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

B. Acceptance of bribe

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Offering of bribe;

E. Breach of trust

(f) Bidding interference;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.d.e.b.

Defendants

Promotion (public prosecution) and Kim Yong-ju (public trial)

Attorney AS (for the defendant A)

Law Firm AT, Attorney AU (Defendant B)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Gohap144 decided September 28, 2012, 190 (consolidated), 190

Gohap, 262(Joint), 281(Joint), Judgment

January 31, 2013

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years and by a fine of 230 million won. Where Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 400,000 into one day.

Defendant A’s appeal of KRW 240 million shall be collected additionally. Defendant B’s appeal shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The defendant's KRW 100 million delivered by J of the representative director of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "I") and KRW 80 million delivered by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L") from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L") is not a bribe but a 180 million won received by the defendant and the defendant's representative director, who is the delivery company, in collusion with L Co., Ltd., under his duties and concluded a contract with L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L Co., Ltd.") by deceiving the Korea Power and Atomic Power and Nuclear Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Korea Co., Ltd.") in excess of an appropriate amount, and the defendant promised to return part of the delivered price received by I or L to receive it in advance, and thus, the above 100 million won was not a bribe, but a profit distribution between the defendant and the delivery company, and this constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Fraud, which affected the judgment of the court below.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of 10 years and the fine of 460 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of Defendant B’s case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

(1) According to the reply of fact-finding to the fact-finding regarding KRW 100 million issued by the J of the I representative director, each fact-finding with respect to the Korea Egypt Nuclear Power Headquarters of the High Power Headquarters of the High Power Headquarters of the High Power Headquarters of the High Power Headquarters of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant, as the team leader, appears to be more than the appropriate contract amount of the above contract amount, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant and the I representative director agreed to make the above contract amount in advance.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal in this part is without merit to examine further.

(2) As to KRW 80 million delivered from LO M

(A) If a person deemed a public official or a public official receives money from a construction business operator, etc. when concluding a contract for the performance of a project necessary for a public office or for the purchase of goods, whether such money is deemed a bribe received from a public official in relation to his/her duties, or whether it is deemed that such money has been acquired by means of a prior agreement with a construction business operator by entering into a contract with a construction business operator with an excessive amount of money should be objectively assessed and determined by comprehensively taking into account the intent of the parties who granted and received the money, the content and nature of the contract, the ratio between the contract amount and the amount received, the amount of the received money, the appropriate profit that the construction business operator, etc. may obtain through the performance of the contract, the time interval between the time when the construction business operator, etc. received the money from a public official and the public official

(B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding this case, L is a contract for purchase of 649 million won, which was placed at the first place force team of Young Atomic Energy Headquarters around March 25, 201, and a contract for purchase of 12 opportal services with the defendant's own opportal 12 billion won around March 29, 201, which is hard to view that the above contract was concluded by the defendant and M is more than 00,000 won. However, according to the above facts that the defendant's opportal 120,000 won supply contract was concluded between the above 00,000 won and the defendant's opportal 200,000 won, which was hard to be seen as the above contract's opportal 20,000 won, and that the defendant's opportal 200,000 won was delivered to the above defendant's opportal 10,000.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's appeal is without merit.

B. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The instant crime is serious because the Defendant, who is in charge of managing various electronic signals (indembing variables) related to the operation of the instant nuclear power plant while working as the H head of the Han Power Plants, takes charge of managing the equipment related to the operation of the said nuclear power plant. In this regard, the Defendant’s measurement and control product supply and installation amounting to 242 million won in total from five measuring and control suppliers and installation companies, with regard to the purchase of goods and installation of the nuclear power plant, and the nature of the crime is serious. Since the nuclear power plant is closed, its employees are unable to freely enter into a contract with the specific supplier and Han Power Sources. The head of each power plant has an absolute authority to conclude contracts with each other, and the Defendant has no choice but to inform all the suppliers of bid information in advance, and thus, has no choice but to enter into contracts with the relevant supplier with the world during the period of 20 million won or more, and thus, it is difficult to enter into contracts with the supplier and the supply of the goods, including the supply of the goods.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant was deemed as a public official under the law, not the original public official, the fact that the defendant was the first offender, the defendant's mistake is divided, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In addition to only one minor criminal record, the defendant has no criminal record, and the defendant has divided his/her wrongs, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant with knowledge that the nuclear power plant is closed and that the team leader or vice-head of the team in each field of the power plant is absolutely authorized to supply the money and valuables of 45,30,000 won in total to four team leader or vice-head of the team or vice-head of the team in each field of the power plant, and entered into a supply contract in a favorable position over several occasions, and the contract was committed in collusion with other companies, and the nature of the crime was serious. The defendant provided money and valuables as above and received prior information on the bidding. This resulted in the defendant's failure to prevent the supply of the plaintiff's water to Hanwon because the defendant's company actually takes advantage of competition, which led to the defendant's failure to take advantage of the defendant's company's force, and thus, the defendant's act of preventing the entry of the company into the illegal business activities based on the nuclear power plant's age, and even if the defendant's company has excellent skills, the defendant's act of offering money and valuables should not decrease the safety of the defendant's.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant A is with merit, and the part against the defendant A is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows. The appeal by the defendant B among the judgment below is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is without merit

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court (defendant A) is the same as that of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Defendant A)

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the fact of acceptance of bribe from theJ of a donor, the selection of a limited term of imprisonment, and the imposition of a fine as necessary) , Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management, etc. of Public Institutions (the fact of acceptance of bribe from the donor M, including, but not limited to, the case necessary for, the case) , Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the case of acceptance of bribe and the case of the donor B), Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act due to the acceptance of bribe from J of the

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Considerations favorable to the defendant in determining the grounds for appeal above)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Articles 134 and 357 (3) of the Criminal Act (Article 134 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Crime against Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Bribery)

Judges of the presiding judge, Gimcheoncheon

Judges Song Jin only

Judges Kim Jae-chul