2016Gohap905 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

Violation of Attorney-at-Law

A

Han Dong-hun (Court of Appeals), Lee Ho-hoon (Court of Appeals), Lee Ho-chul, Lee Ho-seok, Lee Na-seok, Lee Na-hee, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-il

Law Firm B, Attorney C, D, E, F, G

Attorney H

Law Firm I, Attorney J, K

February 7, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Acceptance of money and valuables for consideration for reappointment of the representative director of LA company;

A. Summary of the facts charged

At the time of the expiration of the term of office of L, a representative director of L, who was scheduled to be appointed as a representative director of L, was expected to be sold to N on January 2009, and the possibility of reappointment of his representative director has been reduced on the N, which will be decided to appoint L, due to N, due to N’s financial reasons, the sale was impossible. On January 2009, the Haman tried to find out a counter to soliciting the reappointment of L, which was a key role in deciding the appointment of L, but even though P did not find a solicitation counter to the private financing industry, it was trying to find out the key role of the appointment of L, which was included outside, in order to find out the vacancy in the process of selling the M, the representative director of L, which was presumed to be sold to P on the expiration of the term of office of L, and the representative director of L, who was appointed to be reappointed from the private financing industry, was found to have no negative opinion on the representative director’s decision of dismissal of the M, which was the largest shareholder’s decision of M.

On the other hand, in the above circumstances, the defendant suggested to the officer R in charge of L's publicity to the effect that "it is possible to assist the president in the reappointment of MM because he knows P well," and asked M's president to deliver the statement, and R delivered the above proposal to M.

In such a situation, the Defendant was given a definite answer to M that “I will be able to make it possible for MI to be reappointed by requesting P to P. The Defendant would be able to make sure that MI will be reappointed.” Accordingly, the Defendant promised to make a solicitation for the reappointment of M to P who was authorized to appoint LI’s representative director by stating that MI will be "if the National Assembly is successful in reappointment, it will be called a "sken", and if you demand M to pay for that solicitation and would be a "rest" from M, it would be able to do so.

Accordingly, from January 2009 to February 2 of the same year, the Defendant sent a situation to the effect that, throughout several times, the Defendant “in the past,” “in the past, there was a good evaluation of the President of M, and actively defended that the President should be reappointed,” and that, “O bank directly aware of the P, should maintain the system of the president of the party against P in order to stabilize the L organization,” and “in the case of the O bank, it is necessary to maintain the system of the party president.”

In addition, the defendant had developed the logic that he would learn the management ability and the necessity of reappointment of the MM president even around that time, and the defendant stated that "P was able to explain and persuade the necessity of reappointment of the MM president as prepared in advance while making a meal."

After that, on February 2 of the same year, when M is determined as a candidate for the sole representative director of L and M in fact by deciding M as a candidate for L and notifying M to L, on February 2 of the same year, the Defendant presented a separate method of payment that, “I will have to get 2 billion won upon request from L to P for consecutive terms. I will have to receive 2 billion won for the above P,” and then requested M's consent for payment for the above P, and accordingly, he received 50 million won for advance payment as 3.5 billion won for the process of paying the price for solicitation, and received 200 million won for advance payment as 3.6 billion won for the remaining amount by dividing 36 months which will be employed in the future of M and 200 million won for the total of 3.5 billion won for the MU bank’s operation (including 200 million won for the above 3.6 billion won for the purpose of 2.5 billion won for the purpose of 205 billion won for the purpose of 200.5 billion won for the above operation of MU.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 2.134 million under the name of solicitation or mediation for business affairs related to the appointment of LO representative director who is a public official under the laws and regulations, as the P of LO bank, which is the largest shareholder.

B. Summary of defense counsel's assertion

1) Each written statement of V, R, and M prepared by the prosecutor is inadmissible, since it was either a full-time statement or (V) it was not recognized that the authenticity has been made by testimony in court (R, M).

2) As part of the exercise of shareholder's rights, a bank (hereinafter referred to as "O bank") does not constitute a case or business handled by a public official for the purpose of presenting opinions on candidates for L's representative director or notifying L's directors.

3) The Defendant did not receive a request for solicitation or mediation from M with respect to the reappointment of L representative director, and there is no fact of receiving money and valuables in return.

