2017No399 Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery partially recognized)

name of a crime: Acceptance of a bribe

A

Prosecutor and Defendant

Lee Jae-soo (prosecution), Lee Woo-cil (Trial)

Attorney CT, CU, CV

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gohap799 Decided January 20, 2017

July 21, 2017

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant received KRW 5 million from K as the amount of money without connection with G investigation, and KRW 50 million, which was issued on or before August 5, 2015, received part of the money that was requested for the preparation of the deposit for lease of apartment houses as the loan money. As such, the duty relationship and the value of the crime of acceptance of bribe is not recognized, and the Defendant received KRW 5 million, which was issued on or before January 25, 2016, as the Defendant received the deposit at the time of his/her transfer to another person, and thus, the said money is not recognized as a quid pro quo relationship for the crime of acceptance of bribe. Moreover, the Defendant did not receive KRW 5 million from K around March 28, 2016 and KRW 5 million from April 15, 2016. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility, probative value, and burden of proof, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the penalty of 5 years of imprisonment, the fine of 100 million won, the penalty of 89 million won) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Each protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against K is admissible as evidence, and in full view of the other evidences, among the facts charged in this case, the part of the charges in this case that the defendant received KRW 5 million each from K around December 31, 2015, around February 4, 2016, around February 13, 2016, around February 27, 2016, and around March 24, 2016 may also be found guilty. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the innocence.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The point of acceptance of bribe

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant received a bribe after receiving KRW 5 million from K around June 2015, and KRW 50 million around August 5, 2015, in return for the solicitation of G case.

A) From January 30, 2015, the Defendant was working as the head of the intelligence criminal investigation division of the E police station from around January 30, 2015, and was in charge of H-related G2 as the final approving authority of the case, and as seen thereafter, recognized the bribe of KRW 5 million received on or around July 28, 2015. In light of the circumstances, K was sufficiently aware that there was a relationship with H around the time of receipt of each of the money and valuables in this part.

B) There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant and K have maintained a private-friendly relationship irrelevant to their duties.

① Around 2004, the Defendant became aware of K as a partner of an AI slope, a police officer assigned to the E police station in charge of the investigation into the E police station and the investigator, but in around 2007, the contact was interrupted. Since around 8 years thereafter, K was called “K” on June 2015. At the time, K first contacted the Defendant through AM, a former police officer operating a mutual restaurant called “AL restaurant” in Seoul K, which is a former restaurant, at the time. At the lower court, K denied the Defendant’s solicitation at the time, but at the time it stated that there was a 20 million won delivery to AM in relation to the G solicitation.

② On October 208, K escaped to China for the purpose of evading criminal punishment against the smuggling export incident, etc., and immediately after being arrested at the end of January 30, 2012, K was repatriated to Korea and was convicted of having completed the execution of sentence on January 30, 2015, and immediately thereafter, K was placed in exclusive charge of various expenses related to H’s criminal cases from the date of introduction from WW that was known in the Seoul detention center. Meanwhile, the AI slope was dismissed in around 2008 due to the suspicion of providing K with illegally inquireded water distribution information, etc.

③ While recognizing the past history of K, the Defendant received money and valuables from K without any specific doubt or rejection. There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant had provided K with contact or assistance based on his personal-friendly relationship.

C) In light of the amount of money received by the Defendant, or the timing and circumstances of the receipt, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant received money under the pretext of simple cash or loan, as alleged by the Defendant.

(1) KRW 5 million received on June 2015

① Around the time when the Defendant received this part of money and valuables, K was in charge of H’s L’s G case street, and the Defendant, who was the final approving authority for the investigation of the G case for which no contact was made for more than eight years, was contacted first to the Defendant and provided this part of money and valuables.

