2013No143 A. Improper action after the acceptance of a bribe

B. Acceptance of bribe

1.(a) A

2.2.B

Defendants

Lee Jin-bok (Public Prosecution), Lee Jong-dae, Lee Jong-dae, and Senior Circuit

Attorney DB (for Defendant A)

Attorney F (for the defendant B)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap204 Decided December 28, 2012

June 14, 2013

1. Defendant A

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by a fine of twenty thousand won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

12,489,940 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge.

Of the facts charged against the accused, each acceptance of bribe listed in the list of crimes (2) Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, and each acceptance of bribe listed in the table of crimes (3) Nos. 1, 20, 25, 28, 33, 38, 43, and 43, shall be acquitted.

2. Defendant B

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) As to the unjust disposition after the acceptance of the bribe

(1) There is no fact that the Defendant received a bribe. In other words, there is no fact that the Defendant conspired to receive a bribe with J, and there is no fact that the Defendant demanded a bribe to M with the head office of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), and there is no fact that the Defendant received three million won in cash from J.

(2) Since L did not have been subject to imposition of a fine for negligence from the beginning, there is no room for establishing an illegal action after acceptance of a bribe. "The defendant, etc. did not take any administrative action to conduct a health examination for those who failed to conduct a health examination" is not acknowledged as a punishment significantly minor because the degree of occupational violation is insignificant.

B) As to the golf adjoining part

(1) The point Nos. 2 of the lower court’s crime sight table (1) is the president of the Council, and does not intend to offer a bribe to the Defendant as part of the Council’s activities.

(2) The lower court’s crime sight table (1) Nos. 3, 5, 8, 12, 17, and 22 are golf-friendly with the Defendant for the purpose of friendship. The following are golf-friendly: 3,17, AR (5), AU (12, No. 8, 12, and B (22).

(3) The point of the lower court’s list of crimes (1) Nos. 7

Although the Defendant returned golf costs to AT, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was given golf contact from AT on the ground of the written confirmation of AT stating that only 100,000 won was returned from the Defendant, and thus, there was an error of misapprehending the facts.

(4) The point of entry of the lower court’s list of crimes (1) No. 11

In light of the nature of the golf set forth in Article 4-1, one of the accompanying partners, which are run together together, is to return the golf cost if one of them returns the golf cost. Since the accompanying parties, CS and B, stated that “A” had returned the golf cost to AL, the Defendant also should be deemed to have returned the golf cost. However, the lower court recognized that only the single Defendant did not return the golf cost to AT. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

(5) Although the Defendant was running with AY and golf several times, it was true that the Defendant was paying golf costs with AY, Defendant, and B, and the Defendant did not unilaterally received golf links from AY.

C) In the case of meal contact units listed in 2, 7 table Nos. 2, 2, and 7 relating to the part of meal contact (the table Nos. 2, 7) the Defendant received only meal expenses from the business persons concerned, and did not receive cash. In addition, in the case of meal contact units listed in 2, the meal expenses are merely KRW 20,000.1)

D) Regarding the part of the livestock amount [the remaining part excluding 1,20,25,28,33,38,43] Nos. 1, 20, 25, 28, 28, 43]

The amount of incentives equivalent to KRW 50,000 or KRW 100,000 received from the persons related to the company is a private case and not a bribe.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, 35 million won of fine, 2 years of suspended execution of imprisonment, 16,189, 940 won of penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) As to the acceptance of bribe as stated in the list of crimes (4) Nos. 2 through 5, 8, and 12 of the court below, a business entity belonging to the above order does not have a duty relationship with the defendant since the defendant is not a business entity in charge of labor supervision. Rather, the above donor provided a golf contact to A or the head of the EEC who is accompanied by the relevant golf meeting, but only left the defendant to meet the number of golf teams.

B) As to the acceptance of bribe from H [the charge of acceptance of bribe Nos. 3] does not constitute a business entity subject to supervision by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received entertainment in relation to his/her duties. H is only a golf-friendly relationship with the Defendant to promote friendship as the president of the Council.

C) As to the acceptance of bribe from AY (as indicated in Nos. 9 and 12) (as to the charge of acceptance of bribe from AY), AY did not have any labor-related case, but did not have any labor-related case. Therefore, there is no relationship between the Defendant’s occupational safety work and entertainment provided by AY.

Even if the golf of August 4, 2010 of the defendant was in the nature of a contact, this is not a defendant but a contact with the Administrator of the EEC.