C. Existence of admissibility of each prosecutor's statement about V, R, and M

1) In each prosecutorial protocol concerning V, the part on which V entered the statement from other persons, such as R and W, is inadmissible unless the requirements of Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act are met. R andW, etc. constitute “a person who is not the defendant.” There is no evidence to deem that it is impossible to make a statement due to “the death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, and other similar reasons” as stipulated in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the part of the prosecutor's protocol of each prosecutor's statement about V, which entered the hearsay statement as above, is inadmissible.

2) R/M stated that the testimony at the court was written as a whole by each prosecutor’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, and that it is consistent even if the defense counsel specifically identified a specific part of the above protocol and made such statement.

It is true that R and M have made a statement about some contents in the court, such as “the expression was wrong,” “the purpose of expression is different,” and “the purport is different.” However, this is the fact that they made a statement in the prosecutor’s office, but they made a statement differently as they intended to make the statement, so it may not be deemed that the authenticity of each protocol was not verified even if it may affect the determination of probative value of each protocol.

In addition, even if R has any content not written in the protocol among the contents written by the prosecutor, it is difficult to specify what content has not been written in the protocol, and it is difficult to view that all the contents written by the witness in the prosecutor's office should be written in the protocol. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authenticity of each prosecutor's statement made by the prosecutor's office is not recognized.

Therefore, the defense counsel's argument about R and M's written statement by the prosecutor is not accepted.

D. Whether the business of appointing the L representative director falls under a case or business operated by a public official

1) Article 1 of the former X Act (amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 31, 2009) provides that "the purpose of the O bank is to supply and manage important industrial funds for the promotion of industrial development and the development of the national economy" and the main purpose of the O bank is to supply industrial funds to enterprises and to manage the already supplied industrial funds.

In addition, Articles 35-6 and 35-7 of the former X-gu Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21480 of May 6, 2009) stipulate that the O bank will supply industrial funds to and manage the company, thereby newly acquiring or holding existing shares issued by the other company.

2) If so, as part of the exercise of shareholder's rights as the largest shareholder at the time of the instant case, the determination of what person should be reappointed as L's representative director and the notification thereof to L should be deemed as the principal business in accordance with the purpose of establishment of the O bank.

Therefore, the act of deciding whether M is reappointed as L representative director constitutes a P's inherent business, and it is deemed that the above P business is also a case or affairs handled by a public official, since the executive officers of an O bank are deemed public officials pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 111 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree

3) Accordingly, we cannot accept this part of the defense counsel’s assertion.

E. Whether the defendant received money or goods in return for the request for a solicitation or mediation about the reappointment of L representative director by M

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was requested to request or arrange the reappointment of a L representative director, or received money and valuables in return, in excess of the extent that the defendant respondeds to malicious lussism when providing promotional agency services to L from January 2008, or was aware of the internal atmosphere of the L representative director's performance in M on the extension line, which caused the extension of the L representative director's performance to publicize M.

1) Situation at the time of the sale of LD

A) On March 26, 2008, the O Bank announced L sales plans, and on August 22, 2008, publicly announced L sales on a regular basis. On October 24, 2008, the N consortium was selected as a priority negotiation subject, and the MOU was drafted on November 14, 2008.

However, even though Nconsium assessed that it was insufficient and demanded to submit revised financing plan with respect to the financing plan submitted to the O bank on January 9, 2009, Nconsium submitted the financing plan without amending it on January 15, 2009. On January 21, 2009, the Oconsium decided to deprive Nconsor of the eligibility for preferential negotiation by opening the board of directors and declared the cancellation of the termination of the MOU and the suspension of the sale procedure on January 22, 2009 following the date.

B) In light of the above L sales in the light of the process of salesless L, even though the O bank requested for revision of the financing plan, it seems that the Nconsium refused to comply and the possibility of sale may arise from the end of January in which it submitted the financing plan as it was as it was, and whether the O bank should re-appoint M as L representative director or not has emerged as a pending issue. The P’s statement that requested the Financial Services Commission to verify the personnel of M by the end of January is consistent with the P’s statement that it requested to verify the personnel of M.

C) Unlike the existing practices in which the official fee of the Ministry of Economy was mainly appointed in Y, P was generated from a private financial institution, and at the time, P was selected and appointed to successfully promote Z which was one of the government tasks at the time. M was difficult to identify the importance of P as to whether or not the representative director of the subsidiary was reappointed in the middle of January 2009, since M did not have any specific contact with P except the official relationship of the representative director of the subsidiary. At the time, the executives of the O bank, including AA, and M, who were related with M, were unable to properly grasp the general atmosphere of the O bank as well as P’s intention.

