2013Gohap47, 52 (Joint), 93 (Joint), 138 (Joint), 212 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

B. Acceptance of bribe

C. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

(d) Offering of bribe;

E. Demanding a bribe

1.(a)(c) A;

2.c.(d) B

3.(a)(c) . C

4.C. D.

5.(a)(c)(e) E;

6.(c)(d)F

Demotion (prosecution, public trial)

Law Firm LLC (Defendant A)

Attorney in charge H

Law Firm I (Defendant B)

Attorney J, K in charge

Attorney L (Defendant C)

Law Firm M (Defendant D)

Attorney in charge N

Attorney 0. P (for defendant E)

Law Firm Q (Defendant F)

Attorney in charge R

Attorney S (for defendant F)

September 4, 2013

Defendant A’s imprisonment of three years and fine of 30,00,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year, Defendant C’s imprisonment of three years and six months and fine of 30,000,000 won, Defendant D’s imprisonment of two years and two years, Defendant E’s imprisonment of eight years and fine of 200,000,000 won, and Defendant F’s imprisonment of one year and three months, respectively. If Defendant A, C, and E fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the respective amount of 20,000 won into one day.

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

20,000,000 won from Defendant A and 280,000,00 won from Defendant E shall be additionally collected from Defendant E. It shall order Defendant A, C, and E to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

Defendant E is the 14th unit (from April 30, 2009 to June 30, 2010), and 15th unit (from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 201), and the 15th unit (hereinafter referred to as “V”), and Defendant C is the school inspector in charge of X at the T Office of Education, and Defendant D was the Z at the T Office of Education’s Y and the FM FN screening (hereinafter referred to as “FN screening”). Defendant A is the school inspector in the AA Office of Education; Defendant A was the FN type management member (Supervision); Defendant A was the FN type BN type 3 at the time of FN type 3; Defendant CFN type 1; Defendant CFD type 1; Defendant CFD type 3; Defendant CFD type 4 at the time of FN type 1, 2013; Defendant CFD type 1; and Defendant CFD type 3 was the head at the FNN type 3.

1. The public invitation relationship between Defendant A, C, D, E, and relevant persons in succession 2);

A. Defendant E, C, and D’s planning process of the crime stated to the effect that, within the vehicle of Defendant C moving from the early early June 2012, 2012, Defendant C (“Defendant E”) to the Maritime engineer restaurant near the AE apartment at the Pacific City of Gongju to the Maritime Affairs and Port, Defendant C (“I”) instructed Defendant C to “I would like to pass the examination (FN model) to pass the examination and treat B and AF, AG, and AH, and to recommend more successful candidates for each department,” and that “I would like to pass the election fund from the FN test.”

At that time, Defendant C received instructions from Defendant D within his own vehicle parked on the street near the N&S complex of the Daejeon P&S P&S, which is located on the North Korean Peninsula. After discussing Defendant D and its methods, Defendant C provided FN-type FO and FP issues in advance to applicants and decided to pass the FN-type. Defendant C conspired to create FO and FP issues, and Defendant D came out to the applicants so that the problems leaked through the members of the examination committee selected by them can be prepared.

On the other hand, around June 14, 2012, Defendant E approved the “FN type plan” proposal in the U.S. Office of Education, and ordered Defendant D to “C and well-known.”

B. On June 19, 2012, Defendant C discussed ways to take part in the crime of Defendant A and AB and to pass the four persons, including Defendant B, etc. directed by Defendant A and AB, within his own vehicle near the Shindong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu, which was selected by adding those who will pass the above four persons, and received money and valuables from them and recruited them to raise election funds.

According to such a conspiracy, Defendant C and AB received contact from Defendant A and AB on June 19, 2012 to June 30, 2012, and reported the subjects to pass each department, and reported the subjects to Defendant E in advance and received money and valuables in return for informing them of the FO and FP issues in advance, and notified Defendant E of the approval, and notified Defendant C and AB of the details of the re-approval. From June 2012 to July 2012, Defendant C and AB confirmed whether they were to apply for FN type, and received money and valuables from the applicants who wanted to receive the issue in advance (hereinafter referred to as “illegal subscribers”).

On June 30, 2012, Defendant C expressed and reported to Defendant E the above-mentioned persons to pass the election fund in the list of FM-type applicants, and comprehensively reported to Defendant E that he would receive money and goods in return for informing them of the FO and FP issues, and even thereafter, Defendant C received additional reports to those who will pass the election from Defendant E, and notified Defendant A, D, and AB of the increase in the number of those subject to the approval.

On July 2012, 2012, Defendant D reported 'FM FN screening test(s) preparation(s) preparation(s) preparation(s) preparation(s) preparation(s) preparation to Defendant E at the office of education in the Seocho-gu Office of Education to Defendant E, and it would be easy for Defendant D to be called 's first proposal 3'. After Defendant E obtained Defendant E's approval, Defendant D selected AB, FF, AL, AL, FT, and AM, N, and AO as members of the FN-type questions preparation preparation.

Defendant C and D, around July 5, 2012, completed meals with AI at the cafeteria-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and then entered the cafeteria-dong parking lot, which means that “AB will arrange to create the FO6 problem,” and delivered the above contents to Defendant E’s importance, and AI accepted it.

Meanwhile, around July 2012, AB made 6 problems of FO, and around July 4, 2012 through July 11, 2012, AB and Defendant A informed the illegal applicants of F06 problems as originally planned. After that, during the period from July 8, 2012 to July 13, 2012, AI led the members of the Committee to set up the “AP” door in the “AP” door, and set up a group to be 6 problems that AB entered. Defendant D sent to the FO2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 2, who received from the FOB, to verify whether the FO6 problems were carried out in the above sector, and notified Defendant CFU 1 of the problem, and Defendant CFT 1, who received from each of the above sectors, was also aware of the problem of “FO2,” and Defendant CFU 2, who received from each of the applicants.

On July 2012, 2012, Defendant D reported 'FM FN screening capacity assessment (Interview) preparation and examination committee selection proposal to Defendant E at the U Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as "the first proposal would be the same as it would be possible to do so)', Defendant D selected AJ as AK, AT, and AU and AV as a member of the FNP preparing questions with Defendant E's approval. At that time, AB created the FP3 problem as originally planned and stored in the USB and delivered the USB and output to Defendant C.

Defendant D, around July 20, 2012, at a AX restaurant located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, referred to as “the Doctrine,” and obtained the consent of the Doctrine. From July 21, 2012, Defendant C and D sent the AJ’s significance to the AJ at the vicinity of the AX restaurant, and Defendant C and D sent the USB and output received from AB to the AJ, but the AJ expressed that one of the three issues does not appear in mind. Ultimately, Defendant C and D, separately from AJ, set up one of the three issues and discussed again on the next day, and around July 22, 2012, Defendant C and D again set up the AJ at the vicinity of the said AX restaurant and set up the final question, which changed the AJ or the last one of the three problems.

At that time, Defendant C had known the FP 3 issues including the issue of the change of AJ, and Defendant A and AB informed the applicants of the FP 3 issues between July 23, 2012 and July 25, 2012.

On the other hand, on July 25, 2012, Defendant C heard the statement that the FP questions were leaked from Defendant A, after being called up by the chairperson and the members preparing the “AY” Y in the public sector, Defendant C asked Defendant D to change the issue, and Defendant D demanded Defendant D to change the FP problem while referring to the above circumstances.

At around July 26, 2012, the AJ, together with the above AK, set up the FP 1 problem set up by the first AB and the 1 problem changed by the AJ, with the intention to make a prior examination, and then notified the FP 3 problem, including the change to the defendant D in the above AZ penta, and the defendant D notified the defendant C, the defendant C, the defendant C, and the FP 3 problem, including the change to the AB, in order.

As between July 26, 2012 and July 27, 2012, Defendant A and AB re-inform the FP 3 issues, including the changed issues, to the illegal applicants.

2. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

(a) Leakage of testing problems in AG;

Defendant A, around July 1, 2012, at the public university parking lot located in the public university located in the public university located in the public university located in the public university located in the public university in the public city in the public city in the public city in the public city in the public city in the public city in the public city in the public city in the purport that “a teacher applying for the FN-type FU may request KRW 20 million to get AG consent,” and around July 4, 2012, Defendant A notified AG of six issues secured as seen above.

In addition, on July 14, 2012, AG applied for the FO-type examination in BB located in BB, and passed the FO-type examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continued to read “FP-type problem has been leaked and changed” by phone call to AG from a place where it was not located at a place, and at the present, Defendant A was called as “official address.” On July 26, 2012, Defendant AG notified AG of the changed FP3 problem at the parking lot of the State University, “the problem has been leaked and changed.” On July 26, 2012, AG applied for the FN-type examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and failed to pass the FP-type examination. As such, Defendant A, CD, and DB did not participate in the performance of duties with respect to TNN-type, EN-type members, and supervision of TN-type Office of Education.

