the same day, and who were punished for criminal punishment, Defendant 6 neglected Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 6 left the game room without being able to look at Defendant 2.

⑤ In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that the above Defendants were aware that the actual business owner of △△ Game place was Defendant 2. In arresting Nonindicted 10, who was the owner of △△ Game place, as a flagrant offender, the entry of the business period, etc. according to the statement was in compliance with the practical practice in regulating the game place as seen earlier, and it seems that there was no perception of the preparation of false public documents and the exercise of false public document (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1026, Jul. 27, 1982). Furthermore, Nonindicted 10 was a person who operated △△ Game place as the same business with Defendant 2, and thus, it is difficult to say that the report on the arrest of flagrant offender was false.

B) Control, etc. of △△ Gameland on May 20, 2009

① On May 209, the above Defendants attempted to take a search and seizure warrant in order to crack down on △△ Gameland and to take a camcam for several times from the behind of the said game room with the understanding of Nonindicted 16, a resident of the building following the △△ Gameland.

② 그런데 2009. 5. 20. 15:50경 △△게임랜드에 얼굴이 알려지지 않았던 인천지방경찰청 상설단속반(2009. 5. 1. 창설됨) 소속 경찰관 공소외 17, 18는 손님인 것처럼 △△게임랜드 안에 들어가 환전 행위를 적발한 후, ○○경찰서의 피고인 6에게 연락하여, 피고인 6이 ◆◆지구대 공소외 19 경장 외 1인의 지원을 받아 단속하였다.

③ In light of the fact that the above Defendants were preparing for the control of △△ Gameland prior to the control, it seems that there was no intention to exclude the above Defendants 2 from the control of △△ Gameland, being milked with Defendant 2.

④ In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that the above Defendants knew that the actual business owner of △△△ Gameland was Defendant 2. Moreover, even if the above Defendants entered Nonindicted 11 and the period of operation of the game room from May 19, 2009 to the 20th of the same month according to the statement of Nonindicted 14 and 1 when preparing a letter of arrest of flagrant offender with respect to Nonindicted 14 and 1, it is difficult to say that the said Defendants did not have any knowledge of the practical practices in regulating the game room, and that there was no perception of the preparation of false official document and the exercise of false official document. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that Nonindicted 11 appears that the Defendant 2 and △△△△ Game was a person who operated the game as a business of the Defendant 11 and △△△ Game as a person who operated the game as a business. Therefore, it was erroneous that the said Defendants

C) Control, etc. on November 26, 2009 Don Game Establishments

① When Nonindicted 20, who was employed as a taxi driver, lost money in the Incheon (hereinafter omitted), Nonindicted 20 decided that the ○○ Police Station would aid the crackdown on the Mebling Game site. Accordingly, the said Defendants sent text messages to the mobile phone when Nonindicted 20 entered the Mebling Game site and confirmed that the game was exchanged while doing so. Nonindicted 20 confirmed the money exchange inside the Mebling Game site, and sent text messages to Nonindicted 20. Nonindicted 20 confirmed the money exchange in the Mebling Game site, and the said Defendants forcedly opened and controlled the door of the Mebling Game site.

② ▒▒경찰서는 ○○경찰서와 인접해 있고 ▒▒경찰서 관내에는 게임장이 별로 없기 때문에 ○○경찰서에서는 게임장 단속을 할 때 종종 ▒▒경찰서에 지원 요청을 하여 합동단속을 하는 경우가 있었다 주40) .

③ 검사는 이 부분 공소사실에서 ‘손님이 인천 ▒▒경찰서에 신고를 하면서 ▒▒경찰서가 주도하여 ▒▒경찰서와 ○○경찰서가 합동으로 단속한 것’으로 적시하였다. 그러나 단속에 참여한 ▒▒경찰서 경찰관 공소외 21은 검찰 조사 시 및 제1 원심 법정에서 “ ♤♤♤게임장도 당일 오후 ○○경찰서의 지원요청을 받아 합동단속을 한 것입니다. 당시 ○○경찰서 경찰관들은 증인에게 ♤♤♤게임장 주변에서 대기하다가 불법영업사실이 확인된 후 연락을 받으면 출동하라고 하였습니다. 그 후 증인 등은 ○○경찰서 경찰관으로부터 연락을 받고 위 게임장으로 들어갔습니다.”라고 진술하였다 주41) . 이에 비추어 보면 ○○경찰서 생활질서계 소속인 위 피고인들이 ♤♤♤게임장에 대한 위 단속을 주도하였고, ▒▒경찰서 경찰관들은 이를 지원하였던 것으로 보인다.