D) In such a situation, M appears to have been a subject to ascertaining the overall atmosphere of executives and employees of Obank including P, and, in particular, what thoughts they have about the reappointment of a representative director, and it is doubtful whether M promptly solicits or mediates P for his reappointment and requested it to South Korea before understanding the atmosphere of O bank as to his reappointment.

In the business finance4 office of the O bank, the report (Evidence No. 6401-4005) containing a negative view on the reappointment of M was submitted to P on February 2, 2009, and the media also has a negative news about the reappointment of M. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that M obtained the above report at the time and it was aware of the content thereof, and it is unclear whether the representative director of a company with a large social impact is reappointed, such as L, can be reported by a large number of article articles. Thus, it is difficult to view M to have predicted that M was a negative consequence of his/her reappointment.

Rather, M is anticipated that L will be sold in N in the court, and it is not easy to appoint a new representative director, so it was stated that P had a vague expectation to serve his/her own term as a representative director, and P also stated to the effect that he/she did not think of appointing another person other than M as a representative director at the time of the court.

2) Contents requested by M and the defendant's role

A) M consistently asked the Defendant to consistently in the court that “Along with the general atmosphere of the O bank including P and executive officers,” and thereafter, the Defendant asked that “O bank will move in the direction of stabilizing L’s organization; hereinafter the same shall apply)” in the first place to the effect that “I am asked the Defendant “I am about live talk” to read “I am about live talk, and I am not about that person.”

B) Under Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the term "reconciliation" refers to "an act of mediating or assisting a certain matter between a certain person and his/her counterpart to make good offices or convenience," and it also constitutes an act of arranging a certain person to transfer the intent of solicitation to the other party or to make solicitation on behalf of the person on behalf of the other party. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to regard "an act of identifying the overall atmosphere of the O bank for the reappointment of the person who requested by M as requested by the defendant" as such.

We examine the part that the Defendant stated that M does not constitute a fact with respect to the piracy’s entry into the O bank. Even according to M’s statement, M did not first request the Defendant to the effect that “it is not true to have entered the O bank” in advance, and this appears to have been done at will by the Defendant. In order to view the Defendant’s action as the same as solicitation or mediation for the reappointment of M against P, the Defendant appears to have voluntarily expressed that ① the other party who made such remarks is specified as P, and ② the Defendant appears to have expressed his intent to believe and not be reappointed as the fact that P is desirable to reappointed the M, and to inform the Defendant that there was such piracy’s intention to change P’s intention, it should have the same effect as delivering M to the representative director.

However, M voluntarily stated in the court that “P was not aware of the other party that the Defendant was not aware of the fact that it was not information about M by the O bank. Furthermore, it does not seem that there was any circumstance to evaluate that such a conversation was the same as delivering that it would have to be reappointed to P.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have solicited or mediated the reappointment of M on the ground that the defendant had clarified the lusity information on M.

C) At the court, M made a statement to the effect that, after the Defendant’s overall atmosphere of the O bank as seen above, he focused on the management of the O bank, and she led the trade union to not cause any particular problem (M expressed "a hard strategy"). The Defendant expressed to the effect that, if P intended to engage in a sudden publication operation in relation to his reappointment (M expressed "M" as "clobing the red powder." Since M had a large degree of connection with the Cheongdae-dae floor as at the time of the time, M had a large degree of relationship with the Cheongdae-dae and upper floor, it would have been able to exercise pressure by making a request to P by making another route only if he became aware of P in advance. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that, upon the above M’s statement, the Defendant directly asked the P to prevent him from doing so.

D) The R stated in the court that “IB (Investment Bank) industry well-known and well-known in the international society,” “IB (Investment Bank) industry,” “after that,” “after that, I would like to assist M not P,” and “after that, I would like to say, I would like to say that IB (Investment Bank) industry, I would like to say that IB (Investment Bank) industry was well-known, I would like to say that I would like to know that I would like to assist M not P, and that I would like to say that I would like to know that I would like to know

Even based on the aforementioned R’s statement, the Defendant did not mention the R in relation to what help the P. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have expressed his/her intent to solicit or arrange the reappointment of M beyond the extent of assistance by understanding the overall atmosphere of the O bank, including P for the reappointment of M as seen earlier.