(b) Leakage of examination problems with respect to BC;

On June 4, 2012, Defendant A told the teachers applying for FN-type FU to the FN-type FU-type FU-type BC’s request to obtain BC’s consent by concluding that “the test problems are changed to KRW 10 million.” On July 4, 2012, Defendant A notified the FO 6 issues secured as seen earlier at the parking lot of the FO-type University.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, the BC applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A stated that “FP problems have been leaked and changed by telephone to BC,” at the present public office of education, the BC notified BC of the changed 3 issues to the effect that “the problem has been leaked and changed by the flow of the problem” at the above public office of education at the above public office of education on July 26, 2012, and the BC responded responded to the above 30th public office of education on July 28, 2012. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and EB conspired with the above public office of education on the 20th public office of education on the 20th public office of education on the 20th public office of education on the 20th public office of education on the 20th public office of education on the 2nd public office of education.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, BD applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FPO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continued to call to BD and called “FP problems have been leaked.” At the present time, Defendant A called “the FP problems have been leaked.” On July 26, 2012, the FP3 problems were notified to BD, stating that “the problems have been leaked and changed” to BD, and passed the FP examination on July 28, 2012. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and EB conspired with the FN members of the Office of Education to reply to the problems that were not interfered with the performance of duties, such as TF-type members of the Office of Education, and TF-type members of the Office of Education.

(d) Leakage of testing problems with regard to BF;

On July 20, 2012, Defendant A, at the parking lot of the AA Office of Education located in Chungcheongnamnam BG, told teachers applying for the FNNNFU to the effect that “the 10,000,000 won is changed” would be subject to the BF’s consent, and on July 26, 2012, Defendant A called “the FP problem was leaked and changed” and notified the changed FP three issues.

In addition, in the above BB on July 28, 2012, the BF applied for the FP examination and responded to the above three issues, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and E conspired with the AB and BF in order, and thereby interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning FN type of FM type of the T Office of Education, such as those in charge of duties such as FN screening management supervision by fraudulent means, those who did not participate in the crime, and those in the FN type Evaluation Committee of T Office of Education.

(e) Leakage of testing problems with BH;

On July 5, 2012, Defendant A, at a place not adjacent to the FN-type FU site, told the teachers applying for the FN-type FU to obtain BH’s consent by stating that “the request for KRW 20 million is to reduce the test problem”. On July 5, 2012, Defendant A informed BH of the FO 6 issues secured as seen earlier.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, BH applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FPO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continuously called “FP problem was leaked and changed by phone call to B,” and then notified BH of the changed FP3 problem at the BJ parking lot located in BI on July 26, 2012, which read “the problem was leaked and changed.” On July 26, 2012, BH applied for the FP examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and EB conspired with the Office of Education to answer and supervise the performance of its duties, such as response to legitimate participation by members of the CF, EB, and TFN in the examination.

(f) Leakage of testing problems with AF;

On July 8, 2012, Defendant A announced AF of the FN-type FU-type FU-type FU-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-U-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-U-U-type D-type D-U-type D-type D-type D-type D-U-type D-type D-type D-U-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-U-type D-type D-type D-type D-U-type

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, the AF applied for the FPO examination, and passed the FPO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continued to read “FP problem has been leaked and changed by phone call to AF,” and “I would immediately go to the public.” On July 26, 2012, AF notified AF of the changed FP3 problem, stating that “the problem has been leaked and changed.” On July 26, 2012, AF applied for the FP examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, EF and NF responded responded to the FN’s legitimate participation in the performance of duties, such as management supervision, supervision, and supervision of TFN, and so forth.

(g) Leakage of testing problems with K;

On June 10, 2012, Defendant A told BK to the effect that “A teacher who applied for the FN-type FU-type FU-type FU-type request KRW 20,000,000 from the test issue”, Defendant A obtained BK’s consent. On July 10, 2012, Defendant A informed BK of 6 FO-type problems secured as seen above.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, BK applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FPO examination. On July 27, 2012, Defendant A continuously called “FP problem was leaked and changed by phone call to B. It is now called “BL parking lot.” On July 27, 2012, the above BL apartment parking lot notified BK of the changed FP3 problem by stating “the problem was leaked and changed.” On July 27, 2012, BK responded responded to the above three issues by applying for the FP examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and EB conspired with B and C to participate in the performance of duties, such as a legitimate manager in charge of management and supervision, etc. of TNNN in the Office of Education, and passed the FPE examination.

(h) Leakage of test problems with respect to BM;

On July 4, 2012, Defendant A told BN, the husband of the FN-type FU, to the effect that “AN, who applied for the FN-type FU-type FU-type, will be entitled to BN’s consent through BN to reduce the test problem.” On July 4, 2012, Defendant A informed BN of the F06 issue secured as seen earlier at the parking lot of the FN-type University.

In addition, on July 14, 2012, 2012, BM became aware of the FO6 problem through BN applied for FO examination at the above BB, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continuously called “FP problem has been leaked and changed” by phoneing to BN at a place unclaimed on July 26, 2012. On July 26, 2012, the aforementioned public university parking lot at the same public university parking lot at the same public university, and “BN has been changed due to the outflow of the problem,” and the BN notified the changed FP3 problem at the above public university parking lot at the same public university, and the BN knew of the FP3 problem through BN, applied for the FP examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and responded the above 3P problem to the above 3P issue, Defendant A and CNN in collusion with the EF office’s legitimate participation in the performance of duty.

(i) On July 2012, 2012, the leakageAB on the BO’s examination is called “the request for KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 to the teachers applying for FNU-type FU-type FU-type,” and, on July 1, 2012, notified the BO of the 6-O-related issues secured as seen earlier by telephone.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, BO applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, AB continued to know about FP3 issues by telephone to BO, and BO respondeded to the above three issues by applying for FP examination from the above BB on July 28, 2012, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E were in collusion with AB and BO in order, and thereby interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning FN screening for the TN model of the Office of Education, such as members of the FNN-type Evaluation Committee at the Office of Education, such as C, C, D, and E, by fraudulent means.

(j) On June 4, 2012, 2012, 2012, 202, BP obtained BP approval by stating to the effect that, at the BRp house located on the second floor of the 2nd floor of the building in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, the BP apartment, the teachers applying for the FNB-type FU-type FU-type 25 million won request for the examination issue, and that, on July 4, 2012, the FO 6 problems secured as seen earlier were informed to BP.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, the BP applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FPO examination. On July 26, 2012, AB continued to mean that "the FP problem was leaked and changed by phone call to BP," and "the FP3 problem was notified to BP as "the problem was leaked and changed by leak", and on July 27, 2012, BP responded responded to the changed FP3 problem, and passed the FP examination on July 28, 2012. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and D did not participate in the FPE examination in collusion with the AB, EB, and EF in order, and did not participate in the typical management of the members of the TP evaluation Committee, such as the TPE-type members of the TP-type Office.

(k) On June 20, 2012, the outflowAB on the examination of BS stated that “The FO 6 problem secured as seen earlier was known to BS, from the end of June 2012 to the end of July 2012, 2012, to the teachers applying for FNN-type FU to the BS who applied for the FNN-type FU field,” thereby obtaining BS’s consent.

In addition, on July 14, 2012, BS applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, AB continuously notified the changed FP three issues while stating that “the problem was leaked and changed” to BS, and BS responded to the above three issues on July 28, 2012, and passed the FP examination.

As such, Defendants A, C, D, and E conspired with AB and B by fraudulent means, and thereby interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning FMN screening of the T Office of Education, such as those who did not participate in the crime, those who did not participate in the crime, and those who were members of the FN-Type Evaluation Committee of the T Office of Education. The leakage of testing problems against AH.

Defendant C, around July 23, 2012, stated that “AH’s consent would be obtained from AH by stating to the effect that “AH, who applied for the FNN-type FU field, will change the test problem” at the FN-type parking lot of the said public university. On July 26, 2012, Defendant C notified AH of the changed FP three issues.”

In addition, at the above BB on July 28, 2012, AH applied for the FP examination and responded to the above three issues, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and E conspired with AB, AB, and AH in order to engage in the work of FN type management, such as FN type management and supervision by fraudulent means, members of the T Office of Education who did not participate in the crime, and members of the FN type Evaluation Committee of T Office of Education interfere with legitimate performance of duties on FM type FN screening.

(m) Leakage of testing problems related to BV

Defendant A, around June 25, 2012, at the same time, notified Defendant A of the FN-type FU-type FU-type BV’s consent on the following grounds: “The F0-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-type: “The FV-type FV-type FU-type FU-type FU-type FU-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U

BV. On July 14, 2012, 200, BV applied for the FO examination, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, 200, Defendant A sent phone call to BV and changed the FP issues. On July 26, 2012, 200, the FO-2 did not appear to have complied with the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, 206, Defendant BV informed Defendant BV of the changed FO-3 problem at the FO-2's Office of Education's 6th 6th 6th 2th 2th 2th 6th 2th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 201st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th.

(o) Leakage of testing problems for BY;

Defendant A, around July 2, 2012, at the CA parking lot located in Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun on July 2, 2012, provided that “FN-type FU-type FU-type FU-type scholarship will be a scholarship, and that “the same portion of fY should be a scholarship will be an expected issue.” To this end, Defendant A would be required to obtain BY’s consent.” On July 4, 2012, Defendant A informed fO 6 issues secured as seen earlier at the above CA parking lot.

On July 14, 2012, BY: (a) applied for the FP examination, and passed the FO examination. On July 28, 2012, Defendant A continued to undergo the FP examination, Defendant A called “BY was leaked and changed by phone call to BY; (b) on July 26, 2012, Defendant BY notified BY of the changed FP3 problem at the parking lot adjacent to the swimming pool of the State University; (c) on July 28, 2012, Defendant A, C, D, and EB did not participate in the FP examination, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, D, and EB did not cooperate with the Office of Education in the performance of its duties, such as response to lawful management of TNN as members of the TF Review Committee, and CY did not participate in TNM.