② The Defendant recognized the receipt of money and valuables in this part from the date on which K re-delivery took place. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant (as of June 15, 2015) and K (as of April 15, 2015), there was a telephone call from June 2015; and (b) the Defendant made a statement that K was introduced on the next day after the date when a meeting was held in the “AL restaurant; and (c) AD made a statement that he was introduced on June 2015, the day on which the above ceremony took place. In light of the timing and circumstances in which the Defendant received money and valuables, it is difficult to understand that the amount was not only an excessive amount of money, but also an excessive amount of money, which was given and received in the past criminal case, as a police officer, and in particular, it was difficult to understand that the amount was given and received under any specific reason.

(3) A bribe of five million won from K around July 28, 2015, when the period of one month elapses thereafter.

In addition, even if K recognizes that there was a monthly income of KRW 100,000,000,000, without any particular reason, the payment of KRW 500,000,000,000 to K would be sufficiently doubtful from the perspective of the role of K as well as from the general society. The Defendant stated that the AF, who is a police officer in charge of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the H and the accompanying to the KO E police station, was aware that it was a timely investigation of H.

④ Considering the above circumstances, this part of the money and valuables was given and received under the pretext of H’s solicitation related to H G cases, and the Defendant is deemed to have sufficiently recognized the quid pro quo relationship with his duties.

(2) KRW 50 million received on August 5, 2015,

1. The Defendant received this portion of money and valuables from K and did not prepare a loan certificate or provide security, unlike the general loan relationship, and did not expressly agree on the period of repayment or the payment of interest.

② From the lower court’s judgment, K made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion while lending the Defendant as the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and the Defendant’s wife also made a statement corresponding thereto. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the above statement.

TK stated to the effect that at the time, the Defendant was not aware that the deposit was temporarily needed for a long period of time, and there was no demand or payment of interest on the Defendant.

QK paid KRW 50,00,000 in the form of an official seal to the Defendant, which differs from the ordinary lending relationship, and the source of the fund is also connected to H. In light of the role of K, which was in charge of L under the delegation of H at the time, it is difficult to deem that this part of the fund was based on an personal monetary transaction relationship. Moreover, K recorded this part of the money on the ground that it shows that it used it for H. Moreover, K used it for the sake of H.

The Z stated that the above KRW 50 million was delivered by the Defendant and used the borrowed money as the down payment for the deposit. In light of the fact that the Defendant first requested K to lend approximately KRW 360 million out of KRW 650,000,000,000,000,000 to K, it is difficult to readily understand that it was paid only KRW 50,000,000,000 which does not fall short of the above money and used it for the above purpose, not the deposit for the deposit for the lease. In addition, if the Defendant received money from N (N) on July 19, 2016, which was immediately after the Defendant was detained (FF, July 16, 2016), it was determined that the Defendant paid KRW 50,000 and interest KRW 1250,000,000 to K through the Z. In light of the fact that the Defendant received the money after the lapse of one year, it was determined that it was an ex post facto interview with the attorney.

③ At the time of carrying out the duties according to K’s instructions, V, at the time of carrying out the duties under K’s instructions, took photographs of KRW 50 million in cash into USB and stored and kept them in USB. In this regard, V’s cell phone schedule as of August 5, 2015 was stored as “AP director 50 million won and J-cafeteria,” and K considered the above USB as important to indicate that K used them for H separately to keep the reasons for taking and keeping the pictures (hereinafter referred to as “the list of activities”). If a personal loan is affixed, there is no reason to keep the pictures as above.

④ Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, this part of the money and valuables received by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been borrowed as a deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the G case.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant, who was the director of the intelligence criminal investigation division of the E police station, received the above money from K in return for the solicitation of G investigation related to his duties. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

A) As long as K, the original person, as a witness at the court of original instance, stated in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the statement, among V’s original testimony in the court of original instance, stating that, at the time of the prosecutor’s examination on the admissibility of evidence of V’s testimony in the court of original instance, K referred to “at the time of the prosecutor’s examination that all the amount paid to the defendant was a bribe” is inadmissible pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, even

B) As to the received portion of KRW 50 million on August 5, 2015

① From around 2005 to K, the Defendant was in a personal-friendly relationship with K in 2008 with K, and around 2008, the Defendant was in a personal-friendly relationship with K, such as talking with, or monetarying, even after the call was resumed on June 2015.