E) In the court, R made a statement that: (a) during the term of office of the representative director of M, L has increased to three times the sales revenue of L during the term of office; (b) has been globalized by investing in the field of overseas energy and real estate; (c) the number of stocks may be reduced if an external personnel enters the representative director; and (b) the Defendant and R made a statement that the Defendant and L were made in a way that they would create an atmosphere for re-appointing M by making a call with respect to L’s public relations or by making it easy for those who are well aware of L’s employees or companies to easily accept it.

This appears to have discussed a proposal for promoting M during his/her term of office as a means of creating an atmosphere for reappointment of M, including the government and the media (a public relations agency directly publicizing the performance and goals of a certain company or consulting about a method of public relations is not clearly distinguishable from that of promoting L's representative director's work as a representative of L's public relations agency). As such, it does not seem that the defendant expressed his/her intent to recommend or mediate the reappointment of M by specifying P or other officers of the P or other O bank as such logic.

F) From January 22, 2009, when the Defendant declared the suspension of sale of N consortiums around this time, the Defendant expressed his intention to re-appoint M as a representative director by revealing that O Bank AA will proceed with procedures such as convening a board of directors and convening a general meeting of shareholders to serve consecutive terms for M and thus, it is only three to four times during the period on February 14, 2009.

3) On February 2009, the details of the conclusion of the public relations consulting contract and the subsequent processes

A) The time when the contract was concluded

(1) It is true that the date of preparation of the contract for public relations consulting agreements (Evidence No. 2,868-871; hereinafter referred to as "this case's public relations consulting agreement") set forth in L and U as 50 million won (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), monthly service payment of KRW 44 million, and contract term of 36 months is February 1, 2009.

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances, the date of actual conclusion of the above contract shall be deemed as around February 27, 2009, which was approved by R on L for the conclusion of the above contract (Evidence No. 2: 872) after M was notified of reappointment by an O bank.

① On February 1, 2009, when the reappointment of a representative director of M has not yet become final and conclusive, and there have been a number of piracy information about M with an O bank. In the event of failure to be reappointed M, the remaining representative director of M has expressed his/her opinion on M and public relations consulting and cannot be found to continue to maintain the public relations consulting contract with U (U) (in fact, AB and AC belonging to L Public Relations Team was a meeting to utilize external public relations consulting firms such as U). Then, it seems that there is no reason for M to conclude a contract to be implemented for three years during the term of office of the succeeding representative director in advance.

② In L, it is not impossible to conclude a contract in advance prior to approval of internal items. However, the instant publicity consulting contract is not for solving urgent issues, but for a contract for which long-term services are provided for the enhancement, etc. of L companies’ image, and cannot find out the urgent circumstances that the contract should have been concluded in advance without going through internal items. There was no budget for the implementation of the said contract.

③ Both M and R consistently stated that the public relations consulting contract in this case was concluded after M was substantially reappointed until February 2009. At the time of the public relations consultation contract in this case, M and R consistently stated that the public relations consultation contract in this case was concluded. At the time of the public prosecutor’s appointment of N as a priority negotiating party, M and R did not state whether “N was subject to investigation on November 2008, immediately after the public prosecutor’s appointment as a priority negotiating party,” or they did not state whether the contract was made retroactively (No. 1st right 495 pages of evidence record). However, P and C stated that the sale would become an unsatisfy issue before the aforementioned statement (Evidence No. 1st right 494 of evidence record) and stated on the premise that M’s reappointment was made after the sale was no longer made (Evidence No. 1st right 494 of evidence record), and thus, the above expression would be highly likely to be made by a simple mistake, and Y did not affect its credibility by itself before being asked by the public prosecutor.

④ The publicity consulting contract of this case states that "a consulting to improve the corporate image" is the content of service during the period including before and after the sale. However, in light of the fact that "a company intending to sell" stated in the court that "the reason why the contract was concluded is that "the company intending to sell" would have been newly known," and that P also stated that "a company should re-appointed M as the representative director after the failure of sale from the court to the N consortium and would have made efforts to stabilize the company and continuously sell the company." In light of the fact that P also stated that the above content is that the company's image will be newly improved after the sale was unsatisfy and the service will be continuously provided to other investors even after the sale was made. It is difficult to view that the above contract was made during the process of sale at N consortium.