(p) Leakage of examination problems against CB;

On July 27, 2012, Defendant C informedCC of the changed FP three issues by telephone, andCC around that time notified CB of the FNN-type FU-type FU-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-

In addition, at the above BB on July 28, 2012, the CB applied for the FP examination and responded to the above three issues, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and E conspired with the AB, AB,CC, and CB in order to conduct the FN screening management in a deceptive scheme, and thereby interfere with legitimate performance of duties on the FMN screening of the T Office of Education, such as members of the TNN Evaluation Committee of T Office of Education, such as those who did not participate in the crime, members of the FNN type Evaluation Committee.

On June 11, 2012, Defendant A, at the lower Habbs, expressed that “AR applied for FN-type FT through CDs would be subject to AR’s consent,” and on July 4, 2012, notified the FO6 problem secured as seen earlier (4 issues among FO6 issues in the FU field, are common problems with FO in the FT field) at the VIP golf clubs located in Incheonan-si, and notified AR of FO2 in addition to FO2 issues in the FT field.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, the R applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continuously notified the FP3 issues to AR at the public university parking lot at the above public university parking lot, and AR applied for FP examination at the above BB on July 28, 2012, and responded to the above three issues, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and E conspired with AB, CD, and E, and thereby interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning FN screening at the Office of Education, such as members of the FN-type Evaluation Committee at the Office of Education, such as C, C, D, and E, by fraudulent means.

(r) Leakage of testing problems for AS;

On July 7, 2012, Defendant A notified the FO 6 problem secured as above (FO 6 problem among FO6 problem in the FU field) to the FO 6 problem that he/she had secured with the consent of AS, and notified the FO 2 problem to the FO 6 problem at the Osung parking lot located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, Seoul, about July 11, 2012.

In addition, at the above BB on July 14, 2012, AS applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FPO examination. On July 26, 2012, Defendant A continued to read “FP problem has been leaked and changed” by phone call to AS, and “IS was immediately changed,” and then, around July 26, 2012, AS notified AS of the changed FP3 problem by stating that “the problem has been leaked and changed” to AS, and passed the FPE examination on July 28, 2012. As such, Defendant A, C, D, and EB conspired with the former Office of Education to respond to legitimate management and supervision, such as management and supervision of TF-type members, etc. by the former Office of Education.”

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.;

A. AB received money and valuables from BD around July 30, 2012 from BD and received KRW 30 million from the street in front of the above AC Office of Education. The above KRW 30 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(b) Receipt of money from BY;

Defendant A received from BY on July 2, 2012, KRW 20 million from the above CA parking lot, and KRW 10 million from the above CA parking lot around July 30, 2012, respectively.

The above KRW 30 million was a consideration for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

4. Bribery and demand for a bribe;

(a) Receipt of money and valuables from AG;

Defendant A received KRW 10 million from AG on July 23, 2012 at the parking lot behind the main building of the above AA Office of Education.

The above KRW 10 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed AG of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(b) Acceptance of money and valuables from BC;

Defendant A received KRW 10 million from BC on July 4, 2012 at the parking lot of the said public university.

The above KRW 10 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues to BC.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(c) Receipt of money from BF;

around July 23, 2012, Defendant A received 8 million won from BF in the above AA Office of Education, and 5 million won in the area near Western-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do around August 8, 2012, respectively.

The above KRW 13 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed the FP issue to BF. Accordingly, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB in order to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(d) Acceptance of money and valuables from BH;

Defendant A received KRW 20 million from CE to 5) BH on August 29, 2012 at the Taean Agricultural Parking Lot in Taean-dong, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-dong.

The above KRW 20 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

E. Defendant A demanded money and valuables from July 2012 to August 2012 to AF only 2,000 won on several occasions.

The above 20 million won was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed AF of the FO and FP issues.

Accordingly, Defendant A, C, and E requested a bribe in connection with their duties in collusion with AB.

(f) Acceptance of money and valuables from BK;

Defendant A received KRW 20 million from BK at the parking lot of the said AA Office of Education on August 2012, 201.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB notified BK of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(g) Acceptance of money and valuables from BM;

around July 4, 2012 through BN, Defendant A received KRW 6 million from BM, and KRW 14 million from around July 23, 2012, around July 2012, Defendant A received from BM, respectively.

The above KRW 20 million was a consideration for informing Defendant A, C, E, and ABM of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

H. AB received money and valuables from BO on August 7, 2012, from BO, received KRW 10 million in the vicinity of the Seo-gu B Q apartment in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si. The above KRW 10 million was the consideration for Defendant A, C, E, and AB to inform BO of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(i) AB received money from BP and received KRW 25 million from BP, around August 18, 2012.

The above 25 million won was the price for informing the defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(j) AB received money and valuables from BS from BS and received KRW 25 million in the vicinity of the new four-distance radius in the city of Yananan on August 25, 2012.

The above 25 million won was the price for informing the defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(k) Receipt of money and valuables from AH;

Defendant C received KRW 10 million from H around July 26, 2012 at the said official university parking lot. The above KRW 10 million was the consideration for Defendant A, C, E, and AB to notify AH of FP issues. Accordingly, Defendant A, C, and E received bribe in collusion with AB in order to accept the bribe in relation to their duties.

(l) Acceptance of money and valuables from AR;

around June 29, 2012, Defendant A received KRW 10 million from R in front of the cafeterias located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

The above KRW 10 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed the R of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(m) Acceptance of money and valuables from AS;

Defendant A received KRW 2 million from AS on August 2012, 201 from the first police officer of the first time.

The above 2 million won was the price for informing the defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues to AS.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(n) Acceptance of money and valuables from BV;

Defendant A received KRW 20 million from BV at the parking lot of the above AA Office of Education around August 2, 2012.

The above KRW 20 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues to BV.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(o) Receipt of money from B;

Defendant A received KRW 20 million from B around July 24, 2012 in the vicinity of 582-2 of the Southern-gun of Taenam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

The above KRW 20 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

5. Bribery;

Defendant B, around July 24, 2012, delivered KRW 20 million to A in the vicinity of 582-2 of the South Western-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that A, C, E, and AB notified Defendant B of the essay questions and FP issues.

Accordingly, Defendant B provided a bribe in relation to the duties of A, C, E, and AB.

“2013Gohap212: Defendant A, C, D, E, F;

1. The public offering relationship between Defendant A, C, D, E, and related persons in succession 6);

A. Defendant C, D, and E’s planning process around June 201, Defendant E instructed Defendant C to the effect that, within the vehicle of Defendant C, which moves to a new town (hereinafter referred to as B), Defendant C passed the FN test to request for delivery of applicants in private schools to public schools, so CJ is not a naturally public official, and later CJ is called “I will be able to make election funds by recommending those with expertise and local communities to be capable of operating in this FN test and raising election funds.” Defendant C provided Defendant C, within its own vehicle that was parked in the GN apartment near Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, and provided Defendant C with an instruction to the effect that Defendant C would not pass the examination of the FN in advance, and that Defendant C would not pass the examination of the FN to the effect that “I will not pass the examination of the FN,” and that Defendant C would not pass the examination of the FN model to the effect that “I will not pass the examination of the FN model.”

On October 2011, Defendant E continuously instructed Defendant C to pass this FN test at the Department of Education U of Staff located in CK, and around that time, Defendant C informed Defendant D of the fact.

On the other hand, on October 201, Defendant E received a business report from Defendant D before formulating the “FLN screening plan” in the U.S. Office of Education for the first time, and ordered Defendant D to read “C in good faith.”

B. From June to July 2011, Defendant A and AB’s concrete process, such as the participation in the crime and the method of committing the crime, Defendant C sent the instructions from Defendant A and AB to Defendant A, as above, to Defendant A and AB, and to recommend applicants who would be able to pass the FN type among those who will be able to assist in the election, and to raise an election fund by receiving money from them.

After that, on July 201, 201, Defendant C took part of the proton, including the number of illegal applicants from Defendant A and AB’s FN applicants, major career experience, and community-related educational activities, and reported this to Defendant E, Defendant C notified the illegal applicants of FO and FP issues in advance, and to prepare election funds by receiving money and other valuables in return. Defendant E obtained consent from Defendant E.

At that time, Defendant C informed Defendant A and AB of the fact that the consent was obtained from Defendant C, and disclosed FO and FP issues in advance to the illegal applicants, passed FN screening, and received 1,000 to 20 million won in return, and conspired to raise the election fund.

Defendant C, on November 201, 201, sent the above contents to Defendant E’s significance, Defendant C consented to the following: (a) on November 201, 201, Defendant C recommended that E was a member of the questionnaire; (b) on his own vehicle parked near the second apartment; and (c) to CF to the effect that “E recommended him as a member of the preparing committee; (cG and CH would bring about the FO6 problems; and (c) so that CG and CH would be able to bring about the agenda; and (d) Defendant D selected Defendant CF as a member of the TF Office’s Office of Education’s U on November 201, 20, as CF, the Chairperson of the FL screening NFO draft preparation to Defendant E as CF, CF, CI, CG, and CG, and CG, respectively.

On the other hand, at the place where the first half of the police officer was located at the SP on November 201, 201, AB stored the USB and stored it in the USB. At that time, Defendant C, A, and AB sent the USB and output to Defendant C, and around that time notified the illegal applicants of the FO 6 problems. Defendant C, around November 12, 201, sent the USB received from AB to CG in the combined close parking lot located in the Dong-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, Seoul, to the effect that “if this problem is to be drawn well with the CF setting chairperson, it would be possible for CG to put the issue in advance, and that CG and CG were changed to CH’s consent.

