2016No2001. Acceptance of Misappropriation, Bribery

A

Prosecutor

Park Jong-soo (prosecution) and Kim Jong-soo (Trial)

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney C, E, and ER

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gohap14 Decided June 23, 2016

February 17, 2017

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The statement of grant of KRW 40 million to the Defendant of R’s point of breach of trust is naturally naturally gathered in the course of explaining the details of the cash withdrawal in the account, the possibility that R made a false statement to escape from the burden of additional investigation, etc. is very low, and the statement on the date and time, etc. of the grant of money is consistent, the statement of R is credibility. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 40 million from R.

B. The statement of the point of breach of trust from AK is consistent, and AM does not have any motive to make a false statement to the defendant, and the process of delivering money can also be accepted. Thus, AM’s statement that it received and delivered funds from AM at the request of the defendant can be reliable. In addition, AO has stated that it was a fact that it delivered money from AM to the defendant. Accordingly, it is recognized that the defendant received KRW 30 million from AK through AM. It is recognized that the defendant received KRW 30 million from AM. The point of breach of trust from AS.

In full view of the current status of transactions between S and ATS (hereinafter referred to as "ATS") at the time when the defendant receives money and valuables from AS (hereinafter referred to as "AS"), the amount of money and valuables received by the defendant, the status of the defendant, relationship with AS, and circumstances after the receipt of money and valuables, the fact that the defendant received visibility in return for illegal solicitation from AS is recognized.

D. The point of breach of trust from AH consistently stated that the Defendant’s wife gave KRW 30 million to BI was around the time of marriage with the Defendant’s wife, and that the Defendant was the director of BI during the time of marriage with the Defendant’s wife. In light of the fact that the Defendant was the director around February 3, 2012 and that there was no reason to make a false statement only during the time when BJ delivered money to BI, the testimony of BPH that the time of delivering money to BI was around March 2012 is credibility. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from BJ, the wife of AH through BI, the Defendant’s wife, around March 2012.

E. The issue of offering of a bribe is that even if a person won a lawsuit related to the Cheongju-si in favor of the Cheongju-si, it was necessary to sell the Cheongju-si site at the Cheongju-si site at the Cheongju-si site, and according to the former documents, such as the “Report on the Examination of Sale of Cheongju-si Factory Site”, the sales agency service contract with the Cheongju-si was not concluded until November 2010. The prosecutor’s statement pointing this out that AM reported the fact of requesting a bribe to the defendant and obtained the approval thereof, and there is no reason to state such fact. Thus, AM’s statement that the defendant delivered a bribe with the approval after reporting the fact of requesting a bribe to the defendant is reliable. Therefore, it is recognized that the defendant offered a bribe to B in collusion with AM, etc.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The point of breach of trust taking property from R

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that it is difficult to believe that R’s statement that the Defendant offered KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s company house prior to his/her work at around October 2009 to November 21, 2009, and that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

① R changed the amount of money granted to the Defendant by an investigative agency from KRW 20 million to KRW 40 million. On September 28, 2009, the first statement was made to the Defendant to explain the place of use of KRW 20 million withdrawn from the account of the wifeY on September 28, 2009, and it is likely that R gave KRW 40 million to explain the place of use of the money received from the Z and AA.

② R fails to clearly memory the date and time, such as stating that the date and time of payment of money in the court of the court below is October 2009 or November 2009, and it is very exceptional to deliver money to the Defendant’s home, whose superior is considerably difficult to attend without any prior contact.

③ In light of the process of changing R’s statement on the method of preparing money and the fact that R made the first statement that R gave the Defendant the first KRW 20 million, it is difficult to believe that R’s statement on the method of preparing KRW 40 million is in fact.

(D) It is difficult to understand that R does not want to make a specific solicitation with the grant of KRW 40 million. It does not seem that the Defendant clearly knows that R would want to make a manufacturing headquarters.

⑤ Even if based on R’s statement, it is not clear whether the Defendant is the president of the Republic of Korea. It is difficult to understand that: (a) there was no money in the past without giving all the money to AB that has already been paid several times of money; and (b) there was a substantial amount of money in the amount of KRW 40 million to the Defendant that is not certain whether the Plaintiff is the president of the Republic of Korea. In addition, it is doubtful whether there was a need to provide the Defendant with large amount of money that is KRW 40 million to the Defendant, even if there was no big difficulty in becoming the head of the manufacturing headquarters.