D) As to the acceptance of bribe from S and AM (as indicated in Nos. 2, 11) (as to the charge of acceptance of bribe from S and AM), even if the relevance to duties is recognized with respect to each of the above charges of acceptance of bribe, the amount of money received (as to KRW 500,000) should be excluded from the amount received.

2) Legal principles

The requirement for bribery should be recognized only when the defendant takes charge of the relevant duties. However, if the possibility of taking charge of the affairs in the future exists, the court below interpreted the possibility of taking charge of duties in the future by expanding it to the extent that there is no duty relationship. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of six months, the fine of six million won, the suspended execution of imprisonment of one year, the additional collection of 2,769,035 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specialized Aggravated Punishment Act”), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, a person who has committed a crime of acceptance of bribe shall be concurrently punished by a fine of not less than two times but not more than five times the amount of the penalty determined for the relevant crime. In the case of a fine concurrently imposed pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Specific Aggravated Punishment Act, in the event the crime of acceptance of bribe subject to concurrent crimes is concurrent crimes, the maximum amount of the punishment for concurrent crimes provided for the most severe crimes pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the punishment for concurrent crimes, shall be aggravated by up to one half thereof, but shall not exceed the total

However, as the lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 35 million exceeding the scope of punishment according to the examples of concurrent crimes with respect to the determination of fines against Defendant A, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A among the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the adjudication of this court, and this is examined first.

B. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

1) As to the unjust disposition after the acceptance of the bribe

A) Whether there was demand for money and valuables and received money

(1) The judgment of the court below

After compiling the evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, based on the following facts: M's statement is consistent with the background of the statement, consistency, rationality and objective reasonableness of the statement, the statement of AA and the statement of AH, which had been under guidance and inspection by the J, and the defendant, that the amount of a fine for negligence of KRW 5 million is imposed due to reasons such as non-execution of health examination by the J labor inspector at the time of guidance and inspection; and the defendant, who was the head of ED, requested money and valuables of KRW 5 million, upon finding the defendant who was the head of ED at the request of the head of ED, at the request of the head of ED, the defendant requested money and valuables of KRW 5 million. Accordingly, the court below acknowledged the credibility of M's statement. In addition, the court below determined that M's statement, the fact that the defendant was the subordinate staff working in the same office as the defendant, the fact that the defendant was actually subject to the administrative health examination of L's portion, etc.

(2) Judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below's fact-finding, it is justifiable to find the facts of the court below. In full view of the following circumstances, the court below's finding of credibility is justified in the M's statement stating, "I heard from the court that a fine for negligence is imposed, I requested money and valuables of KRW 5 million from the defendant, and delivered KRW 3 million to the defendant through the court," and the judgment of the court below based thereon is justified.

M is clearly and consistently stated with regard to the background leading up to the payment of money to the defendant by investigative agencies and by this court, the process of setting the amount (one million won in cash), the source of money, and the source of money.

② On November 30, 2010, 2010, M asserts that it delivered KRW 3 million to the Defendant. On December 1, 2010, L, there is a difference on December 1, 2010, but the accounting of the accounting team normally does not necessarily coincide with the date when money was paid or used, so it is difficult to conceal the credibility of M due to the difference in the above day.

③ According to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Enforcement Rule, the Defendant asserts that L’s head office is not subject to an administrative fine related to an attempted inspector, and thus, the Defendant alleged that L’s head office would be subject to an administrative fine of about 55 million won from J. However, it is natural to hear the explanation that the Defendant would impose an administrative fine of KRW 55 million from J, labor inspector, who did not know the detailed contents of the provision on imposition of an administrative fine for attempted inspector at the time, as long as L’s head office became a person in charge of the duties related to health examinations, and trust is difficult to view that the Defendant’s testimony and statement to the effect that “the Defendant would not easily be subject to an administrative fine of KRW 60,500,000,000,” and that the Defendant’s testimony and statement to the effect that “the Defendant would not easily be subject to an administrative fine of KRW 6,500,000,000,000 for each year at the time of this case’s oral examination or inspection.”

(6) On the contrary, the court below stated that L’s auditor worked as L’s auditor did not mention an administrative fine in the court below’s decision, unlike the statement by J and AI, that there was a fact that L was pointed out that the employee present at the inspection site is subject to an administrative fine due to intellectual matters, and that there was an objection to the imposition of an administrative fine, and that L would later submit relevant documents. 7 M would not have any motive to make a false statement to the effect that M would have paid KRW 3 million in cash to the Defendant when taking the risk of being convicted of his/her conviction. Moreover, there is no reason why the Defendant would have to prepare three million won in cash even if he/she would force the Defendant to claim “entertainment expenses” in L.