After that, the CF, CG, CH, and CI, on November 13, 201 to November 23, 2011, led the members preparing questions, such as inducing the FO 6 issues entered with the CG in advance to be preemptively controlled, and CH and CI performed a role to assist CF and CG.

(d) Process of outflow of FP issues and preference;

Defendant D, at the U Office of Education on November 201, 201, appointed AJ and AB and CP as a member of the FN-type FP question question questions to Defendant E, “I will put the FL FN FP question question question question question questions to AJ, AB and CP.” After obtaining oral approval from Defendant E, Defendant D selected the FNN-type FP question question question questions as AJ and the FU-type question question question question question questions.

On November 201, 201, Defendant D, along with Defendant C, sent the above contents to Defendant E, and AJ also accepted the above contents to the effect that “The degree of 2 to 3 persons who passed the FN examination 2 to 3, is the part in E, the chairperson of the NN examination, and the members preparing the examination entered as the members of the examination committee, which will bring about three problems in advance.”

On the other hand, on November 201, AB made the FP 3 problem at a place where it was located in the middle and lower patrolman, and around that time, Defendant A, C and AB informed the illegal applicants of the FP 3 problem.

After that, between November 30, 201 and December 3, 2011, AJ and AB performed the leading role of making examiners, such as setting up three of the FP questions that AB created and entered into in advance, and inducing them to regulate these issues.

2. Performance of official duties by deceptive means.

A. Leakage of testing problems for Q;

Defendant A, around July 201, to the building C Q to apply for FN-type FU-type FU-type at a place in which Jinjin-si (hereinafter referred to as "Seojin-si") had failed to pass the FN, and if so, to the upper part of the building, it is necessary to put the width on the building. However, it is necessary to have the degree of KRW 20,000,000,000, which is subject to C Q’s approval. On the other hand, Defendant A informed the building building of the FN-type FN-type-type FN-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-based parking

In addition, on November 19, 2011, Q applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On November 201, 201, Defendant A continued to call to Q Q Q to “On the part of a place where it was no longer a place where it was held in order to inform the FP problem”, Defendant A called “On the other hand, Q called “On the part of a place where it was made in order to notify the FP problem,” and notified C Q Q of the FP3 problem at the parking lot of the Daejeon-S-Sick Highway-Sick Highway-Sick Highway, CP responded to the above three issues on December 3, 201, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, AB, and CB in collusion with the FNB, and the Office of Education did not interfere with the performance of its duties such as the FN type management and supervision, members in charge of investigation and supervision, members of the TFNNN Committee, and members of the Office of Education.

B. Leakage of test problems against Defendant F

Defendant A, around July 201, intended to apply for FNN-type FU-type FU-type at a place not higher than Si, Gongju-si, and around July 201, 201, told Defendant F to the effect that “it is necessary to take a width on the upper part of the FN, which requires a level of KRW 20 million,” and that Defendant F’s consent would be obtained. On November 10, 201, Defendant F’s phone called to Defendant F to the office of CR middle school, “T Q would take place in CR-type FO-type FU-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-based office of CR

Defendant F, at the above BB on November 19, 201, prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. Defendant F continuously called Defendant F on November 201, 201, “CR middle school Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Ga, as discussed,” informed Defendant F of the FP three issues at the office of CR middle school sportsmen of the same day, and Defendant F responded responded to the above three issues on December 3, 201, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant F conspired with Defendant A, C, D, E, F and AB on a successive basis to undergo the FO examination, and thus, Defendant F would not have been able to undergo the FOB examination at the office of education near the 20th anniversary of the 2nd office of education, and thus, Defendant F would not have been able to undergo the FOB examination at the 2nd office of education near the 3nd office of education, such as the 3nd office of education’s request for approval.

In addition, at the above BB on November 1, 2011, 19, the CS applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On November 201, 201, AB continued to notify CS of FP3 issues by telephone to CS, and CS responded to the FP three issues on December 3, 201, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, AB, and CB conspired in collusion in order to participate in the crime, and interfere with legitimate performance of duties regarding FNN type, such as members of the FN Committee, and members of the FN Committee at the TN Committee at the Office of Education.

(d) Leakage of examination questions to CJ;

Defendant C had CJ applied for FN screening on July 201, 201, stating that “it is difficult to promote sports teachers in the case of private schools, but it is difficult to see their age when they drink.” Accordingly, we need to find any other measures. FN tests may be prepared, and FN may be changed to FN rather than sports teachers, and if FN would be an opportunity to change to FN. In this context, I see a single public book, and even around that time, I see that “AAA Office of Education is able to contact Defendant A,” and that “AAA Office of Education is able to receive help from contact.”

On November 201, Defendant A then notified CJ of 6 FO problems secured as seen earlier in the CU restaurant located in the Hanam BZ of November 201.

In addition, at the above BB on November 19, 201, the CJ applied for the FO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On November 201, Defendant A continued to engage in the FP examination, Defendant A called “IG” by phone call to CJ, and notified CJ of FP3 problems at the parking lot of the AAB located in Chungcheongnamnam BG, and CJ respondeded to the FP3 issues on December 3, 201, and passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, E, and AB conspired in consecutive collusion, and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of the Office of Education, such as FN management supervision, crime manager, members of the CF interview Committee, and members of the TNF Office of Education.

(e) Leakage of CM testing problems;

On October 201, 201, Defendant C received instructions from Defendant E from Defendant E to “A person who passed the FN”, and on November 201, in the vicinity of a public health clinic located in the new police station located in the new police station, Defendant C informed CM of the issues secured as seen earlier.

In addition, at the above BB on November 19, 201, CM applied for the FPO examination and prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed the FO examination. On December 2, 2011, Defendant C continued to call to CM to “Is in front of leb gynasium after leaving out,” and on the same day, notified CM of FP3 problems in the vicinity of lebnasium in lebnasium in lebnasium in lebnasium, and CM respondeded to the above three issues on December 3, 201, and responded passed the FP examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, E, and CM conspired in order to participate in FN-type management and supervision, members who did not participate in criminal acts, and members of the FNN-type Evaluation Committee, and members of the TF-type Office of Education related to TF-type Evaluation Committee.

(f) Leakage of testing problems for CL;

On October 201, 201, Defendant C, at the U.S. office of Telecommunication, sent to Defendant C, the husband of the CL, an instruction from Defendant E, that “E passed the FN” would be subject to the direction of “FN”. On November 201, Defendant C, at the vicinity of the Daejeon Educational Training Institute, which is located on the distribution on the distribution page of the BNE, sent the FO 6 issue secured as seen earlier to CX.

In addition, on November 19, 201, CL, which became aware of the FO6 problem through CX, applied for FO examination, prepared answers to the above six issues, and passed FO examination. On December 2, 2011, Defendant C continuously informed CX of the FP3 problem at the above place, and CL, which became aware of FPO3 problem through CX, responded to the above three issues on December 3, 201, and passed FPO examination. As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, AB, CX, CX, and CL conspired in order, and interfered with legitimate performance of duties, such as management supervision, etc. of FN screening, members of the examination committee, and members of TNNF-type Office of Education, such as TF-type members of the TF-type Office of Education, and CL, which became aware of the FP3 problem through CX.

3. Acceptance of bribe;

(a) Acceptance of money and valuables from Q;

Defendant A was issued KRW 16 million at the parking lot of the AA Office of Education located in Chungcheongnamnam BG on December 201, 201 by Q Q.

The above KRW 16 million was the price for informing Defendant A, C, E, and AB of the FO and FP issues to Q.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(b) Receipt of money and valuables from F;

Defendant A received KRW 20 million from F on December 201, 201 at the parking lot of the New-dong University at the New-dong University at the time of official residence.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed F of FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

C. On August 201, 201, AB received money and valuables from CS from CS, from the S, at a restaurant in front of the New-dong University of Cheongju-dong, Cheongju-dong, an official patroler, who received KRW 20 million.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed the CSS of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

(d) Acceptance of money and valuables from CJ;

Defendant C received KRW 20 million from the CJ on February 27, 2012 at the parking lot of the Sungdong-dong Sungdong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that Defendant A, C, E, and AB informed CJ of the FO and FP issues.

As a result, Defendant A, C, and E conspired with AB to accept a bribe in relation to their duties.

4. Offering of bribe;

Defendant F delivered KRW 20 million to A on December 201, 201 at the official parking lot of the New-dong University at the New-dong University at the time of official residence.