However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, K was in charge of the Defendant’s L of H’s G case around the day after the day, and K was in charge of contact with the Defendant, who is the final approving authority of the above investigation, and the Defendant was in charge of contact with the Defendant, as well as the role of the Defendant in the process of handling the G case, the transfer of the case to the prosecution, and the closeness of the time when the money was given, it is difficult to view that K given this portion of the money to be a mere personal-friendly relationship and rather, there is room to view that it was a bribe in relation to the investigation of the G case.

② From the original court, CW remitted KRW 50,000,000 from August 14, 2015 to a lessor’s account in the name of the city where CX to enter the Z on August 14, 2015, and on August 17, 2015, CW deposited KRW 50,000 in cash in the account because (i) the savings bank and the Z deposited money in the bank; and (ii) the Z deposited KRW 50,000 in cash in the account because (i) the savings bank deposited money in this counter; and (ii) upon request of the Z, the Z stated that “the current 50,000,000 won exists, and there is no need for Internet banking; and (iii) deposit into the CX account instead of the Z and receive gold money.”

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that CW’s above determination was followed and that the Defendant borrowed the above money from K. CW’s deposit account. From 11:25 on August 14, 2015, it was transferred from CW’s deposit account to CX account. This is inconsistent with CW’s statement that the Defendant was paid the down payment amount of KRW 65 million on August 17, 2015, which is the date of the deposit contract concluded with CX. Moreover, it does not coincide with the above statement that the Defendant was paid the down payment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000, which is the date of the above deposit contract. In addition, even if CWX’s account was transferred from 0:11:25, a bank business hour, to 300,000,0000 won, it is difficult to conclude that CWX’s deposit was transferred to C10,500,0000,0000 won.

③ From the trial court to the effect that K loaned KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and the bank took the degree of the bank’s own interest, provided personal land as collateral, and on August 5, 2015, K stated to the effect that it received documents related to personal land at the time of giving money to the Defendant.

However, it is difficult to believe that the above statement by K was made in light of the following circumstances. The above statement by K and the defendant merely stated that the agreed interest and security should be “the bank gave to it as a collateral,” and that “the court did not make any statement about its specific contents.” In fact, the security right to return the borrowed money that the defendant claimed to have offered as a collateral was not established, and there is no evidence to deem that the procedure for its establishment was in progress. Furthermore, the prosecutorial office and the court of the court below consistently instructed the defendant to receive the loan-related documents after the month in Korea and the court of the court below, and ordered the defendant to receive the loan-related documents after the month in Korea, and it is inconsistent with the defendant’s above statement by K as to the process for giving and receiving real estate-related documents (the contents of the confirmation statement by V submitted to the court of the court below are consistent with the statement by K, but there is no explanation about how V reversed the statement, as above, and there is no further consistent statement in V’s prosecutorial office and the court of the court below.

④ Even if the said money received by the Defendant, as the Defendant’s assertion, is not a “satisfying” of a strict meaning of binding personal rights, but rather a “satfying of personal rights” of KRW 50,000,000,000 in cash, it is very rare in light of the form of ordinary loan transaction.

B. The point of acceptance of bribe

1) The judgment of the court below

A) Recognition of the relationship with the Defendant and K as seen earlier and the evidence as seen earlier on whether the crime of bribery to good offices was established

In light of the following circumstances, the fact that the defendant receives money from K as a broker for various criminal cases is sufficiently recognized as stated in the judgment of the court below.

(1) Progress of the relevant case

A physician related to H andO in the E police station around the time the defendant received each part of the money and valuables;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The following cases were carried out:

(2) Good offices by the defendant

At the time of the receipt of each part of the money and valuables, the Defendant arranged and recruited the cases requested by K to the subordinate police officers in charge of H or 0 criminal cases as follows.

① On October 22, 2015, the Defendant informed K of the contact point of the N to be in charge of Mththie case, and in fact, made an intelligence report on Mthie case on the same day, and came into existence in Ma. After which, the Defendant took part in the solicitation and provision of convenience related to the instant case, he/she exchanged with K for text messages to the effect that N was unable to properly deal with the instant case on April 4, 2016. N also recognized that N received Mthie case and K from the Defendant and received a bribe under the pretext of the instant solicitation from K (5). After that, N was also in charge of Rthie case.