B) The reasons for concluding the contract

(1) At the court, M asked the defendant to find out of the atmosphere of the O bank and asked him to see that "when you are frighten, Ma refers to "when you are frighten", M refers to "when you are frighten", and at the same time, M refers to "when you are frighten", and M refers to "when you are frighten" at the place where the defendant, M, and R is fright, and M refers to "I f righten" and the defendant responded to "2 billion".

① On February 2, 2009, the Defendant demanded R to enter into a contract of KRW 2 billion in total as L sale process and M by telephone to R, and subsequently, upon obtaining confirmation from M to enter into a contract, the head of the public relations team instructed AB to enter into the instant public relations consulting contract; ② there was no consultation between the person in charge of the public relations team, such as AB and AC, with U in the process of entering into the said contract; and ② there was no consultation between the person in charge of the public relations team, such as AB and AC, on the content of the contract, such M’s statement may be reliable.

(2) However, as seen earlier, M requested that the Defendant identify and request the overall atmosphere of P as well as the O bank, and the Defendant also arranged measures to publicize the values during his term of office as the representative director in addition to grasping the atmosphere of the O bank, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s expression “if it is well mentioned by the Defendant” to mean that “if it is successful in reappointment,” the Defendant’s solicitation or arrangement to P is more effective than “if it is successful in reappointment.”

R As stated in the Prosecutor’s Office, M has been using a very strong ney aspect while thoroughly managing his/her reappointment at the time, so even if the Defendant did not promise to play a specific role such as solicitation or arrangement for P, it seems that M was a sufficient incentive to promise the Defendant to put him/her over “the Defendant in the event his/her reappointment is successful,” even if M did not promise to play a specific role, such as solicitation or arrangement for P.

C) Terms of the contract and the actual results of the service

(1) It is true that the instant public relations consulting agreement included KRW 550 million in advance, unlike the contracts after the transfer or after the commencement of the contract, and the monthly service amount also increased from KRW 9.9 million to KRW 44 million.

(2) However, in full view of the circumstances delineated below, there is sufficient room to view that the Defendant and U.S. employees provided services in accordance with the instant publicity consulting agreement and received the said money in return for such provision. As such, it cannot be concluded that the said agreement merely forms the contract, or that the said price is the price for solicitation or arrangement with P.

① In the instant publicity consulting contract, U as well as preparing and providing virtual data to L, a major portion of providing intangible services that advise and consult about how to respond to the media at that time when a certain issue arises. In addition, there is considerable difficulty in clarifying the appropriateness of the cost of such services.

② At the time of the conclusion of the instant publicity consulting contract, L’s statement to the purport that L’s statement to the effect that “AD’s statement to the effect that L’s employees of the publicity team did not take any weight compared to the size of the company,” and that “at the time of entry, 3~4 employees of the publicity team did not take part at the time of entry, but increased to six companies due to the increase in the size of the company and the increase in the size of the company.” The statement to the effect that L’s statement to the effect that L’s statement to the effect that “a company seeking to sell was going to a new one, the company would have been going to engage in the business of overseas media since 2009-2010, and the size of the company was increased to six companies.”

③ As of April 1, 2008, L and U changed the method of calculating the service price in proportion to the time spent in the performance of the service as of April 1, 2008. Accordingly, the service price was calculated and paid in approximately KRW 46 million (which was divided into May 2008 and June), although the said price was paid in installments on May 6, 2008, according to the AC’s prosecutorial statement, L and U stated that it continued to pay and maintain the contract if the said contract was not terminated due to conflicts of interest around May 1, 2008.

④ Unlike the transfer of the publicity consulting agreement in this case, U actually provided L with daily (daily), weekly (wegly), monthly (monthly (monthly) press trend analysis report (proof No. 5; hereinafter referred to as "certificate No. 5), ‘2010 DESM Elobal Joints report (proof No. 6), ‘enterprise Posing consulting report' (proof No. 7), and ‘ crisis management manual' (certificate No. 8). AD also provided news report data, referring to the above report.

In fact, it is true that a part of the above data is erroneous or insufficient. However, in light of the fact that AC requested U to provide a monthly report (including the analysis of media trends on competitors, different from a weekly report) and that U provided additional data in response thereto, if the employees of L Publicity Team were to receive the above data and faithfully review them for practical use, and request for a substantial supplementation or revision, or request for an additional provision of other data, it would have been likely that U would have provided more faithful services. In fact, AB would have provided more faithful services to other employees such as AC, etc. while leaving the public relations team, it was reasonable for other employees to demand a contract for the instant public relations consulting contract of this case to be requested by U as much as the amount of money and receive assistance.