The above KRW 20 million was the consideration that A, C, E, and AB informed Defendant F of the issue of editorial and FP. Accordingly, Defendant F offered a bribe in relation to the duties of A, C, E, and AB related to FN type.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendants of Paragraph 2 of the Decision 2013 Gohap47, 52, 93, 138 (excluding sub-paragraph 2)]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and D;

1. Each testimony of the witness A, C, D, AI, AJ, CY, BS, H, and AG (Provided, That each testimony of witness A, C, and D is against Defendant E);

1. The protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning punishment No. 1921, 2013, and the protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning No. 2936, BY in 2013;

1. Each statement in the second police questioning protocol against CDs, AR, AS, BC, AH, BF, and BO, and each second police questioning protocol in the year 2013, Nos. 6792, 7362, 8554 and 9924;

1. The three-time statement in the police interrogation protocol of the police officer interrogation protocol againstCC, 2013 No. 6792, 7362, 8554; 1. The interrogation protocol of the police officer interrogation protocol of the AK, No. 9924, 2013; and the statement of the police officer interrogation protocol of theCC two times;

1. Statement of each police statement in the police statement of 2013 Punishment No. 6792, 7362, 8554, AK, and B; 1. Statement of Defendant E recorded in each police statement of 2013 Punishment No. 9924, N, AM, and AO, and each statement of the police statement of 2013;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and C;

1. Each testimony of the witness A, C, C, C, Z, B, BH, and AG (Provided, That each testimony of the witness A and C is made against the defendant E);

1. The protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning the punishment No. 1921, 2013, and the protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning BY of 2936, 2013;

1. Each statement in the second police questioning protocol against CDs, AR, AS, BC, AH, BF, and BO, and each second police questioning protocol in the year 2013, Nos. 6792, 7362, 8554 and 9924;

1. Statement of the police statement of the 2013 Punishment, 6792, 7362, 8554, 8554, 1. In the investigation report of the 2013 Punishment, 9924 (Attachment of Funds, Use Place and Account Details of E managed by the Z), investigation report (the details of cash use of the Z and the account user specific), investigation report (C and the account user specific), and investigation report (the place of use of the funds entrusted by the Z to the Z), each entry;

1. Defendant E’s statement that has been recorded in a cellular phone during the seizure of No. 9924, 2013 [the crime under any provision of sub-paragraph (n) and (o) of No. 2 of the Decision 2013, 47, 52, 93, and 138];

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, C, and D;

1. Each testimony of witness A, C, D, AI, AJ, CZ, and CY (Provided, That each testimony of witness A, C, and D is about defendant E);

1. Statement of the prosecutorial statement (or copies thereof) of 2013 Punishment No. 1921 and BW of 2936; 1. Entry of the police interrogation protocol of the police officer's interrogation protocol of 2013 No. 6792, 7362, 8554 and 924 B;

1. Each description of the investigation report (the document of funds and the place of use of the E managed by the CZ and the details of account), investigation report (the details of cash use of the CZ and the identity of account users), investigation report (the details of cash use of the CZ and the identity of account users), and investigation report (the place of use of the funds entrusted by the C and A to the CZ) in 2013;

1. Defendant E’s statement that has been recorded in a cellular phone that had been seized (No. 924) in 2013 [the crime of paragraph (5) of the Supreme Court Decision 2013Gohap47, 52, 93, and 138];

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Entry of the protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning document No. 2936 BW of 2013;

1. Each entry in the investigation report (report, etc. on the result of execution of a warrant of search, seizure, and verification of application of a financial account), investigation report (information, etc. on the movement line analysis, etc. B before and after cash withdrawal), and BW’s raising money to B on July 24, 2013; and the telephone call details on July 24, 2012; and the details of cash withdrawal of BW on July 24, 2012 [Article 2(2) (excluding subparagraph 2-2)];

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and D;

1. Each testimony by the witness A, C, D, C, Q, CF, CM, and CJ (Provided, That each testimony by the witness A, C, and D is against the defendant E);

1. Entry of the protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning the CS in the protocol;

1. A copy of the second police interrogation protocol concerning CG, a copy of each police interrogation protocol concerning CG, a copy of each police interrogation protocol concerning CG, and a third police interrogation protocol concerning CH each statement;

1. Each statement of the police statement on DA, DB, DC, D, D,D, DE, and DF; 1. FL-type FN-type-related documents + FO results, FP results, deliberation proposals, written resolutions of the Screening Committee, prospective candidates for appointment, compiled records, investigation reports (C Q and F's protocol attachment) [criminal facts of paragraph (3) (excluding paragraph (3) (b) of the Decision 2013 Man-Ma212];

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and C;

1. Each testimony of the witness A, C, Q, CZ, and CJ (Provided, That each testimony of the witness A and C is made against the defendant E), 1. Statement of prosecutorial statement of CS in the protocol of prosecutorial statement;

1. Each entry in a copy of the transaction details of DaG account in the name of CJ, a copy of the transaction details of DoG account for agricultural time deposit DoH, and a copy of the transaction details of Dog passbook for agricultural time deposit Dog. [crimes in paragraphs 2-b, 3-b, and 4 of 2013 high-

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and D;

1. Each testimony of the witness A, C, D, C, Q, CF, and CZ (Provided, That each testimony of the witness A, C, and D is made against the defendant E and F);

1. Copy of the second police interrogation protocol concerning CG, copy of the police interrogation protocol concerning CG, and third police interrogation protocol concerning CH each statement of CH; and

1. Each statement of the police statement on DA, DB, DC, D, D, D, DE, and DF; 1. FL-type FN-type-related documents + FO results, FP results, deliberation proposals, resolutions of the Screening Committee, scheduled persons to be selected, aggregated list, investigation report (C Q and F's protocol attachment); and

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A, C, and E: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 30 (Concurrent Imposition of Fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 129(1) and 30 (Concurrent Imposition of Fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 129(1) and 30 (Joint Imposition of Fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Selection of Imprisonment and Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B and F: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of the performance of justice by fraudulent means, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe and the choice of imprisonment). Defendant D: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment)

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A, C, and E: The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the receipt of money from the largest BD with respect to Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act;

B. Defendant B and F: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated for the crime of offering of bribe heavier than the nature of the crime). Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated for the crime of obstruction of the performance of fraudulent act due to leakage of problems against AG with the largest nature of the crime)

3. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A and C: Each of the Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Code (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

4. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A, C, and E: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B and D: each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following circumstances are considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

6. Additional collection:

Defendant A and E: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

7. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, C, and E: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (limited to fines)

Judgment on collection of additional collection

1. The prosecutor’s additional collection of the amount of KRW 350,000,000,000,000,000 received as a bribe for a crime of FL and KRW 76,000,000,00,000,000,000,000 as a total, was sought to be collected from Defendant E.

2. Relevant legal principles

In order to collect the value of a bribe in a case where multiple persons offered and received the bribe jointly, the money and valuables actually distributed shall be collected individually, and if it is impossible to individually identify the money and valuables received, the necessary confiscation or collection under Article 134 of the Criminal Act shall be made equally (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5064, Dec. 24, 2004). However, since the purpose of the necessary confiscation or collection under Article 134 of the Criminal Act is to deprive the persons who violated Articles 129 through 133 of the same Act of the money and valuables provided or other property profits to be provided or to be provided, and to prevent them from holding unlawful profits, it shall be the major criteria for determining who actually acquired the actual profits due to

3. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

(a) Acceptance of and transfer of money for a bribe related to the FL press;

1) In relation to the FLN screening, Defendant A stated that: (a) KRW 36 million (C Q’s KRW 16 million + KRW 20 million from Defendant F); (b) KRW 20 million from CJ; (c) KRW 20 million from CJ; and (d) KRW 76 million from CS; and (e) KRW 76 million from DJ’s receipt of bribe from Defendant A; (b) the Prosecutor stated that the sum of the bribe was KRW 96 million; (c) however, Defendant A, C, and E received KRW 20 million from DJ, not including the facts charged; and (d) Defendant A, C, and E received KRW 76 million from DJ; and (e) subsequently, Defendant A and C received and received funds according to Defendant A and C’s statement.

2) Defendant C received a bribe from Defendant A and AB. However, Defendant C brought KRW 1 million out of the total amount of a bribe of KRW 36 million received from Defendant C and Defendant F, under the pretext of expenses, etc. (Evidence No. 17049, 2303 to 2304), Defendant C received KRW 95 million from Defendant A and AB (excluding KRW 1 million from the pretext of expenses, etc.) three times (excluding KRW 40 million from December 201, KRW 35 million from the end of January 201, KRW 35 million from the end of February 2012, KRW 2012, KRW 200, KRW 3000, KRW 300,000 from the Defendant AB, KRW 2304 to the CZ374,204 to the evidence of KRW 2014 to the Defendant and the AB (Evidence).

4) From the end of December 2011, CZ received KRW 40 million from Defendant C, and deposited KRW 10,000,000,000 on the account of the joint horse saving depository (Account Number DK) in its name on December 26, 2011, KRW 8 million on December 27, 201, KRW 10,000 on December 28, 201, KRW 200,000 on December 28, 201, and KRW 17049 on January 2, 2012 (Evidence No. 17049 on January 2, 201).

5) CZ received KRW 35 million from C around the end of January 2012, and deposited the said joint community credit cooperative account with KRW 7 million on January 25, 2012, and KRW 15 million on January 30, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 13 million (i.e., KRW 35 million - KRW 7 million - KRW 15 million) individually used (Evidence 17049,343, 2351).

6) From the end of February 2012, CZ received KRW 20 million from C, and deposited KRW 13 million used by it on February 28, 2012, KRW 18 million, and KRW 15 million on March 2, 2012 (Evidence No. 17049, Type 17044, 2,351);

(b) Acceptance of bribes and transfer of funds related to the FM;

1) From June 29, 2012 to July 24, 2012, Defendant A directly received KRW 98 million (i.e., KRW 10 million from AR on June 29, 2012 + KRW 20 million from BY on July 2, 2012 + KRW 10 million from BC on July 4, 2012 + KRW 6 million from BM on July 4, 2012 + KRW 10 million from AG on July 23, 2012 + KRW 8 million from BF on July 23, 2012 + KRW 200,000 from BM on July 23, 2012; and KRW 200,000 from BM on July 23, 2012.

2) On July 26, 2012, Defendant C gave 10 million won to AB, which was received from AH on July 26, 2012, and AB delivered it to Defendant A (Evidence No. 9924, No. 10,375 of the Evidence of 2013).