B) Whether a person was guilty

The lower court determined that: (a) under Article 99 of the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer should conduct a general health examination for workers engaged in office among full-time workers at least once every two years; and (b) under attached Table 2-83 of the Labor Inspector Work Regulations (No. 703 of the Directive applied at the time of the instant case), if a business owner fails to conduct a health examination, it shall take administrative measures within 30 days in the event of non-performance of a general or special health examination; and (c) the imposition of an administrative fine and administrative measures in the event of non-performance of a health examination: Provided, That (a) if an employer fails to conduct a health examination on more than two consecutive occasions or fails to comply with a duty to conduct a health examination on more than two occasions in the last three years, the lower court determined that the Defendant, among the employees of the headquarters from 2006 to June 27, 201, did not take measures related to the pre-execution of an administrative health examination conducted by the Defendant and the head office within three (3) years of the labor inspector.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding by the court below is justified.

In addition, since the crime of illegal action after the acceptance of a bribe is the legal interest of directly protecting the fairness in the execution of duties and the impossibility in the execution of duties, even if the performance of duties is performed within the discretion of the discretionary authority because the act is discretionary and the acceptance of a bribe was recognized as having affected the performance of duties itself, in light of the fact that the defendant and J did not take any follow-up administrative measures related to the attempted performance of duties within the discretionary authority, so long as the performance of duties is a legitimate performance of duties within the discretionary authority, the above execution of duties is a violation of the defendant's cash receipt of KRW 3 million, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable for the crime of illegal action after the acceptance of a bribe.

The judgment of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal is rejected.

2) As to the golf adjoining part

A) The point of entry Nos. 2 in the lower court’s list of crimes (1)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, H stated that “I exchanged opinions between the members of the Council on Golf Co., Ltd. and decided to do so, rather than by resolution.” The Defendant’s golf cost is also paid by H individual, and the head office of the CY Co., Ltd. is located in the middle-term district under the jurisdiction of the EC. Considering these facts, it is reasonable to view that H concurrently held the status of the head office of the CY Co., Ltd., other than the official activities of the president of the DC Association, and that H was a golf-related relationship with the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s duties.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal is rejected.

B) The point of entry 3, 5, 8, 12, 17, and 22 in the list of crimes (1) in the court below

First of all, according to the evidence, the DNA corporation to whichN belongs is subject to the direction and supervision of industrial safety by the EEC around 2010, 10) the DNA stated as the reason why it proposed a golf meeting, 11) the fact that it paid golf expenses by the corporation card, 12) the D corporation was recognized as having been subject to the direction and supervision of industrial safety. Thus, it is reasonable to view that NN used a golf course to the purport that it is well-known in the future, not a friendship but a future guidance and inspection.

Next, it is recognized that AR had been aware of the Defendant since about 20 years ago, AR had been about 5 years ago, and that CS was a part of the University of AR. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence: (a) the circumstance that AR became aware of the Defendant was due to the fact that the Defendant worked for the company with approximately 20 years ago; (b) at an investigative agency stated that AR was “other than the Defendant and the Defendant, in addition to the instant golf-related premises, with no particular golf-related relationship with CS and personal only on a personal basis,” and (c) it is reasonable to view that AR was a golf-related meeting under the pretext of its settlement, such as “a golf-related meeting with other people and with no knowledge of it,” and (d) it was reasonable to see that AR was a golf-related meeting under the pretext of its settlement.

Next, I am with respect to AU (the order No. 8,12), AU is the director of the labor department of the company working in around 2006 or 2007, and the defendant, who is the supervisor of the EC, becomes aware of in the course of performing his duties.) The AU stated in an investigative agency about the relation with the defendant that "at the time when a labor-related matter occurred," "at the time when a labor-related matter occurred," and 18) the defendant and the golf-related relationship with the defendant, "at the time of the mariing, many other things have been flick, so they did so." Although there was no direct occupational relation, I am with the defendant, it is true to say that the golf-related cost of this case was settled with AU's corporate card. Thus, although AU had no direct relation with the defendant's duties, it is reasonable to see that AU is well related to AU's duty.