D) Other circumstances

Since M was reappointed as the representative director of L on March 2009, around September 2009, the head office was subject to search and seizure from the prosecutor's office. On July 2010, 2010, M had been raised a suspicion of being reappointed from his political authority. However, L continued to pay the service price under the instant public relations consulting contract.

E. Sub-decision

Thus, this part of the facts charged is judged not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime.

2. The acquisition of money and valuables related to AE;

A. Summary of the facts charged

AE (hereinafter referred to as "AE") extended funds from financial investors, such as future deposit, to put in place a special contract, and accepted the shares of AF from around October 2008 due to the aggravation of the construction competition, etc., but there is a concern that AF's share price is likely to cause a serious liquidity crisis due to the exercise of put in a financial investor's option due to the aggravation of the construction competition. Accordingly, in the situation where the AF's share price has risen from around March 4, 2006, there is a concern that the AE's efforts have been taken to make self-help efforts such as support and sale of shares. As a result of the evaluation of the financial structure of AE around March 4, 2009, the result of the evaluation of the financial structure of AE, the principal creditor bank, should enter into a financial structure improvement MOU within the upper half of the date, and the possibility of success of AE's efforts was imminent.

The Defendant, as described in paragraph (1)(A), was determined to receive money exceeding KRW 2 billion in return for the solicitation or intermediation for the reappointment of a L/C representative director by using a private-friendly relationship with the incumbent P, and in the same way, he received money from P by referring to a personal-friendly relationship with the P, i.e., AE placed in a sudden position where it is inevitable to have a serious business impact on P based on the direction of policy decision-making of the O bank, based on the friendly relationship with P, and referring to the above officers, and referring to a personal-friendly relationship with P, and referring to a personal-friendly relationship with P at the time of completion, referring to resolving the problem with the O bank at the time of AE by soliciting or

On the other hand, around April 2009, the OE notified AE of the designation subject to the agreement to improve the financial structure within the upper half-term period, and reported the result of the evaluation of the financial structure of AE to the financial authorities including the Financial Supervisory Service in accordance with the Rules on the Evaluation of Financial Improvement, and thus, the actual confirmation of the plan to conclude the MOU for the financial structure improvement within the upper half-term in 2009 was made with AE. Thus, around the end of April of the same year, P could not be avoided from entering into the MOU because the withdrawal or reversal of the plan to enter into the financial structure improvement agreement between AE and O bank did not have any intent or ability to avoid entering into the financial structure improvement agreement between AE and AE even if the Defendant received money from AE.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the end of April 2009, claimed that the AE Strategic Headquarters AE (AE) who did not have an all-day type of face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant deceivings AG while containing words as charged. Rather, the defendant, even though only met with AG to discuss the external public relations services of AE, requested AG to avoid or postpone the conclusion of a financial structure improvement agreement by utilizing the relationship between the defendant and P, and there is sufficient possibility that the defendant has shown a reserved attitude to the effect that "the defendant will inform P of the conclusion of the financial structure improvement agreement once". In addition, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) The circumstances in which the defendant met with AG

A) AG made a statement to the effect that the Defendant, without any prior contact, made an appearance that the Defendant would have been aware of the internal situation of AE and made a promise by setting the date immediately and making it necessary to do so.

B) It is true that AE was in a situation where the risk of aggravation of the financial structure, such as put options agreed upon by financial investors during the process of acquiring AF, was high, and it was notified by the OE that it should enter into an agreement for improvement of the financial structure. However, even if considering such circumstances, it is difficult to readily accept that the Defendant’s speech, without any prior knowledge, was heard only the Defendant who opened the phone, and the Defendant’s promise was made by setting the date immediately.

C) Rather, in light of the AJ’s statement to the effect that, upon receiving a request from AI to introduce a person to engage in external publicity, the Defendant was introduced, and the AG’s prosecutorial statement that, at the time of the first call, the Defendant did not talk about P or O bank at the time of the Defendant’s initial call, and that, at the same time, the Defendant introduced himself as a representative of the public relations agency, “the person was found to have been engaged in overseas publicity.” In light of the AG’s prosecutorial statement, it is sufficient that the AG received an instruction from the Defendant, who was in contact with the Defendant, who was an expert for external publicity from AI, and received the direction from the Defendant to immediately

2) Communications between the Defendant and AG at the time of delivery

A) After entering into an agreement with the Defendant, AG became aware of the fact that the Defendant had a considerable relationship with P, and that it could be asked through the Defendant to avoid or postpone the conclusion of an improvement agreement on the financial structure.