④ On September 15, 2015, R stated that the representative director of AG (hereinafter referred to as “AG”) was detained on the charge of taking property in breach of trust from AH on September 15, 2015. On October 30, 2015, AA stated that R gave a total of KRW 150 million to R from the prosecutor’s investigation on October 30, 2015, and the Z and DC stated that R gave a total of KRW 217 million to R from March 2009 to September 2012, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of false statement was made in order to deviate from its imminent situation, such as additional investigation, in a situation where R is under criminal trial as above.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are recognized:

① According to the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol of R on October 29, 2015, it is stated that R voluntarily made a statement to the prosecutor’s question that, around September 28, 2009, Y asked for the reasons why Y deposited cash of KRW 20 million at the Seoul Ho-dong branch of the Seoul Ho-dong, Seoul Ho-dong, the Defendant paid money to the Defendant. However, R, at the time of its statement in the court of first instance, stated that Z was about the reasons why Z was stated as such at the time of its statement. The prosecutor stated that Z was fried to the prosecutor. It is true that the prosecutor did not have such statement.” However, there is no such content in the written statement about Z.

② Since then on November 17, 2015, R changed the statement that was given to the Defendant in the prosecutor’s investigation to the extent that the amount was KRW 40 million. However, R made a statement to the effect that “as to the process in which the statement was changed in the court of the first instance, the fact that Z has ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever,

③ Since October 29, 2015, R was investigated by the prosecution regarding the receipt of rebates from AA, Z and DC, and R stated that at the time of the trial, R was subject to a lot of suspicions of receiving rebates from a prosecutor without mind.

B) In full view of the circumstances as above, including the circumstance where R stated the fact of granting money to the Defendant, the circumstances as to the situation at the time of the statement, and the date, time, place, and method of granting money, the method of preparing money, the absence of specific solicitation, and the purpose of granting money, etc., it is difficult to believe that R’s statement that the Defendant gave KRW 40 million to the Defendant is difficult. Other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

(b) Property in breach of trust from AK;

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that it is difficult to believe that AM’s statement to the effect that the Defendant’s office received KRW 30 million from the president of the AK at the end of February 2010 through the end of March 3, 2010 and delivered it at the Defendant’s office, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

① On February 2, 2012 through March 3, 2012, AM stated that the Defendant was in need of guard, and it does not appear that the Defendant required funds to instruct AM, a subordinate employee, to seek KRW 30 million immediately after the Defendant was appointed as the president.

AM received the above instructions from the Defendant and entered it with AO. However, it is difficult to easily believe that AM’s statement was made to the subordinate staff of the Defendant’s instructions that may be very exceptional and illegal, and it is difficult to understand that AO respondeds to the president of N Industries AK. In addition, AO made a statement to the effect that AO’s statement to the effect that AO respondeds to receive KRW 30 million from AM in the court of original instance.

③ In a situation where it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Defendant would use expenses for illegal purposes, and there is no agreement on the preparation of KRW 30 million between AK and the Defendant, it is difficult to understand that AM would deliver to AK KRW 30 million. Moreover, AM may receive expenses from another place, and it is doubtful that AM received documents bags containing money from the president of the affiliate in the company’s underground coffee shop, which is an open place.

It is difficult to understand not only the question as to whether AM did not deliver KRW 30,000,000 contained in a document bag as it is but also whether there was a need to separate a white letter bag separately, but also the fact that it was made at an office opened with these work. Moreover, it is doubtful that the two uniforms were filled in an envelope so as to be unfased, and that there was a fasible and fasible method entering the judgment with the intention of making the judgment. Meanwhile, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant only received a report from the President of AM that the Defendant sought money from the President of AM, and that the Defendant was able to do so.

(5) AM states that it has received money as a congratulatory money for the appointment of the president, and it is difficult to recognize that there was a solicitation for delivery contracts and the evaluation of companies as stated in the facts charged because it has not been investigated into AK as a material taxpayer.