마지막으로 BB(순번 22)에 관하여 살피건대, 증거를 종합하면 BB은 수사기관에서 피고인을 알게 된 경위에 관하여 "BB이 속한 회사는 통상적으로 근로감독과의 감독을 받았는데, 2010. 8.경 EC청에서 공문을 받고 ED과의 J 등의 지도감독을 받게 되었다. 2010. 8. 말경 EG부 회의실에서 피고인의 주재로 '산업재해 다발사업장 담당자 교육' 제목의 교육을 받는 자리에서 피고인을 알게 되었다."라고 진술한 사실20), BB은 골프모임을 갖게 된 경위에 관하여 "EF청의 다른 부서 직원으로부터 피고인이 골프를 시작했다는 이야기를 듣고 함께 골프를 치는 자리를 마련하였다. 개인적인 친분이 있어서가 아니라 EE청 공무원들을 알아두면 회사에 나쁠 것은 없고 좋은 관계를 유지하기 위해 골프를 친 것이다."라고 진술한 사실21), BB이 당일 골프비용 및 식대 등으로 총 699,240원을 부담한 사실22)이 인정된다. 위 인정사실에 의하면 BB은 업무관계로 피고인을 알게 되었고 앞으로 잘 봐달라는 취지에서 골프 접대를 하였다고 넉넉히 인정된다.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the golf adjoining part of the golf of this case did not have a close relation with the defendant, but with the purport that the defendant is well-known in the course of business.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's ground of appeal.

C) The point of the lower court’s list of crimes (1) Nos. 7

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, AT is recognized as having paid golf costs to Defendant, B, etc. on May 30, 2012. Furthermore, even according to the fact-finding certificate 24 of AT preparation, B is only recognized as having returned his/her golf costs to AT, and there is no circumstance that the Defendant returned his/her golf costs to AT. Thus, this part of the facts charged is found guilty. The fact-finding and judgment of the court below to the same purport is just.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept this part of the grounds for appeal.

D) The point of entry 11 in the list of crimes (1) in the court below

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that: (a) although the AL was refunded golf costs from the Defendant B and CSEC, it clearly stated that the golf costs were not returned from the Defendant; and (b) there was no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the record, the lower court’s fact-finding is justifiable. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that there exists a customary practice to return golf costs if one of the members of golf trading together returns golf costs. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is sufficiently acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept this part of the grounds for appeal.

E) The point of entry 15, 18, 21, and 23 in the list of crimes (1) in the court below

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the trial court, AY also accepted the case against EE (e.g. unfair dismissal, overdue wages, etc.) and AY conducted golf with the defendant at least two or three times prior to each golf of this case, but at the time, the defendant did not bear golf costs (e.g., the defendant did not bear golf costs). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant received golf loans from AY in the purport that he was well-known in the course of his duties.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal cannot be accepted.

(iii)with respect to the part of the meal table [the table of crime committed in the original trial (2) Nos. 2 and 7]

A) The portion of giving and receiving cash as set forth in Nos. 2 and 7 of the crime sight table (2) in the court below

In light of the following circumstances, the defendant asserted the same as the court below, and the court below acknowledged that the defendant received money from Z and AJ (K) in consideration of the evidence duly selected and investigated.

① 먼저 순번 2 부분에 관하여, 특히 공여자인 Z의 진술에 의하면 피고인이 ED과장으로 새로 부임하여 인사를 하기 위해 마련한 식사자리에서 피고인에게 20만 원을 넣은 봉투를 건넸다고 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점28), Z는 피고인 등 근로감독관들과의 관계악화를 우려하여 가능한 한 소극적으로 진술하는 과정에서도 위와 같이 진술한 것으로서 그 신빙성이 높아 보이는 점, 동석하였던 CW도 Z가 피고인에게 흰색봉투를 건네려고 하였다는 점에 대하여는 Z의 진술과 부합하는 진술을 하고 있는 점29) 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 Z로부터 20만 원을 수수한 사실이 인정된다.

② As to the No. 7 No. AJ30, who was a labor inspector in charge, AK and AJ30, demanded that CX, a labor inspector in charge, gather a defendant's 300,000 won in an envelope and her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was

The judgment is just and acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal cannot be accepted.

B) The meal stand of the meal table 2 Nos. 2 of the lower court’s crime sight table (2)

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that 2, a director at the Y site site of the DE corporation, was 4 persons such as Defendant, X labor inspector, and DE employees CW on January 19, 2010, and that 374,000 won was settled with CW’s corporate card, and it is reasonable to view that entertainment received by the Defendant is 93,500 won (=374,000 / 1/4 of 374,000). The fact-finding and decision of the court below to this purport are justified.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part of the appeal is not accepted.