④ The above Defendants appears to have taken measures to return to the game room employees, Defendant 3, and Nonindicted 12, as well as Defendant 3, and Nonindicted 12, as the game room employees. However, considering the fact that Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 12 were more young than the ordinary game room employees, it is difficult for the above Defendants to find that they were the employees of wna game room at the time, and that the above Defendants were interested in the coloring of the exchange, which is the case of the control success, mainly in the above Defendants. Considering that the above Defendants were the situation where the above Defendants controlled wna game room employees, they did not take measures to return to the game room employees with knowledge that Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 12 were employees of wna game room.

⑤ In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the above Defendants knew that the actual business owner of the Gunn Game was the Defendant 2, and even if the above Defendants stated “Nonindicted 13, the proprietor of the game room business, and the period of operation of the game room, from October 25, 2009 to November 26, 2009,” according to Nonindicted 13’s statement when preparing a voluntary report on the operation of the game room, it did not appear to have been aware of the practical practice in regulating the game room as seen earlier, and thus, there seems to have been no perception of the preparation of false official documents and the exercise of false official documents.

D) On March 2009, the non-permanent control of the date of March 2009 and the non-permanent control of the date of August 2009

① According to the ○○ Police Station’s instructions on the control of illegal speculative game rooms and the 2nd report on the result of the control of illegal speculative game rooms, which are bound to “the 42th day of the report details” and “the report on the result of the control of illegal speculative game rooms,” the Incheon Police Agency’s instructions were issued, and according to the instructions, the police officers in charge of each police station reported the results of the control after entering into force. There are several cases where: (a) a police officer in charge of each police station reported the control to “if he/she did so, he/she did not discover business facts because he/she did not find business facts; and (b) a police officer in charge of each police station reported the results thereof; and (c) a person in charge of the report was found to have reported to “the head of the 43th week.”

② In relation to the suspension of the control of △△ Gameland around March 2009, Defendant 3 appeared as a witness at the court of first instance, and stated to the effect that “The three customers in the △△ Gameland were present at the court of first instance to flee on the rooftop and did not come to the police, and they were not the people who have come to go to go to the game.” However, in the case of customers, it is difficult for the police officers to hold the game any longer unless there is any doubt that they were playing the game in the game room. Also, even if there is no clear evidence such as internal reporters, it was difficult to force the entrance to enter the game room and to enter the inside the game room.

③ On August 209, Non-Indicted 22 stated that “In relation to the suspension of the crackdown on the game room, Non-Indicted 22 of the Party’s trial witness stated that “I would like to open the door in the middle, what is, and what is, what is the opening of the door, and whether there was the opening of the door, but there was no subsequent opening of the door.” In light of this, the control police officers did not have intended to open the door, but did not want to open the door, and the internal response in the game room was found to have been removed. In addition, according to the above Non-Indicted 22’s statement, it appears that the game facilities were operated in the case where the situation where the above Non-Indicted 22’s game room was obstructed at the time and restored, it was difficult for the police officers to open the game room in the middle, and even if there was a money exchange businessman outside the △△△ Chapter to have opened the game room and opened the game room in the same way, even if it was not easy for the police officers to do.

④ Even based on the statement made by the above defendant 2, since the defendant 5 and 6 did not show the above defendant 2 as well as the above defendant 2, it does not seem that the above defendant 2 was in a flexible relationship with the defendant 5, 6, and 7 in addition to the defendant 1.

(e) Other

① The above Defendants did not have any personal call or any same meal for one occasion with Defendant 2.

② Although the above Defendants 2 attempted to report the fact that the above Defendants are taking meals at the sugar house, they attempted to make an alternative calculation on behalf of the above Defendants, the said Defendants were refusing to do so.

6. Judgment on Defendant 8

A. misunderstanding of facts as to the failure of the second court to order the collection of penalty

The grounds for confiscation and collection, such as whether the subject of confiscation is subject to confiscation or the recognition of the amount of additional collection, should be recognized by evidence, and there is not only dispute over the share ratio and the amount of profit distributed to each game room by the defendant 8 and the defendant 2 in the judgment of the second court, but also lack of evidence to support the amount of profit in addition to the amount of profit generally estimated by the prosecutor, so it is proper that the second court court's failure to issue an order of additional collection to the defendant 8 is correct, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant 8 by taking account of the favorable or unfavorable sentencing factors as stated in its holding (two years of suspended sentence for one year) is not to be deemed to be too somewhat somewhat weak, as alleged by the prosecutor, under the circumstances where Defendant 8 recognized the crime and the depth of the mistake is against the Defendant 8.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

7. Conclusion

A. Defendant 1

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 among the above judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor, and it is again decided as follows through the pleading.

B. Defendant 2

Each of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed without examining the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant 2 and the prosecutor, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

C. Defendant 3

Each of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 3 is reversed without examining the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant 3, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

D. Defendant 4, 9

The appeal by the above Defendants is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.