② With respect to H’s breach of trust cases, the Defendant was found to have discussed the instant case, such as giving and receiving text messages about K and investigation status. In particular, the Defendant directly taken charge of the said case before changing to the F police station. On March 28, 2016, immediately after the instant case was sent to the prosecutor’s office by dismissal opinion, the Defendant arranged for the reduction of AD, a police officer in charge, at K’s request.

③ In relation to U complaint cases, on April 15, 2016, the Defendant arranged the history of the AC belonging to the K and the Seoul Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on April 15, 2016, and had contact with the AB mitigation or AC either directly or through AC, which was the head of the on-day duty team, even though he/she was not related to ordinary contact. K received a complaint against U immediately after night according to the advice of the Defendant and the AC, and completed the investigation by the complainant.

(3) While K’s statement K stated in the court of the court below that the amount, name, details, or time of each of the money and valuables in this part is not specific memory, it acknowledged the fact that K was assisted by the Defendant for several cases investigated by the E police station, and has been placed with money of several thousand won, such as meal expenses, school expenses, and handphones.

(4) The name of money and the circumstances of giving and receiving money

(A) KRW 2 million around December 31, 2015, KRW 5 million around January 25, 2016, and KRW 2 million around February 4, 2016

As seen earlier, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant received each part of the money, the Defendant denies the relationship between H or 0 as seen earlier, given that there were continuously and continuously criminal cases between H or 0, and thus, there is no clear circumstance to deem that K received money from the Defendant in connection with the intermediation of the instant case. However, as seen earlier, considering the fact that there is no obvious reason to deem that the Defendant received money from the Defendant in connection with the intermediation of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have offered significant convenience in relation to the actual case, and that the amount of money received is excessive in light of the pretext, it is determined that each part of the money was paid as a consideration for the intermediation of the instant act. Even if the Defendant’s assertion is included, the relationship between H or 0 is recognized as a consideration for the entire act, as long as the relationship with the intermediation of the instant case cannot be denied.

(B) KRW 5 million around March 28, 2016, KRW 5 million around April 15, 2016, and KRW 5 million around April 28, 2016.

The Defendant, while recognizing the fact that he met AD or AC and K at the time, denies the fact that he received money. However, the Defendant recognized the fact that he received this part of the money (the Defendant requested the Defendant to make a specific statement after being under the third investigation at the prosecution) while making a false statement (the Defendant requested the Defendant to make a false statement after being under the third investigation at the prosecution, and acknowledged the fact that he received the money thereafter). In light of the fact that the Defendant, who has long served as a police officer, made the above statement after sufficient comparison with the attorney, or that it is difficult to find any special inconsistency with the situation or circumstances at the time and it is difficult to find out that it was not actually experienced, the credibility of the above statement can be sufficiently recognized. In particular, the fact that K had been stored in the USB, which was managed and kept under the direction of V as the so-called " Activity List to show to H," in order to support that the Defendant received in return for the mediation of this part of the criminal case.

B) From the beginning of 2015, K was in full charge of H’s criminal cases from around June 2015 and was given money to the Defendant for the purpose of receiving or receiving assistance from various criminal cases under investigation at the E police station using the Defendant as “rovis.” The fact that K created an “AP director” in the USB and managed the pictures of money paid to the Defendant or the Defendant through the Defendant is supported by these circumstances. In the process, the Defendant had offered convenience related to the instant case, such as arranging the remainder with the police officers in charge, and received cash repeatedly including KRW 200-5 million from time to time. The case for which the Defendant was asked by K to arrange was proceeding in close vicinity (in addition, the case of H case, thief case, thief case, Q& case, etc.) and that the Defendant’s act of seeking assistance from the Defendant or defense counsel during the same criminal case constitutes a single criminal case, and thus, the Defendant’s act of seeking assistance from the Defendant or defense counsel during the same period of time is not considered as a single criminal case.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Although the Defendant did not receive the above money for KRW 5 million on April 15, 2016, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the above money was received by the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement, even if it was acknowledged that the Defendant received the above money, it cannot be seen as a crime of acceptance of bribe, regardless of the establishment of the crime of delivery of the trust property. However, as seen earlier, at the time of receiving the above money, the Defendant did not merely act as a broker for the Defendant, such as sending the above money to K and AC, leading the head of the duty team, leading the Defendant to a telephone, etc., and merely delivered the money to AC. It cannot be deemed that: (a) considering the fact that: (b) the title of the photographic file taken with the money on the above date was stored in the A and E Criminal Part I (J) of the E Criminal Code, and it was difficult to view that the Defendant merely received the money as a bribe for the purpose of delivering it to AC.