3) AB delivered to Defendant A only KRW 100 million and delivered the remainder to Defendant A, and the remainder to be kept in custody (the Witness A). On July 28, 2012, Defendant A issued 100 million won (the sum of KRW 98 million and KRW 10 million received by Defendant C from H) to C on July 28, 2012.

4) AB, on August 8, 2012, entered into the Republic of Korea on August 17, 2012 (C. 10,500 won + 200,000 won + 10,500 won of evidence of 2013 + 200,000 won, and C. 250,000 won of 70,000 won, which were 80,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 205,000 won of 20,000 won of 70,000 won of 70,000 won of 20,00 won of 205,00 won of 20,000 won of 70,000 won of 20,000 won of 70,000 won of 20,00 won of 70,000 won of 30,000

(7) From June 201 to July 7, 2012, Defendant E purchased the following: (a) a square meter of 431m prior to DL (hereinafter “instant land”) from Defendant C through the purchase price of KRW 51,00,000. The money brought up to Defendant C to C was the purchase price of the instant land (Evidence No. 9924, No. 9924, No. 10511, No. 9924, No. 9924, No. 3051), the amount of KRW 10,000,000 received from Defendant A around July 30, 2012; (b) a loan of KRW 305,000 (Evidence No. 924, Oct. 28, 2012); and (c) a loan of KRW 1050,000,000,000 received from Defendant A’s account in its name (Evidence No. 924, No. 92500, Jan. 29, 29820, etc.

4. Determination on the amount of penalty surcharge

(a) relating to the FL;

1) 62 million won deposited in the deposit in the name of the CZ among the 76 million won received as a bribe for the crime of FL, is deposited and disposed of in the deposit in the name of the CZ in the course of the storage of the CZ for Defendant E, and thus, the penalty shall be collected from Defendant E.

2) Although it is not difficult to view that the CZ used the amount of KRW 13 million for a bribe of KRW 76 million received as a crime of FL, and later, it was later consumed by the CZ, and that the Defendant A, C, and E allowed the CZ to consume the said KRW 13 million for the deposit in its name. However, there was an agreement among accomplices on the receipt of the said KRW 13 million for Defendant E’s election fund, and the CZ used the said KRW 13 million for the said money and stored it together with the money delivered by Defendant C. As such, Defendant E acquired substantial profits by committing a crime of receiving bribe, the said KRW 13 million shall also be collected from Defendant E as a penalty.

3) Of the amount of KRW 76 million received as a bribe for a crime of FL, part of KRW 1 million brought by AB, an accomplice, shall not be additionally collected.

B. FM concerning the FM

1) Since the KRW 100 million delivered by Defendant A to CZ on July 28, 2012 was delivered as the sale proceeds of the instant land, it shall be collected from Defendant E as a penalty.

2) Defendant A’s KRW 110 million delivered to CZ on August 9, 2012, KRW 50 million, KRW 160 million on August 10, 2012, KRW 55 million on the aggregate, and KRW 160 million on August 10, 2012, KRW 50 million on the personal loan of Defendant A and AB. As such, Defendant A and AB paid as a bribe for the purchase price of the instant land, only KRW 15 million ( KRW 160 million to KRW 50 million) paid as a bribe, shall be collected from Defendant E.

3) As Defendant A received KRW 20 million from BH and consumed it, the above KRW 20 million shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

4) AB does not additionally collect a total of KRW 50 million from BP and B, which appears to have been stored or consumed by it).

Therefore, Defendant A collected 20 million won (the bribe received from BH) from Defendant E and collected 280 million won from Defendant E (i.e., FL-related KRW 75 million + KRW 25 million related to FM-related KRW 25 million).

Judgment on the issues and arguments of defendants E, F, and their defense counsel

1. Determination on Defendant E and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant E did not have directed Defendant C to pass a specific person in connection with FN test, and there was no instruction from the illegal applicants to receive money or goods or received a report thereon in order to raise election funds. Defendant C was an instruction from other accomplices and committed the instant crime.

B. Key issue of the instant case

In this case, Defendant A, C, and D testified that they committed a crime of acceptance of bribe or obstruction of the performance of official duties by means of the U.S.’s instruction when they led to the confession of a crime. However, Defendant A and D stated that Defendant A and D did not receive direct instructions from Defendant E, but they were called Defendant E’s instructions, and that Defendant C participated in the instant crime.

Ultimately, the credibility of Defendant C’s statement that he received orders from Defendant E regarding the instant crime depends on the judgment on the part of the instant facts charged, and the following is examined as to whether Defendant E conspireds to commit the instant crime, focusing on the credibility of Defendant C’s statement, and Defendant E’s counsel disputes over the admissibility of evidence of the cell phone recording files in which the contents of conversation between Defendant C and Defendant E are recorded, the CD recording files in which the contents of conversation were reproduced, and the recording files in which the contents of conversation were recorded, and the recording files in which the contents of the conversation were recorded. Thus, we first examine whether the aforementioned recording files and the recording files can be used as evidence.

C. As to the assertion that the recording file of a mobile phone, the recording file of a CD that copied the recording file, and the recording recording of a conversation recorded in the recording file are inadmissible as evidence.

1) Relevant legal principles

A) In a case where a court conducted verification as to whether the content of conversation between the defendant and the other party are identical to the content of the recording document and the content of the recording tape as evidence of facts charged, evidence constituting evidence is itself a conversation recorded in the recording tape. Of that, the content of the defendant’s statement is different from those of the defendant’s statement in addition to the provisions of Articles 311 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and unless the defendant agrees that the recording tape may be admitted as evidence, in order to use the recording tape as evidence the contents of the defendant’s statement recorded in the recording tape as evidence pursuant to the proviso to Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it should be proven that the defendant’s statement recorded in the recording tape was made in a preparatory hearing or during a public trial, as stated by the other party’s statement, and further it should be recognized that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state.

In addition to the absence of signature or seal of the person who prepares or makes a statement, and taking into account the risk of editing and manipulation of the content by the sounder’s intent or specific technology, if the content of the conversation is an original recording or a copy reproduced from the original, it shall be proved that it is a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the duplication process (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7461, Sept. 13, 2012).

B) Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence. The legal procedure here is basically based on the investigation procedure of the investigative agency, i.e., the illegal activity of the state.

In addition, guaranteeing the dignity and value of the people as human beings belongs to the basic duties of state agencies, which should be realized in criminal proceedings. However, since all evidence related to the privacy of the people cannot be considered to be immediately prohibited from being submitted in the private life area of the people, the court should decide whether to allow it by balancing the benefits of protection such as effective criminal prosecution and discovery of truth in criminal proceedings and personal interests (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3990, Sept. 9, 2010).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) In order to ask the situation of the investigation into the instant case and whether Defendant C made a statement at the police station in relation to the instant case, on February 5, 2013, Defendant C was the mother of YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 201. The Defendant C used the recording function of the mobile phone apparatus at the aforementioned her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she she she she she recorded the conversation with Defendant E after approximately 12 minutes from February 5, 2013 (Evidence 10,0

B) On March 4, 2013, the prosecutor confiscated a mobile phone device in which the conversation with Defendant E voluntarily produced by Defendant C through his wife was recorded, and applied for the duplication of the recording file of the aforementioned mobile phone device and the recording recording recording of the contents of the conversation as evidence of this case.

C) Defendant C, at the prosecution and this court, directly recorded a conversation between himself and Defendant E using a mobile phone device, stated that the recording file of the mobile phone was the original, and stated in this court that the recording file of the mobile phone was the original, and that it was the original which he was directly recorded.

D) As a result of verification of cell phone recording files and audio recordings recorded in CDs, the CD’s recording files are recognized to have copied the original without any artificial reproduction, such as editings, during the duplication process, and the conversation recorded in the CD corresponds to the recording of the cell phone recording files and the recording files recorded in the CDs.

E) Defendant E also heard the recording files of mobile phones and CDs from the beginning to the end, and made a statement to the effect that some of the conversations were not recorded in the last part of the above recording files (the part claimed by Defendant E that the recording was not made in the last part of the conversation is erroneous in believing and love the device in the front part of the recording.” However, Defendant E also made a statement to the effect that the recording was made in its entirety, except for the verification of the recording files of mobile phones and the recording files recorded in CDs at this court’s cellular phone and the recording files recorded in CDs, with the exception of those recorded above, the entire recording files and the recording files are identical.

3) Determination

Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant C’s cell phone recording file stored in Defendant C’s cell phone recording is the original recording of the contents of the conversation with Defendant E. The CD recording file is recognized as having been recorded and copied as stated by the conversationr without editing or manipulating it as its duplicate. In light of the circumstances of the statement, contents of the statement, the relationship between the conversation place and the conversationr, etc., there is little room for false entry into Defendant E’s statement recorded in the cell phone, and the credibility and voluntariness of the statement are determined. Defendant C, one of the parties to the conversation, directly recorded the conversation with Defendant E, and is not subject to the application of Article 14 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act that prescribes the prohibition of infringing on others’ conversation, and the recording recording of Defendant C and Defendant E, recorded in the cell phone recording file, is recognized as having the identity of the contents of the recording file of the cell phone recording by the result of this court’s verification, etc.

Meanwhile, Defendant C’s act of recording a conversation without Defendant E’s consent infringes on Defendant E’s freedom of privacy and confidentiality. However, Defendant E is officially recognized as U.S., the other party to the conversation is one of the co-offenders indicted in the instant case, and the content of the recorded conversation does not appear to be an individual’s secret area such as sexual field. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the said recording act seriously or essentially infringes on Defendant E’s privacy.