B) In the first place, the Defendant and AG explained that they would know P well, and the AG first explained the position of the AE that they want to avoid or postpone the conclusion of a financial structure improvement agreement, which would lead to resolving the problem related to the financial structure improvement agreement, as the Defendant is close to P. It was said that the Defendant would appear “one time”, and both the Defendant and AG did not ask or talk about how the Defendant specifically solves the problem related to the financial structure improvement agreement.

C) At the site of the Defendant’s contact, AG stated that “The pending issues need to be solved rather than public relations affairs.” The next public relations activities need to be resolved.” This is supported by the fact that AG strongly requested the Defendant, who was seeking to consult on the external public relations activities of AE, to request the improvement of the financial structure with the OG bank.

D) AG heard only the phrase “Isra that it is difficult to get out of the P,” and thereafter, stated to the effect that there was no resistance against the Defendant even though Isra did not hear any speech about the improvement agreement on the financial structure, and that at the time, AG sleeped a sense that it was different from the expectation of the Defendant rather than the Defendant’s thought at the time, rather than the Defendant was attributed to the Defendant.

3) The AE’s situation around the instant case

A) On April 28, 2009, the OE held a financial structure evaluation committee to decide to select AE as the subject of a contract for the improvement of the financial structure. At that time, the OE notified this fact to the AE, and reported the result of the financial structure evaluation to the financial authorities including the Financial Supervisory Service. After all, the fact that it is impossible for the OE and the practical professionals of the AE to avoid entering into the financial structure improvement agreement in the course of consultation on the details of the agreement for the improvement of the financial structure was known, and it was a situation in which it was requested to postpone the conclusion on the basis of the progress of consultation with other investors.

In such a situation, the grounds for believing that AG would be able to avoid entering into a financial structure improvement agreement upon the request of P via the Defendant may not be found. While AG made a statement to the effect that “Although it was known that there was low possibility, it would have been upon the request of the Defendant at the end of the day, and that it would have become more trusted because it was said that the Defendant showed a big sense, it is difficult to readily accept the reasons for AG to pay a large amount of money exceeding KRW 1.1 billion to the Defendant.

B) The concerns about the AE’s financial structure being raised at the time were due to the increase of KRW 10,00 won by put options, i.e., put options, when the AF’s share price falls below a certain price, due to the financial investor holding the right to sell the AF shares at the standard price, the AE was likely to be required in the process of repaying a large amount of amount and purchasing the AF shares. To solve this, AE was in consultation with the new investor in the three location, and was in preparation of a memorandum of understanding that it would have been required to postpone the conclusion of the financial structure improvement agreement with the OF. Based on this, the AE demanded that the OF enter into the financial structure improvement agreement.

In this situation, in order to support the argument that the AF is positively expected in the market and that the negotiations with new investors are being carried out smoothly, it seems that there is sufficient motive for the AF to secure specific data, such as media reports, especially foreign media articles, which are assessed to have influence on foreign investors, within a short period, and to request the OF to postpone the conclusion of the financial structure improvement agreement.In the AG prosecutorial office, the AG stated that the AE was a situation in which it is impossible to prevent the conclusion of the financial structure improvement agreement only with the static assertion such as AK.

(iv) Other circumstances.

A) It is true that AE has obtained approval from U as an internal product (Evidence 6:3808 pages) with the content that it pays down payment of KRW 1.1 billion in down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder in U for four months. However, in light of the fact that AG success in the postponement of the conclusion of a financial structure improvement agreement, as seen earlier, it can be deemed that U would continue to engage in public relations in U.S. after the success, such internal part can be deemed to be aimed at securing the service cost to be additionally paid in advance if U continues to engage in public relations activities in the future, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant demanded AG to provide KRW 3.3 billion in advance in return for solicitation or good offices for P.

B) The services provided by U to AE are deemed to account for a large portion of providing intangible services, such as publicity consulting with respect to AE, as seen earlier. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that a public relations agency contract between AE and U is in the form of a public relations contract, on the ground that no virtual service outcome remains.

C. Sub-decision

If so, this part of the facts charged also comes to the absence of proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325.

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Yang Woo-soo

Judges Jeon Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.