4) As to the livestock amount portion

A) Summary of the facts charged

On December 15, 2010, the Defendant sent text messages and audience liaison to 45 persons related to the AB personnel management companies subject to guidance and inspection, such as AB personnel team AC, etc., which had no personal relationship with the Defendant’s married ceremony, but which had exchanged name cards on one occasion in relation to the guidance and inspection of the industry safety of the EC.

On January 15, 2011, the Defendant received 100,000 won congratulatory money from BF, from 38 persons related to the business subject to guidance and inspection, and received 370,000 won in total as shown in the attached crime sight table (3) from 1,20,25,28, 33, 38, 43, as well as the remaining 3,70,000 won in addition to 1,20,25, 28, 33, 38, and 43.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B) The judgment of the court below

① The lower court determined that the entire amount received by the Defendant is recognized as a bribe, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s personal ties do not have any relationship with the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was sent to the employees of the veterinary companies subject to inspection who came to know in the course of performing his duties; (c) the circumstances that the Defendant was present at the border investigation of the said donors before that time; and (d) the persons related to the said intelligence companies are likely to suffer any disadvantage when not sending congratulatory money, or when concluding a good relationship with the Defendant, it appears that they would have sent congratulatory money under the expectation that they will be able to view business convenience.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Whether a public official’s profit constitutes a bribe as an unfair profit having a quid pro quo relation with his/her duties, or as a result of an exceptional consideration in accordance with the social norms or a need for school decentralization and has no connection with his/her duties, shall be determined by taking into account the type and value of the profit granted together with the circumstances such as the content of the public official’s duties, the relationship between the job provider and the provider of the profit, the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the profit, and the timing of the receipt of the profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737,

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the congratulatory money donor was a person related to the company subject to examination and paid congratulatory money after receiving the intelligence of his child from the defendant. Thus, there is a doubt that the defendant is not a bribe delivery and acceptance of it in the purport that he is well-known in the course of his duties.

However, according to the evidence compared with the records, the defendant had already been present at the slope of the other party's house while maintaining her friendship prior to the delivery of the money, and considerable number of the related parties of the company who did not send the money after having received the money from the defendant. In addition, since all the money received by the defendant cannot be deemed to be excessive enough to escape social norms in light of the social status of the defendant or donor, it is difficult to view that the donor or the defendant had an intention to give and receive a bribe by visiting the money, and it is difficult to view that the child was a parent at the time of marriage, not only a person with a non-personal relationship, but also a person with many business contacts such as workplace clubs and major customers, and sent the money by sending the money for the money for the marriage of the child, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the money for the defendant was insufficient in relation to the above duty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the crime of acceptance of bribe is established by giving and receiving 5-100,000 won money from the above providers for congratulations, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of law, and the defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

C. Judgment on Defendant B’s ground of appeal

1) Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) The legal doctrine on the duty relationship of the bribery

Since the legal interest of bribery is the process of performing official duties and the possibility of non-conscepting the act of official duties based on social trust, bribery does not include not only the existence of a compulsory violation, the existence of a solicitation, the time of receiving money and the time of performing official duties, but also the "duty" in the crime of bribery includes not only the duties prescribed by the law, but also the duties related to such duties, the past, or other duties that are not actually performed according to the division of duties in addition to those to be performed in the future (Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 195).

B) The point of acceptance of bribe described in Nos. 2 through 5, 8 through 12 in the lower court’s list of crime days

As to the acceptance of bribe as described in Nos. 2 through 5, 8, 10, and 11, the lower court also asserted the same in the lower court. On this basis, the lower court determined that even if the Defendant was designated as a labor inspector in charge of inside with ED, the Defendant’s duties are recognized in relation to the relationship with the companies related to ED business, i.e., the Defendant is in the position of labor inspector, and the labor inspector is performing duties to investigate and detect violations of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act, and the labor inspector is performing duties to investigate and detect violations of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act, and in particular, the donor of this part is an enterprise subject to inspection with EEC, and the labor inspector’s statement is deemed to have conducted an inspection on the overall area of industrial safety and health regardless of his duties, regardless of whether he was in charge of guidance inspection. In addition to the above legal principles, the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence can be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts or of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal is rejected.