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

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant received a total of KRW 25 million from K on five occasions under the pretext that the Defendant, who is in charge of the investigation of cases related to H and this attorney-at-law, is asked for the provision of convenience to the police officers under actual influence of the Defendant, or the police officers under the former sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

Accordingly, the defendant, taking advantage of his status, accepted a bribe on the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of other public officials.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The judgment of the court below

As shown in this part of the facts charged, there is a defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office and K's statement in the original trial. However, the defendant only recognizes the receipt of KRW 2 million around December 31, 2015 and around February 4, 2016, and the defendant's prosecutor's statement does not receive money from K on each date stated in the facts charged, but he/she does not memory the amount. The defendant's prosecutor's statement in the original trial does not directly prove that he/she received KRW 5 million on each date stated in the facts charged. Thus, it is insufficient to directly prove that the defendant received KRW 5 million on each date stated in the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, each of the facts charged that the defendant received KRW 2 million on each of the facts charged around February 31, 2015 and around February 4, 2016 and around February 2016, 2016 and around February 36, 2016.

C. Judgment of the court below

In addition to the following circumstances, the above judgment of the court below is just and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

A protocol in which a statement by a person other than a suspect is made may be admitted as evidence only when it is recognized to be genuine by the original person’s statement or video-recording or any other objective method at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial (Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). K appeared as a witness on the first public trial date of the court below, and stated that “(K’s protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by a public prosecutor)” or written a written statement to the effect that it is not recorded as the witness’s oral statement with respect to the purport of expression that there is no voluntariness, and it is also stated to the effect that the actual authenticity of the above protocol is denied. The video-recording of each prosecutor’s interrogation of a suspect by K appears not to exist, and it cannot be deemed as an objective method that can recognize the authenticity of the formation of the above protocol, and each prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of a suspect to K is inadmissible.

4. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

In light of ① favorable circumstances, the lower court: (a) took into account the following factors: (b) the Defendant was the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendant was in a disadvantage; (d) the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 89 million in relation to his duties and good offices in a position to handle duties fairly and in good faith; and (e) the Defendant was not guilty in view of the background of the crime, the amount of the accepted bribery; (e) the Defendant’s position and job relevance; (b) the fairness and uncertainty of police officer’s performance of duties; and (c) the social trust in the process of the instant crime was considerably damaged; (d) the police officer’s honor to the Defendant who impliedly performed his duties; and (e) introduced N, a subordinate police officer, to cause another crime to receive a bribe; and (e) took account of the following factors, the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment within the scope of the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Sentencing Committee.

Such sentencing by the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope, taking full account of the aforementioned various circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing have already been sufficiently considered in the process of determining the punishment as above, and there is no discovery of any change in special circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, it does not seem that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.

5. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. (However, it is clear that the omission of the "(except the part of the statement that the witness V reported the offering of this case from K)" after the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court below is an erroneous entry. Thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The presiding judge, appointed judge and appointed judge

Judges Mok-si

Awards and Decorations for Judges

1) The Defendant, via the summary of the oral argument dated May 23, 2017, provided that the Defendant KRW 2 million from K around December 31, 2015; and

The delivery of KRW 2 million on February 4, 2016 is only a congratulatory money for college admission, etc. to his/her father and wife, and there is a relation of good offices and a quid pro quo.