In addition, Defendant C and E’s recording files of cellular phone recording and recording records of their conversations are evidence to verify whether Defendant E was involved in the instant crime and the degree thereof. Since it is a bribe crime in which the parties are closely involved, it is necessary to bring the Defendants a criminal prosecution, it is highly necessary to allow submission of a recording file and recording records of cellular phone as evidence for the realization of the public interest that is discovery of truth in criminal proceedings. Therefore, even if Defendant E’s private conversation has resulted in a certain degree of infringement due to the examination of evidence on the recording file and recording records of cellular phone recording, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a limitation of fundamental rights to be accepted by Defendant E.

After all, the statements of Defendant E, recorded in the cellular phone, and the recording recording in which the statements are recorded, shall be admissible. This part of Defendant E’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant E’s defense counsel argued to the effect that Defendant C voluntarily surrendered to the police on February 2, 2013 and the date and time of the recording on February 5, 2013, on the grounds that Defendant C voluntarily surrendered to the police on February 2, 2013, Defendant C recorded a conversation with Defendant E under the direction of an investigative agency. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the investigative agency ordered Defendant C to record the recording or any circumstance to suspect it is not discovered, and Defendant C submitted a cell phone device to the prosecution after approximately one month. In light of the fact that Defendant C recorded a recording and submitted a cell phone device to the prosecution, it is difficult to view that Defendant C recorded a conversation with Defendant E

Therefore, Defendant E’s defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected.

(d) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

1) Status and career of Defendant E

Defendant E won 14 U on April 29, 2009 in a by-election of U, which was enforced on April 29, 2009, and served as 15 U on June 30, 2010 (from July 1, 2010 to present).

From February 28, 2005 to August 31, 2006, Defendant E served as a supervisory official of the T Office of Education, and served as DP from September 1, 2006 to February 29, 2008, and served as DP from March 1, 2008 to February 27, 2009.

2) The friendship between Defendant C and Defendant E

① Defendant E became aware of Defendant C through the introduction of CF, and thereafter Defendant E and Defendant C were to leave the workplace along with Daejeon from the official city to the public city (Defendant C and E’s legal statement).

② At the time of the above U.S. Special Election, Defendant C introduced that Defendant E borrow KRW 50 million through DDR, which is an election fund of Defendant E, and that Defendant E borrow KRW 100 million through DS. In addition, Defendant E was unable to win the U’s election (Defendant E’s legal statement); ③ Defendant E was elected in U; Defendant C, as a school inspector, collected information on the whole education community, including the atmosphere of the first place of the school or the trend of personnel affairs, and reported it to Defendant E.

3) The FLN test of the FL Measuring Office of Education at a certain level, ① the receipt of applications and documents:

4) The FMN test of the FM FN test at the Office of Education at a certain level; ① the receipt of applications and documents from June 27, 2012 to June 28, 2012; ② the publication of a person subject to FM: July 9, 2012; ③ the publication of a successful candidate and an interview:

5) CZ has been married to Defendant E’s son’s her children in custody of KRW 200 million, and around October 201, 201, ASEAN was married to Defendant E’s her children in custody of KRW 200 million ( KRW 100 million in early January 201, 201, and KRW 100 million in May 201). The Defendant E, via Defendant C, deposited the said money in the name of deposit (the wife of the CZ) and deposited the said money in the name of DL (the wife).

6) On August 2, 2012, with respect to the instant land, the establishment of the right to collateral security under the name of Defendant C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 650 million was set up in the name of Defendant C.

7) The details of the establishment of the mobile phone under the name of Defendant C and E and the telephone call details

① After the U.S. election in 2010 was completed, Defendant E said to the effect that Defendant C would wish to make a Handphone. Defendant C opened a Handphone under another’s name (hereinafter referred to as “vehicle name phone”) and sent it to Defendant E. The following DW number and DX number’s mobile phone used by Defendant E. Defendant C requested Defendant A, and Defendant A to open a mobile phone under the name of the DY, which is its form of punishment, in turn, with Defendant C’s request for the opening of a son name phone in order. (In this court, Defendant E opened a mobile phone under the name of Defendant C, which is its form of punishment, with Defendant C’s instructions to deliver a son’s mobile phone, and it is good to Defendant C’s instructions to use the mobile phone. However, Defendant C’s mobile phone was given to Defendant E, which is one of its superior.

② Defendant C used a teaphone in the name of the EA number (use period: from January 24, 2012 to September 2, 2012), DW number (use period: from January 24 to April 20, 2012), DX number (use period: from April 20, 2012 to September 20), and DX number (use period: from April 20, 2012 to September 2, 201). Defendant E used the said teaphone only when in conversations with Defendant C and EB (the school inspector in charge of FT personnel), and Defendant E used the said tea phone (Evidence No. 9924, 241 to 8,242 pages),

③ Defendant E and Defendant C made 39 calls using the above borrowed phone between January 24, 2012 and September 2, 2012. The number of times Defendant E sent is five times, and the number of times Defendant C sent is 34 times (as to the reason that the number of times the call was sent by Defendant C was much much more than that of Defendant C’s phone call, Defendant C stated that Defendant C took a method of calling the phone when the signal is cut off. ④ Defendant E and Defendant C took a call upon Defendant E’s phone call. From January 24, 2012 to September 2, 2012, 208 to September 2, 2015, 200: (i) the number of times the call was sent by Defendant C; (ii) the last day of May 14 to 15, 2012; (iii) the number of days the call was 1 to 213:6:36:21, May 21, 2012.

⑤ Defendant C made a call to Defendant E in the vicinity of the EC base station around June 10, 2012, around 14:44, around 2012, and around June 10, 2012, around 15:58, Defendant C made a call to Defendant E in the vicinity of the EC base station at Gongju-si, E-si (in light of the fact that Defendant C made a call to Defendant E around 15:58 on June 10, 2012, around 14:58 on the same day after Defendant E and the call, Defendant C appears to have moved to Defendant E’s home on June 10, 2012).

(6) As between June 19, 2012 and June 30, 2012, Defendant C calls Defendant E with the above studio on 15 occasions (as between June 19, 2012 and June 20, 2012, once on June 20, 2012, once on June 21, 2012, once on June 21, 2012, once on June 222, 2012, once on June 26, 2012, once on June 26, 201, when on June 28, 2012, once on June 29, 2012, and once on June 29, 2012, once on June 30, 2012).

7) Around 06:33, June 30, 2012, Defendant E called Defendant E with the above namephone, and around 06:33, around 2012, Defendant C called Defendant E in the vicinity of the base station in Gongju-si on June 30, 2012 (round 06:33, 2012, Defendant C called Defendant E in the vicinity of the base station in ED (round 1924, 272, - 8,273, 273). In light of the fact that Defendant C called Defendant E in the vicinity of Defendant E’s home, which led to the need for discussion, Defendant C was only Defendant E on June 30, 2012.

(8) around July 22, 2012 (round July 21, 2012, once, July 23, 2012), Defendant C exchanged with Defendant E (round July 22, 2012, once, July 23, 2012, once, July 23, 2012, once, July 23, 2012, once, July 23, 2012, once, July 1, 2012, KRW 924, 8, 11,081, 11, 11, 182, and 082). (9) Defendant C currency around July 28, 2012 (round 20, July 27, 2012, KRW 203, KRW 318,310,71, 281, 27, 2082, respectively).

① Around August 10, 2012 (round August 3, 2012; on August 2, 2012; on August 2, 2012; on November 2, 2012; on August 11, 2012; and on August 11, 2012, Defendant C exchanged with Defendant E (on August 1, 2012; on August 11, 2012; on August 11, 2012; on August 12, 2012; on August 3, 2012).

8) Defendant E shall pay the sum of KRW 90 million to Defendant C

① On December 16, 2012, Defendant E delivered KRW 10 million in cash to Defendant C in the vicinity of the regular school located in the name school where the transmission was instigated.

② At around January 2, 2013, Defendant E, via EF, a letter of execution expenses, around 16:24, Defendant EF, delivered KRW 80 million to Defendant C in front of the sentiments of the T Office of Education (Defendant E stated that the said money is left to EI, an EG Office of Education EH, for the source of the said money).

9) The relationship between Defendant C and Defendant C and E

① The CJ has taken effect on April 2009 as a member of the EJ and EK, and the U.S. Election that took effect on June 2010, and the U.S. Election that took effect on or around June 2010, was closely related to Defendant C in the above election campaign process. CJ expressed that “E sent width from Defendant C to a public school,” and that “E sent it to a public school,” was a lot of words “(380 pages 17049, 382, 384, and witness testimony of CJ).” ② CM is the head of CV middle school, and CW is the head of CV middle school. Defendant E and C were working as a senior teacher at a high school in the past from 2013 to 380, 170, 2013, 301, 31, 380, 31, 31, 31, 2013, 31, 31, 301,3, 1,301.

④ Defendant B graduated from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and completed an interview with EO (which was professor, EL, around 2012) during the 6th anniversary of Defendant B’s entrance examination. Defendant B had been aware of the fact that Defendant E was in the currency with Defendant E before or after the submission of the FN-type application, and that Defendant B was preparing for a school course. Defendant B was not a personal-friendly relationship with Defendant C, and Defendant CF-type 924 (which was 10, 248~10, 253) for the first time during the 9th anniversary of the 2013 anniversary of the 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 207 6th 207.