C) As to the acceptance of bribe from H (as to the charge of acceptance of bribe Nos. 3 of the first instance trial list (4))

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, H stated that “I exchanged opinions between the members of the Council on the performance of golf with the Defendant and it was not in accordance with the resolution, but in my own decision.” The Defendant’s golf expenses were paid to H, and H was working as the head of the safety team of the CY corporation. CY corporation’s head office was located in the Gu within the jurisdiction of the EC and was subject to inspection by the EC, and it is recognized that CY corporation’s head office was located in the Gu and was subject to inspection by the EC, regardless of its duties, if the guidance and inspection is conducted on the overall part of the industrial safety and health regardless of its duties. In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that H was a golf counter to the Defendant as the head of the CY corporation safety management team in relation to the Defendant’s duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the charges guilty is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal is rejected.

D) Comprehensively taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below as a whole the evidence duly admitted and investigated in relation to the acceptance of bribe from AY (the first instance court list (4) Nos. 9, 12). In other words, AY is not only a certified labor attorney but also a case which is accepted against the EE agency, such as unfair dismissal, infringement of rights, etc., preparation and confirmation of documents, labor management diagnosis, etc. under labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and 3839). A labor inspector is a person assigned to EG Ministry and its affiliated agencies to investigate and detect the violation of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act. In order to secure working conditions standards, the defendant's duties are closely related to AY's duties.

The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s ground of appeal is rejected.

E) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with respect to the acceptance of bribe from S and AM (the first instance court's list (4) Nos. 2, 11). On March 27, 2010, S, AM, A, and Defendant 4 have conducted golf and opened a team for each hole, and Qua staff and A or the defendant has been selected for each hole. S has made a reward of KRW 500,000,00,000 and brought a certain amount to the longer team for each hole. 41) The court below's determination is justified in light of the fact-finding principle and the fact-finding principle that the EE officer of the so-called team caused the above monetary reward to A or the defendant. In addition to these facts-finding, if the EE officer of the so-called team collected money and brought a certain amount to the team, and the defendant bears the same amount of money equally as the defendant bears the burden of all necessary money for each hole.

Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part of the appeal cannot be accepted.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

This case is a case in which Defendant B, a labor inspector, received a bribe equivalent to KRW 2,769,035 in total by means of golf and meal entertainment, etc. from a person related to a business subject to the competent inspection, and is a public official.

As a result, the duty of integrity as a result, the fairness of the execution of public duties and the trust of the general public is damaged, so the responsibility for the crime cannot be said to be less severe.

Although the received amount is relatively small, the first offense, the fact that it is a long-term public official, and other circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the details and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part of the appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed on the ground that there is a ground to reverse the above Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, without examining the above Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows through pleadings under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since Defendant B’s appeal is without merit, it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The facts constituting the crime against Defendant A and the summary of the evidence thereof recognized by the court of this Court are as follows: "The head of the hotel conference in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government" 1.b. (3) 6th of the facts constituting the crime shall be deemed to be "the third floor of the DF building in Yeongdeungpo-gu" 43th of the Seoul Metropolitan Government 18th and 19th "the person involved in the guidance and inspection who received 5.3 million won in total from 45 persons involved in the guidance and inspection" as shown in the attached list of crimes (3) 1,20,25, 28, 33, 38, 43th and 16th of the judgment of the court below, and the summary of the evidence shall be as follows: "the person involved in the guidance and inspection shall be delivered 1,600,000 won in aggregate from 7 persons related to the guidance and inspection company, BY, BY, BY, BY, BG 33th, 38, and 43th of the attached list (3) "GJ evidence".

Application of Statutes

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

Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of each bribery and the fact of each bribery, including each donor and each donor, together with fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Selection of Imprisonment and the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes concerning punishment for illegal punishment after the severe punishment is accepted)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of the favorable circumstances as seen below):

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant, who is the director of the ED division of the ECE in this case, requests money and valuables instead of reducing the administrative fine, actively demands money and received a bribe of three million won, and does not take administrative measures prior to the imposition procedure of the administrative fine, and the defendant does not take any administrative measures prior to the imposition procedure of the administrative fine. The defendant is not easy to take measures for the crime because he receives a bribe of KRW 7,889,940 in total from the company subject to inspection to receive a bribe of KRW 7,889,940 in total by means of golf, meal, receipt of money and valuables. In particular, the defendant lacks the duty of integrity as a public official