E. Defendant 5, 6, 7

The part of the judgment of the court below against the above defendants among the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed as there is a ground for ex officio reversal as set forth in the above 5. A. It is again decided as follows.

F. Defendant 8

The prosecutor's appeal against the above defendant is dismissed as there is no ground.

The summary of each of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 and the evidence related thereto recognized by this court is as follows, except for the alteration of the part of the first instance judgment as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

본문내 포함된 표 위치 쪽 및 행 변경 전 변경 후 제1 원심판결의 범죄사실 제1의 나항 제목 부분 5쪽 16~17행 나. 수뢰 후 부정처사 5) 또한 피고인은 피고인은 제1 원심판결의 범죄사실 제1의 다항 제목 부분 6쪽 3행 다. 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반 나. 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반 제1 원심판결의 범죄사실 제1의 라항 제목 부분 6쪽 9행 라. 위증 다. 위증 제1 원심판결의 증거의 요지 [2010고합778, 2011고합302] 부분 말미 12쪽 5행 ？ ‘피고인 1의 핸드폰(휴대전화번호 생략) 통화내역 일체 등 첨부 보고‘ 추가

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

A. Defendant 1

- Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 131(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (generally, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

- Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (generally, most of the facts about the acquisition of criminal proceeds and choice of imprisonment);

- Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (Perjury, Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

B. Defendant 2

- Articles 133(1), 131(1), and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, offering of bribe and choice of imprisonment);

-Article 44(1)1, Article 28 Subparag. 2, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (with respect to each game room, inclusive, of each game product, choice of imprisonment or imprisonment with labor);

- Articles 44(1)2, 32(1)7, and 30 of the Criminal Act (in inclusive of each game room, exchange of results of each game and choice of imprisonment), respectively.

- Articles 151(1), 30, and 31(1) of the Criminal Code (to assist in extradition or to choose imprisonment);

-Article 45 Subparag. 4, Article 32(1)2, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (inclusive of each game room, provision for use of game products and choice of imprisonment with labor, which are different from each of the classification received);

C. Defendant 3

- Articles 44(1)1, 28 subparag. 2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (as a whole, by each game room, by using each game product and by selecting fines);

- Articles 44(1)2, 32(1)7, and 30 of the Criminal Act (in addition to each game room, exchange of results of each game, choice of fines and fines) of each game, respectively.

-Article 45 Subparag. 4, Article 32(1)2, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in covered by each game room, provision for use of game products and choice of fines that are different from each of the classification received);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

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

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 1);

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 and 55(1)6)

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1, 3);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of Sentencing favorable to Defendant 2 among the following reasons)

1. Confiscation;

- the first sentence of Article 134(1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 1’s note 48)

-Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act (Defendant 2)

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

The latter part of Article 134(1) of the Criminal Act

⊙ 피고인 1

Considering that the amount of bribe received by Defendant 1 reaches KRW 3,324,00,00, actively demanding a bribe for a long time, and providing Defendant 2 with information on the control of a game room, etc., Defendant 1 is subject to strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, it appears that the crime of this case was committed under economic difficulties (the status of 1/2 wages is provisionally seized) while supporting the actual husband of the same crime. Despite Defendant 1’s bribery and the crime of illegal wife, Defendant 2’s private game room in spite of Defendant 1’s bribery and the crime of illegal wife, Defendant 1 was subject to the punishment of fine of KRW 2 million for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2007, and Defendant 1 did not have a criminal record, and Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relation, etc. are not subject to the punishment of KRW 2 million for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2007.

⊙ 피고인 2

Defendant 2’s bribe amounting to KRW 3,324,00,00 granted by Defendant 1, who is a police officer, to avoid crackdown in the course of operating an illegal gambling game room, and considering that the solicitation also corresponds to cases related to the execution of illegal business, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant 2.

However, Defendant 2 actively cooperates in the investigation of the relevant case, recognized the crime and reflects the error thereof in depth, currently, appears to have been operated by acquiring and operating metal structures and creative construction business after discontinuing the game room business, and seems to have been living for those who have difficulty, such as senior citizens who have a usual difficulty, etc., by taking into account the various circumstances such as Defendant 2’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relation, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case as indicated in the records of this case shall be determined as ordered.