6) After having been sentenced to a bribe for the crime of offering a bribe, AM stated that there was a false statement from the prosecutor's office that he had received KRW 30 million from AM while undergoing an investigation on the fact that he was registered as an employee of the NN industry company and received monthly pay from the prosecutor's office, title trust to A QES, and the fact that he received money and valuables from the ES office, and that he had received KRW 30 million from AM, as shown in this part of the facts charged. However, there is no objective evidence to prove that AO made the above statement prior to the confession of the defendant, and there is no possibility that AM made a false statement in order to escape from the imminent place where AM was led by an investigative agency or may receive investigation due to a criminal charge.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are recognized:

① On September 8, 2015, AM was investigated by the prosecution, and the prosecutor first testified that AO was aware of the fact that AO delivered KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and subsequently, it was denied. However, AO visited the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office from September 4, 2015 to 18:47, but there is no record stating that AO sent KRW 30 million to the Defendant at the time of delivery. Meanwhile, AM was present at the prosecutor’s office from 15:0 to 18:30 on the same day, but did not receive any investigation with respect to delivery of KRW 30 million.

② In addition, AO was present at the prosecution on September 11, 2015, and was investigated. According to AM’s statement, the above written statement is written to the effect that A0,000 won was received from AK and delivered to AO. As a result, A0,00 won was asked about whether A0,000 won was known.

③ AM stated that, rather than delivering money from the president of AK to the Defendant at the court of the first instance, it was the same as having received money from the Defendant, and that the money was divided into a letter envelope, and that it was stored in the west. However, it is difficult to obtain the money from the office opened for the future to collect the money incurred in the envelope of a document that is boomed from the bottom of the book and then divide it into a letter bag by withdrawing the money from the body of the body. It is doubtful whether it could be easy to facilitate the work of inserting KRW 50,000 into a letter box where the letter box is located under the book.

④ AM stated that the Defendant was able to receive a report on the wind of Shi Shirts without having a string place. However, it is difficult for the Defendant, at the above uniform, to receive the money improperly collected from him/her, while delivering the money to the Defendant, which was difficult to put him/her in, and without sealing his/her entrance into, a tape, etc., and deliver the two disputing correspondence bags.

⑤ At the time of undergoing an investigation into this part of the facts charged by the prosecution in the trial court, AM stated that the part, etc. which was registered as an employee of the NN industry company and received monthly salary was considerably difficult mentally and mentally.

B) In full view of the circumstances such as the developments leading up to which AM stated that it was granted money to the Defendant in the course of the prosecutor’s investigation, interests, methods of delivery, etc., and the preparation and delivery of money as stated by the lower court, the statement made by AM is difficult to believe that it received KRW 30 million from AK from the NN Industrial Complex and delivered it to the Defendant. Other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the charges, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the charges. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit, since there is no error of law by misapprehending the facts in the lower judgment or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have received an illegal solicitation from AS, and that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(1) There is no evidence to prove that aS explicitly made a request to the defendant at the time when the AS is delivered.

② From the perspective of the fact that S has used various means, such as the provision of free samples, incentives, and advertising promotion expenses, to promote sale from the past, and this appears to have been used for other revenue sources as well as AT companies, and the payment contract of discounted payments is made under the conditions to achieve sales targets and reduce accounts receivable, it is difficult to readily conclude that the payment contract of discounted payments concluded on October 5, 2010 is the content that unfairly accords to AT companies.

③ In light of the export amount of S and the amount of redemption of bonds, and the details of repayment, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a circumstance to suspend transactions with AT company on the ground of cumulative performance of attempted bonds around 2010.

④ In full view of the fact that the purpose of reducing the amount of claims under the sales agency agreement concluded on October 4, 2010 was achieved in 2010 and 2011, and that even though the goal of reducing the amount of claims was failed to be achieved, it appears that it was difficult to suspend the current transaction because it was difficult to find out the import markets that can remarkably increase and replace the amount of exports to AT company, and that S implemented its own measures to recover the amount of claims that attempted to have been collected and reduced the amount of exports, it cannot be readily concluded that S entered into the sales agency agreement in 2010 without the intention to recover the amount of claims that attempted to have been actually accrued.

(5) In full view of other factors such as the period and scale of transactions between S and AT, status in AS in ATS, status in the Defendant’s S, relationship between the Defendant and AS, and the situation at the time of delivery of visibility between the Defendant and the Defendant, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was given a solicitation from AS regarding the contract for the payment of discount and the settlement of the issue of attempted bonds.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Taking into account the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., from 192, S has traded with AU union since 192; ii) AT company was the maximum importer supplied with a substantial quantity of the entire S production; ② AS was immediately after the conclusion of the sales agency contract and the payment contract on October 4, 2010 at the time when AS was given visibility; ③ at the time, the Defendant was going through a business trip to Seria to attend the completion ceremony of Seria plant; ③ at that time, the Defendant was given a sight to all the participants of Sus including the Defendant; ④ immediately after the Defendant was given visibility; ④ the Defendant delivered the visibility to AU union union chairperson, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was in contact with a solicitation for the payment of discounted amounts and the settlement of attempted claims from AS, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this part of the court below.