However, in full view of the fact that there is no criminal punishment record, the fact that a public official has been employed for a long time, and other circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive leading to the instant crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and arguments, the sentence like the order

The acquittal portion

1. The facts charged in this case with each golf set forth in Nos. 8, 12, and 14 of the crime sight table (1) as indicated in the holding of the court below are that the defendant received a golf contact from each donor on the day of the crime sight table (1). According to the first instance, with respect to golf contact set forth in Nos. 8, 12, and 12, G became aware of AU through the introduction of the defendant, and farcing with the defendant as set forth in Nos. 8, 12, and 8, 12, and cV as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to conclude that AU committed a golf contact with the defendant without going through the defendant, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant was a witness at the time of the offering of a bribe is merely a golf counter with the defendant. According to the evidence presented by the prosecutor, it is difficult to conclude that the expenses for the offering of a bribe against the defendant were a witness at the time of the above cV.

Therefore, the portion exceeding the "15,750 won" out of the amount received from Nos. 8 and 12 (the golf expenses for Defendant A among the total expenses) falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe stated in a single crime, the order is not separately pronounced. In addition, regarding the acceptance of bribe stated in No. 14, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime, or as long as the donor is found guilty of the statement in the crime of acceptance of bribe No. 24, which is related to a single crime

2. Each meal table (2) Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, and 9 as indicated in the holding of the court below is that the defendant received a meal stand from BC (the order No. 1, 4), BD (the order No. 3, 8), AC (the order No. 5), AX (the order No. 6), and BE (the order No. 9) on the date of the above crime list (2). However, most of the meal stand except the above No. 6 appear to be a place established for checks with the defendant, who is the head of ED division, and there is room for information exchange or cooperation with the person in charge of the business subject to inspection in the nature of the defendant's duties. Thus, in light of the situation of these meetings and the number of entertainment, each meal stand is evaluated as money at the level of private intercourse, and thus, the defendant is not guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe-related facts under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Part of the remaining festivals except for 1,20,25,28,33,38,43 of the crime sight table (3) as indicated in the holding of the court below

The summary of this part of the facts charged is the same as that of the above 2.b. 4 (a) above, and since there is no proof of crime for the same reason as that of the above 2.b. 4 (c), each not guilty is pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges of the presiding judge, Yellow Judge

Judges Hun-Ba

Judges Nam-yang

1) Even in the case of meal service units Nos. 9 in the summary of the oral argument from April 2, 2013, the Defendant is over 20,000 won in food costs.

However, the court below held that the meal expenses in question constituted a private case and acquitted the defendant on the ground that the meal expenses in question constituted a private case.

However, this part is not determined.

2) First right 425 to 431 of the trial records

3) M applied for KRW 3 million as entertainment expenses to L’s accounting team and paid the amount to the Defendant.

4) Five pages of the examination of witness in relation to M of the second trial date of the trial court No. 1, 454, and five pages of the examination records

5) First right 431~ 433 pages of the trial records

6) First order 476 pages, 478 pages of the trial records

7) First right 58 pages of the trial records

8) Five pages of the examination of the witness in the second instance trial record H

9) Two pages of the examination of witness in relation to H of the second instance trial records;

10) No. 6, 1783 of the evidence records

11) Evidence No. 6, 1841 pages of evidence records

12) No. 6, 1842 pages of evidence records

13) No. 6, 1843 of evidence records

14) Evidence No. 6, 308 pages

15) EEC EH and labor inspector G, who were present at a golf gathering as the Defendant’s beginning at the time, as evidence No. 6, 306 of the evidence records.

According to the statement, a person who was present at a golf meeting at the time shall be BB, the defendant, B, CS, labor inspector, CY, CN, and other enterprises.

one person concerned (3282, 3283 pages of evidence records)

16) Evidence No. 6, 307 pages

17) Evidence No. 6, 3258 pages of evidence records

18) Evidence No. 6, 3258 pages

19) Evidence No. 6, 3263 pages of evidence records

(xx)third sphere of evidence, 1135137 pages;

(xxxi)Evidence Nos 3,1145149 of evidentiary records;

22) Three books of evidence recording 1152 pages

23) Evidence No. 6, 3200, 3201 pages of evidence records

24) 138 pages (Evidence 2 submitted by B) of the trial records

25) 1240, 1241 pages of the trial records

26) Five pages of the protocol of examination of witness for AY of the third trial date.

27) 4 to 7 pages of the examination of witness for AY of the third trial date.