In other words, it is recognized that the receipt of KRW 5 million on April 15, 2016 was not merely the pretext of mediation, even if not,

Since the above money was received with the intent to deliver it to AC, it constitutes only the crime of delivering trust property and constitutes the crime of bribery to good offices.

There was no assertion that this does not apply. However, it is legitimate as a subsequent assertion after the lapse of the period for appeal.

No reason can be seen as the reason for action, and even if ex officio, the defendant's various criminal offenses from K as seen earlier.

Since it can be recognized that each of the above amounts is received under the pretext of good offices for the case, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

shall not be held.

2) The major progress of the G case is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

2016. 7. 22. | 1심(서울중앙지방법원 2016고합152) 선고 - H : 징역 4년

3) The Defendant is accompanied by the Prosecutor’s Office (No. 4) to the E police station by K on the date on which H first receives an investigation of a witness ( April 22, 2015).

The defendant's statement related to the point of time in which the defendant was found is somewhat consistent because he stated that the defendant's statement " has been found."

However, the above circumstances and the point that the Defendant was unable to accurately memory the point of time at the time (the Defendant is the defendant).

K’s statement related to the above point is stated to comply with K’s statement), H first under investigation by the police;

in light of the fact that the above date ( June 23, 2015) and the possibility of misunderstanding can not be ruled out, the truth of the above defendant can be ruled out.

Notwithstanding the influence of alcohol, the point of time is consistent with the evidence-related relationship by specifying it as around June 2015, and in light of this, the defendant

It is judged that K has a relationship with H at the time of receiving money and valuables in this part.

4) At the time, V was mistakenly aware that the name of the defendant was 'AP'.

5) On September 22, 2016, N received a bribe of KRW 42 million from KO in connection with the foregoing facts.

It was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months in the Seoul District Court.

6) On March 28, 2016, the Defendant 5 million won or less at the K’s request, with respect to the receipt of KRW 5 million.

At K, two bags containing five million won from K shall be received, and one shall be delivered to AD, and the remaining one shall be delivered.

I stated that it was accepted and stated that it was in relation to the receipt of KRW 5 million around April 15, 2016, and "K on April 12, 2016, in relation to receipt of KRW 5 million."

AB-friendly AC because it is difficult to contact AB by making it difficult to contact AB.

B. On April 15, 2016, at the J G G G G G G G G G K's meeting on AC, K, and Mana case, and AC has otherwise discussed.

DB returned to the creshed and it is said that AB now becomes the creshed, and K has a 5 million won in the creshed.

the E police station, and after K starts with the E police station, K waits for a proxy engineer at AC's car.

During the period of service, the envelope was delivered to AC under the pretext of money, and AC was used in divided part, and at least half of it was so detached.

After that, as the U.S. complaint case becomes a problem, AC finds it a place of residence and takes about KRW 2.5 million in cash in an envelope.

I stated very detail that it was "......"

7) With respect to giving and receiving KRW 5 million around March 28, 2016, the file name of the photograph taken with the above amount is the head of A division and E on March 24, 2016.

S investigator(U.S.) is stored as the head of the competent criminal investigation team and the AS investigator(U.S.). However, V is closed on March 24, 2016 by K.

On March 28, 2016, it was stated that the two photographs taken by a cellphone were stored after transmission on March 28, 2016, and V mobile phones.

In addition, the digital sirens were analyzed as generated on March 28, 2016.

8) A complaint filed by 0 attorney-at-law on March 3, 2016, following a written opinion submitted around March 3, 2016, when defending the Defendant (such as H) in the H breach of trust case.

Attorney-at-law Act, Attorney-at-law Act (a two-way agency and violation of the duty of confidentiality), and financial supervision of agents Q.

Fees of KRW 33 million shall be paid to the original employee for solicitation and good offices, and a request for large contingent fees, and a great amount of dignity shall be made;

It is true case in which a person committed an illegal act, such as attack, threat, perjury, or accusation.