D. The point of taking property in breach of trust from AH

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to believe that the statements made by AH and BJ around March 2012 were in fact and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was returned from AH on January 2013.

① As the first R’s statement on the evidence record, it appears that an investigation into this part of the facts charged was started, but R stated in the court below that there was no memory as to when AH paid money to the Defendant, only the prosecutor first asked questions and asked questions at the court below.

② At the prosecution’s investigation, AH and BJ stated that: (a) only mentioned that the Defendant was returned money to the Defendant, but did not mention the specific time; (b) thereafter, they did not receive money from the Defendant’s married marriage; and (c) thereafter, the Defendant sent KRW 30 million to the Defendant via the Defendant’s married couple, and received money from the Defendant’s wife on February 3, 2012 or around March, 2012; and (b) subsequently, BJ stated that the Defendant and B had received money from BK. However, the Defendant stated that: (a) delivered KRW 30 million,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s immediately returned the following day through BL, a driver, who stated that the Defendant and B returned money from AH; (b) changed the process of the above investigation; and (c) there is any doubt that the testimony between AH and BJ would change in accordance with the investigation process; and (c) would be changed depending on any other related person’s statement.

(3) There is no objective evidence, such as financial data from which theJ may know where the said cash was created.

④ It is difficult to understand that Defendant her only delivered money to his wife by delivering money to his wife around the time of marriage. It is difficult to understand that Defendant her only delivered money to her wife without any person who gets married to her wife. AG is a partner.

It is difficult to understand that the fixed amount was paid to the defendant simply by the auditor's marking after the lapse of one year and eight months from July 2010. AH paid 1 million won to the defendant's father's married ceremony in addition to the above KRW 30 million.

In accordance with the statement of AH and BJ, the Defendant received a total of KRW 30 million around March 2012, and KRW 30 million around October 2012, and returned KRW 60 million on January 8, 2013 after several months passed thereafter. It is doubtful that the Defendant returned 60 million to AH and BJ not only KRW 30 million but also KRW 30 million when returning the money that the Defendant received as a problem for the reappointment of the president. In addition, it is questionable that BK returned the goods to AH by the investigative agency that the expenses required for the reappointment of the president were not the structure required for the return of the goods to AH, and in light of this, AH stated that there was no special speech, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of returning KRW 30 million to B and 30 million at the beginning of January 2013, which is near the reappointment of the president.

④ On October 5, 2015, AH was charged with the charge of giving rise to a breach of trust against R, the charge of embezzlement of AG funds. On November 25, 2015, AH was charged with detention on the charge of the charge of the prosecution investigation related to this part of the charge, and was charged with monthly pay by registering R and other S as an employee of AG and paying the wife of its employees and employees who retired from R, including R, as an employee of AG, provided AC and R with Eccoo car and corporate card, and provided entertainment expenses for golf entertainment expenses and studio-sculing entertainment expenses. Under the foregoing circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that A and BJ made a false statement in order to escape from the imminent wife, such as additional investigation.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are recognized:

① R only stated in the court of the trial that it was returned money to the Defendant from AH, and that it was a time when the Defendant’s father was married, and that the public prosecutor was aware of the fact that the president was a gold when he was married to the AH’s pocketbook, and that the same was sexual intercourse with the fact that the public prosecutor was aware of the fact that he was returned.

② The BJ stated that it was returned to the lower court and the competent court. However, if it delivered money on March 2012 and around October 2012, as stated in the AH and BJ’s statement, the Defendant was in custody of the boxes received from the AH’s side until the Defendant returned money on January 8, 2013, which was several months thereafter, and this point is difficult to obtain. On January 7, 2013, 2013, the BJ alleged that the Defendant received money, unlike usual, was in Seoul without getting off the AG’s safe office, and on the said day, it does not appear that the BJ could not deliver money to the Defendant.