⊙ 피고인 3

Considering that there have been side effects such as the degradation of the people's desire to work due to the illegal gambling game that Defendant 3 had worked, and that the family is destroyed by the addition, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant 3.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant 3 recognized the crime and reflects the mistake in depth, the fact that there is no previous conviction, the present situation is working at the metal structure and creative construction enterprise operated by Defendant 2 after the closure of working in the game room, and other various circumstances, including Defendant 3’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relations, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records of the instant case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

⊙ 피고인 1의 일부 뇌물수수 및 피고인 2의 일부 뇌물공여의 점[제1 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(1) 순번 7번 기재 100만 원 및 2차에 걸친 회식비 명목의 현금 100만 원 부분]

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of the above 1.C.(1) and 2.A.(1)(a)(1)(a)(b)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(b)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i) the above Defendants are not proven of a crime and thus should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the aforementioned facts charged and the crime of offering of a bribe to Defendant

⊙ 피고인 1의 일부 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반의 점[제1 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(1) 기재 부분]

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as stated in the preceding paragraph 1.C.(2)(a) and as shown in the preceding paragraph 1.C.(2)(b) as if there is no proof of a crime, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, 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 on the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, etc.,

⊙ 피고인 1의 일부 위증의 점

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as stated in the preceding paragraph 1.C.(3)(A) and as stated in the preceding paragraph 1.C.(3)(b) as if it were determined, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the aforementioned facts charged and the perjury charged for a single crime were found guilty, it shall not be

⊙ 피고인 5, 6, 7 부분

The main and main points of the charges against the above Defendants are as stated in the preceding 5.B.1 and 5.C.1, and as stated in the preceding 5.B.2) and 5.C.4, each of the charges against the above Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the above charges against the above Defendants are pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty against the above Defendants under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is publicly announced.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Maximum Pung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The trial records (hereinafter referred to as “public trial records or evidence records”) 234 pages 234.

Note 2) The trial records 266 pages

3) The prosecutor also expressed that the above application for changes in indictment was made on the second trial date of the trial.

Note 4) The trial records 38 to 339 pages.

Note 5) The trial records 341 pages

Note 6) The trial records 345-346 pages

Note 7) The trial records 342 pages

Note 8) The trial records 364 pages

Note 9) No. 4, 43 of the evidence records.

Note 10) Evidence No. 4, 577-580 pages

Note 11) The trial records 151 pages

Note 12) The trial records 256 pages

Note 13) Evidence No. 1, 244-323, 65-66 pages of Evidence Record

Note 14) Reference to the reply to the inquiry of fact by the KT representative director on February 9, 2012.

Note 15) Evidence No. 4, 308 pages

Note 16) Evidence No. 6, 57 pages

Note 17) The trial records 345 pages

Note 18) No. 5 1,66 of the evidence records

Note 19) 806 pages of the trial records, No. 5,63 pages of evidence

Note 20) Evidence No. 1, 244-260 pages

Note 21) The trial records 347 pages

Note 22) 1,518 pages of evidence records

23) The subject matter of aggravated punishment under Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes includes not only simple bribery (Article 129 of the Criminal Act), but also illegal bribery (Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act). (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004). A prosecutor considered the subject matter of the charge of the crime of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) as part of the charge of the crime of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the prosecutor expressed that he/she is an accomplice on the second trial date).

Note 24) Defendant 1, 16, 15-16, respectively.

Note 25) Trial Records 747-748 pages

Note 26) Trial Records 706-707

Note 27) Trial Records 696-699 pages, 725

Note 28) Trial Records 717-720 pages

Note 29) See the trial records 756-774.

Note 30) This seems to have been determined by the police internally.

Note 31) The trial records 784 pages

Note 32) The trial records 702 pages

Note 33) The trial records 721 pages

Note 34) The trial records 629 pages

Note 35) The trial records 728 pages

Note 36) The trial records 571 pages

Note 37) Trial Records 780-782

Note 38) Evidence No. 2, 137-139 pages

Note 39) Trial Records 745-746 pages

Note 40) Evidence No. 4 1,107 pages

Note 41) Evidence No. 4 1,108, 796 pages of the trial records

Note 42) Evidence No. 5 1,268-1,343 pages

Note 43) Evidence Nos. 5 1,331-1,332, 1,340-1,341 of evidence records

Note 44) Evidence No. 4, 25, 151 pages

Note 45) Trial Records 377-378 pages

Note 46) The trial records 378 pages

47) Meanwhile, the prosecutor supplemented the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1 through the amendment of the indictment at the fourth trial of the first instance court. Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 5, 6, and 7 on February 24, 2009, which included the part where he committed unlawful acts in relation to the control of △△ Game Book on May 20, 2009, the control of △△△ Game Book on November 26, 2009, and the control of △△△ Game Book on November 26, 2009. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this part (see the foregoing 5.C.) and there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court (see the foregoing 5.1.). In recognizing the criminal facts against Defendant 1, it is correct to exclude this part from the content of unlawful acts.

Note 48) Around May 2009, Defendant 1 appears not to have been seized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705 delivered on May 30, 2003). However, it is also deemed that Defendant 1’s 40 LN-40A610A3F was not seized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705, May 30, 2003).