logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.12.07 2012고합332
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and six months and by a fine of ninety thousand won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Status of Defendant A is the chairman of the Urban Environment Improvement Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee") who is deemed a public official under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to perform the duties of establishing the association, such as the duties of selecting a rearrangement project management company, a designer, etc., and Defendant B, as a general manager of the Promotion Committee, supported Defendant A, and took charge of duties such as the expense of the Office

[The progress of the committee for promotion of the establishment of an urban environment rearrangement project association in the F Area] Gyeonggi-do designated the G area in the F Area as the urban environment rearrangement project district in Goyang-gu, Goyang-si on August 2, 2010. On December 17, 2012 of the same year, Ilsan-si approved the committee for the promotion of the establishment of the urban environment rearrangement project in the F Area (the inaugural general meeting of the Association on June 22,

On June 29, 2011, the committee of promoters selected (ju), H (I), and the design company, as the rearrangement project management company (hereinafter referred to as the "maintenance company").

(1) On March 22, 201, the Defendants were found to have been convicted of committing the crime of offering a bribe in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on November 14, 201 (Seoul East Eastern District Court 201 Gohap427) at the promotion committee office located in Yongsan-gu L in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan in the middle of March 201. The Defendants were introduced with the vice president N (I are the same students) from M (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012 Gohap427) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2012. At the above office around the 22th of the same month, the Defendants were aware of the desire that N (I are the same students) and N (N) as the operator of public relations manpower supply business, but N want to receive the improvement project from the promotion committee.

In addition, the Defendants introduced the K representative director of the JJ, which was together with the O at the around 25th of the same month office of the promotion committee, and came to know from the promotion committee that N would receive the maintenance project services and that K would want to receive the design services.

Defendants are at the promotion committee office around the 22th of the same month.

arrow