28) The Z means that the investigative agency has delivered a white bag to A during the food death. It was done with KRW 200,000.

(c)A chief of A, upon completion of meals, of bags that were put in inside spawn on the meal, which was first rejected;

this is later received. Because the food site was a part of A division and personnel, X appearing together with the other party.

The supervisor stated that he did not separately pay any money to the supervisor, and only gave him only to the Director A (Evidence No. 4).

1901 pages)

29) title 4 to 1912 of the evidence records: CW stated that the Defendant had taken an envelope, but the ZW was first the Defendant;

It appears that the envelope was cut down, and that it is also possible that the Z has re-explosible the envelope.

It is difficult to view that the above statement of CW and the facts charged are contrary to this part of the facts charged.

30) AJ, while stating the fact that money and valuables are provided to CX labor inspectors in the course of police investigation, enter the company.

He was aware of the disadvantages to be caused (No. 2, 872 of the evidence record).

31) AJ’s instruction in the court of the court below that “CX calls for meals or defects, as the case may be, to the division of ED.”

One time has not been able to do so, so far, he saw a meal defect, such as a franchising," and “CX first money.”

The expression " must be prepared by how much the people can prepare?" with written statements, and as you can prepare for personnel?"

I stated that “I am, I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I

32) The trial records 772 773 pages

33) The steam Records No. 3 1874, 1906 pages

34) The Defendant: (a) 1C; (b) 200,000 won and 300,000 won; and (c) 1C; (d) 20 BS; and

25 BV, Nos. 28 S, 33B, 38 BC and 43CI acknowledged that they were a bribe.

35) An AI is divided into four teams (one team leader and one team member) with an investigative agency, but at the time of inspection.

It is not to check only the relevant team, but to check at the place of business where the whole of the division excluding the division is distributed.

and conduct an inspection on the overall industrial safety and health. An inspection shall not be conducted only by the same team, but also by another team member.

The statement was made as follows: “The person who is mixed with the supervisor shall also be mixed with the supervisor (Evidence No. 1, 118 pages of evidence records).”

36) Five pages of the examination of witness in relation to H of the second instance trial records.

37) Two pages of the examination of the witness in the second instance trial record H

38) Five pages of the protocol of examination of witness for AY of the third trial date.

39) Scope of duties under Article 2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act

(1) A certified public labor attorney shall perform the following duties:

1. Reporting a report or application, and requesting a statement to the relevant agency pursuant to labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes (the review agency for objection);

An agent or agent for the Gu and a petition for adjudication) and relief of rights

2. Preparation and confirmation of all documents under labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Consultation and guidance on labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes and labor management;

4. Labor management diagnosis on the business or workplace to which the Labor Standards Act applies;

5. Private mediation or arbitration under Article 52 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act;

(2) "Labor management diagnosis" in paragraph (1) 4 means a request by one or both labor-management parties to a business or workplace.

and examine matters concerning personnel management, labor management, labor-management relations, etc. in the business or workplace, and the result thereof.

It refers to a series of acts that present a reasonable improvement plan.

40) Article 102(1) of the Labor Standards Act

41) The investigative agency stated that S was KRW 200,000 as to the internal amount, and AM stated that it was KRW 500,000.

C. However, as a practical person, AM proceeds with golf meetings with employees of the EEC and S, and 1 and 2 statements.

In order to protect the staff of the EEC, it is necessary to deny all types of meetings and golf meetings, and present objective evidence.

I state about golf meetings, etc., and relatively detailed memory of each meeting, the date of each meeting, the members, etc.

In light of the fact that the credibility of the AM's statement is higher, the amount of KRW 500,000 according to the AM statement shall be raised.

recognized as evidence (Evidence No. 3 1626~1631, 1643 pages).

42) Evidence No. 3, 1538 pages

43) Prosecutor’s place where the crime of acceptance of bribe due to the receipt of congratulatory money is committed “AE hotel annual meeting of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

However, according to the mid-term period, the place where the defendant received the congratulatory money shall be three floors of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DF building.

It is recognized that it is Grandium, and the fact that the defendant received satisium itself is recognized as well as cattle.

Since it did not specifically dispute the legitimacy of the place where money was received, the place of crime is changed as above.

The public prosecution is instituted on the ground that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right of defense.

The place of crime shall be changed and recognized as above without undergoing the procedure for change of collection.

44) Evidence No. 4-3 submitted by the defendant's side

45) Evidence No. 4-5 submitted by the Defendant’s side