B) In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the circumstances indicated by the lower court regarding the process of changing AH and BJ’s statement, the purpose of granting money, the process of returning money, and the interest in the statement, etc., it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant’s wife gave KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s wife around March 2012. Other evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone excluding the possibility that the Defendant was returned on the day following the day on which he/she received from AH around January 2013, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this portion of the charges, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the charges. Accordingly, this part of the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation

E. The point of offering of bribe

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that it was difficult to credibility the AM’s statement to the effect that a bribe was given upon reporting to the Defendant on or around November 201, 2010, and obtaining approval for the offering of bribe, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

① On July 31, 2015, AM presented a document, including “11/24 CEO reporting from a prosecutor,” “former. Cheongju Factory Site Sale Review Report,” which entered into a sales agency service contract with a company operating a dispute resolution committee, after November 24, 2010, and stated that the facts were reported to the Defendant regarding a bribe. However, even based on the description itself of the above documents, it can be proven that the instant service contract was concluded after November 24, 2010, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received a report on the payment of a bribe.

② At the first instance court of the relevant case of offering of a bribe (hereinafter referred to as “first instance case”), AM did not assert the fact that it was reported to and obtained approval from the Defendant despite having been sentenced to partial denial of a criminal charge and having been detained by the court. However, it is difficult to understand that AM was not subject to pressure or compensation from the Defendant, and that it was difficult to understand that AM was not able to report to the Defendant, which is an element of sentencing favorable to himself/herself, in the event of the withdrawal of S. In addition, it is difficult to understand that AM, who did not report to the Defendant in the preceding case, stated that it was reported to the Defendant by reversed the statement solely by the fact that AM, which

③ Even though AM reported to the Defendant on a bribe, it is also doubtful that it did not inform the Defendant of the fact that AM did not report to the lower-ranking staff AO with close interest in 100 million won out of 300 million won in advance of the bribe, as well as to the fact that AM was investigated and tried as an accomplice of the offering of a bribe in the preceding case.

④ In general, if the Defendant, who is the president of the Republic of Korea, first heard a public official’s report on the promotion of sale while taking a large amount of bribe, he/she can not be able to receive a bribe in relation to whom he/she will give, whether it is necessary to proceed with the sale of the bribe while taking the bribe, and whether the sale of the bribe is certain if it takes the bribe. However, it is difficult to readily accept that the Defendant, without asking any questions, was aware of the fact that he/she only "........."

⑤ If the instant service contract was not concluded at the time the Defendant’s approval was obtained, as stated in the AM’s statement, even if it is not deemed impossible to prepare advance payment provisions in writing, it is difficult to understand that AM and AO individually prepared and delivered a large amount of KRW 300 million to B Q.

(6) Although AM is the head of the Real Estate Business Association, there is a motive to accept a bribe for the performance, etc. of the Real Estate Business Association, the president does not seem to have a motive to resolve the problem of an Cheongju factory even when he delivers a bribe to the

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following circumstances are recognized.

① In the documents of “former Report on the Sale Review of the Site for Cheongju Factory”, the Defendant stated that the report on the offering of a bribe to the Defendant was not stated, and that AM was not a statement about the fact that the Defendant reported to the Defendant in the process of investigation by the prosecution due to this document in the court of the trial.

② AM made a statement to the effect that it was not due to the failure to make a report to the Defendant in the preceding case in the court of the trial, but due to the fact that he/she was responsible as a working-level officer, rather than due to the failure to pay attention to his/her existing argument.

③ It is also difficult to accept that AM did not inform Q Q Q who will directly deliver a bribe to the Defendant while taking charge of sales negotiations with Cheongju City.

④ In light of the process of sales negotiations with Cheongju-si, S’s asset and financial status, the current status of the site of Cheongju-si factory, etc., it is difficult for the Defendant and S to find an obvious reason to sell the site of Cheongju-si factory until giving a large amount of bribe to public officials in Cheongju-si.

B) In full view of the above circumstances and the background leading up to the reversal of the AM’s statement, Defendant’s attitude and method of raising money, and motive for offering a bribe as stated by the lower court, it is difficult to believe that the AM’s statement that reported to the Defendant on or around the beginning of November 2010 about the demand of a bribe and obtained approval therefor is difficult. Moreover, the statements made by A0 and Q are merely an abstract side, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the facts charged. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit, since there is no error of misapprehending the facts of the lower judgment or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges' premium table.

Judges Chang Sung