7) Defendant D established the FN type plan and obtained Defendant E’s approval. Defendant D referred to Defendant D with “AH, with a significant contribution to students guidance, and sought ways to open a school building to use FN, by hiring teachers to enhance the Chungcheong education,” Defendant D instructed Defendant D to the effect that it will be responsible for and able to carry out the shock science for having teachers working at the Science Education Institute (Evidence No. 9924 of the Evidence No. 9924 of the year 2013 to 10,681 to 10,682 of the Evidence No. 9924 of the year 2013, and witness CY testimony).

10) Defendant E’s request for the reversal of Defendant E’s investigative information leakage and investigation, and for the reversal of the statement against E;

① As Defendant E, E, E, and EU University, Defendant E is the president of the established conference of the EU University, and E is the secretary general, due to the duties of the alumni, and is frequently contacted with the same church, and is close to the same church.

② On September 2012, 2012, Defendant E-TT appears to have experienced from being investigated before investigation, and rather than investigation agencies, Defendant E-TT was to have a lot of people. Defendant E-T was to investigate the school affairs test conducted in the police, how is currently being conducted, how is being conducted in the future, and when the warrant or compulsory investigation enters the port or compulsory investigation, and to the EV (public prosecutor serving in the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office)’s school affairs test conducted in the TN Office’s school affairs test conducted. EV was to ask E-T by call when the police request or issuance of the warrant, and E-T was to inform Defendant E-W of its contents, or called Defendant E-W, Defendant E-W, Defendant E-W, Defendant E-W, and Defendant E-W’s request for the issuance of the warrant, Defendant E-T’s request for search and seizure, Defendant 2, 1, 21, 31, 21, 36.1, 1, 21, 36.1, 1, 2, 2, 31, 1, 2, and 4.

③ From August 2012 to September 2012, BV told Defendant A to the effect that “one person in the river was investigated by the police, and the computer per se used in the house and office was replaced by B.B.” (Evidence No. 9924 of 2013).

④ From October 2012, Defendant E told Defendant C to the effect that, by informing Defendant C of the 4 figures of the last place number of five telephone numbers, Defendant E reads to the effect that “A is aware of the mobile phone number of a person to whom the warrant was issued, who is known to A” (the testimony of witness C).

⑤ On December 26, 2012, Defendant E took place with eF as 203 Dong 1601, Jung-gu, Daejeon, an official residence. Defendant E used by eF, called, the phone call from eP on December 26, 2012, and the phone call from eP on December 26, 2012, and around 26, 21:02. Defendant E called, “C was prepared because the search and seizure warrant was issued” to eP and Defendant C (Evidence No. 8, 361 to 8,362 pages, 10,874 page).

④ After the police applied for a search and seizure warrant for BV vehicle bV vehicle box, BV told from the EP on December 27, 2012 to the effect that “it is necessary for the police to conduct search and seizure in the future, on books, computers, and vehicles in advance,” (Evidence No. 9924, No. 9924, No. 4516, No. 517, Dec. 27, 2012). Defendant A told the mother of BV to call on December 27, 2012, “BV may not know that it would cause the police to keep the computer and books clean” (Evidence No. 9924, No. 4517, Dec. 4, 2013).

7) Defendant E was hospitalized in a hospital on March 4, 2013, but was discharged from the hospital on March 11, 2013, around 11:00, Defendant E stated that “IE apartment 106 and 802, Gongju-si, Doi, Doi, Doi, Doi, Doi, requested the police to find out the investigation situation and there is no way to request the ET professor to find out the investigation situation, and the ET professor stated that there is no way to make the statement.” At the same time, the ET professor stated to the effect that I would not have any problem. At the request of Defendant E, I recon the statement to ET stated in the police that he was aware of the investigation situation (Evidence No. 9924, 909-9, 912, 10,721 pages).

④ On February 4, 2013, the EF received a request from the police for attendance from the police, and the Defendant E said that he was demanded from the police to appear. Accordingly, on January 2, 2013, Defendant E stated that the police officer asked Defendant C to 80 million won, and that it was true that EF did not stick to e.g., because e., because e., to e.g., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e.g., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., to e., 15., to e., to me.

① CX had a question about the passing of the FL N. 1 on the FL test by CJ which has not long prepared the FL test, and by phone call to Defendant E at the expiration of a week after the FL candidate was announced, and “There is a person who is in need of an issue during the FL candidate.” On August 8, 2012, the FM NN was announced to Defendant E, and the passing of the test was concentrated on a specific (EL) origin. The understanding of passing of the test is not possible. CX calls to Defendant E, and calls to Defendant E for 10, 200, 30, 40, 40, 10, 40, 10, 40, 50, 100, 40, 50, 40, 10, 50, 10, 10,000, 10,000,000,000,000,00,000.

③ From the end of August 2012, FC, the FV, of the T Office of Education, was at issue in the process of selecting a bachelor’s degree in the early September 1, 2012, and was aware of the fact that an investigation was commenced on the basis of information that the police conducted a systematic vision in relation to the selection test of a bachelor’s degree, and thereafter, reported to Defendant E (Evidence 11,026, 11,208, evidence records of 2013 Punishment No. 9924). E., determination on the credibility of Defendant C’s statement

1) As follows, Defendant C made a consistent statement in detail and in detail with the major part of the commission of the crime, including the situation and developments leading up to the order of Defendant E to commit the crime of this case, the process of gathering the Defendant A, the recommendation of Defendant A, etc., and the report of Defendant E, the interference with the members preparing questions and members preparing questions, the process of receiving and keeping money in return for the leakage of problems, etc.

However, on February 2, 2013, when Defendant C makes the first statement with respect to the crime related to FM at the police station, Defendant C stated that “When the first statement was made, the first statement was made by Defendant E, “AF, AG, AG, and H, the first statement was made immediately after Defendant C surrenders surrenders, and the first statement was made, Defendant C’s assertion was made to the effect that it would create an election fund through FN test, and the problem was expanded.” After which Defendant E made a statement to the effect that “after that, in the course of discussion with AB and Defendant AB, I would like to pass a FN test, IF, AG, and AH,” Defendant E would be deemed to have passed the election fund. However, considering that there was a change in the contents of Defendant C’s order, Defendant C’s first statement was made immediately after Defendant C voluntarily surrenders, Defendant C’s change in its credibility and credibility, as seen above, Defendant C’s statement to the extent that it did not constitute a change in the relationship between Defendant C and C25.

A) Prosecutions and court statements of Defendant C related to the FL press

(1) At the time of 201.6, I would like to make sure that the applicants would have passed the Francing examination, and that they would have passed the Francing examination (the Francing Doctrine 1) and would have passed the Francing examination (the Francing Doctrine 2) and would have passed the examination, so I would like to say that the applicants would have passed the examination and will not be naturally public officials. On the other hand, I would like to order the CJ Doctrine 2 to pass the examination, and I would like to know how I would have passed the election fund at the time of election. I would like to know how I would like to receive the election fund from the public officials who will have passed the election.

(3) He recommended D, AB's recommendation and Defendant E, and recommended F and Q at the same time. The content and form of "C Q and F's protocol was completed at the time and delivered with the thickness. It is the same as that of July 201. It was 4 or around 8 before the FN type. At the same time, I reported that "I would have been able to receive four protoes" in the administrative envelope, and that I would have been aware that I would have been able to receive more than 4 protoes, and that I would have been able to receive more than 4 protoes with the thickness of the EM. It was the same as that I would have reported that I would have been able to receive more than 4 protoes with the EM on June 20, 201.

(4) The reasons why you choose the CF as the members preparing the CF questions are E and EL, and I have the same English and subsequent E and E. So, I stated that E would have the CF principal around October 201, and that CF principal would talk with D school affairs, and the CF principal would have found CF principal only in the vehicle parked in the vicinity of apartment area. The CF will have the CF as the members preparing the FF questions, and the CF head would have prepared the CF 1000 and 10000, and the CF will have prepared the CF 10000,00000,00000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000.

(5) Before receiving money (in relation to acceptance of bribe), we did not hold any effort to keep the received money in the thickness, and if there was a contact that A or AB would bring money, E would have to bring money, “E would have to bring money,” and “E would have to leave the Z where it would be left.” After receiving money to CZ, I reported that “CZ would have left it in the form of imprisonment,” and “I will have to leave it in the form of imprisonment,” and “I will have to leave it to CJ, 20 million won, CJ, 16 million won, CB, 20 million won, 20 million won to D and 20 million won to CJ, and 1.2 million won to B, 1.2.9 million won to B, and 1.2 million won to CJ, 201.2.9 million won to B, and 1.2.5 million won to B, 2000,0000 won to CJ.

B) Prosecutions and court statements of Defendant C related to the FM flag

(1) 피고인 E의 지시'2012. 6.경 제 차량 내에서, 피고인 E으로부터 'B, AG, AF, AH'를 합격시키라는 지시를 받은 사실이 있습니다. 피고인 E으로부터 D과 상의해서 처리하되, 계열별로 합격시킬 사람들을 더 추천하고, 이번 FN 시험에서 선거자금을 만들어 보자는 취지로 지시받은 사실도 있습니다. AF는 "같은 교회를 다니고 있는데 매번 FN 시험에 떨어지고 있다. 불쌍하니까 시켜 줘라." 그렇게 얘기를 했고, AG은 "FL기 때 EQ과 같이 관사로 왔었다. 그런데 그때도 돈을 얼마인가 가지고 왔었는데 돌려보냈다. 그러니까 이번에는 시켜라." 그런 식으로 말씀을 주셨고, AH는 "과학발명 지도능력이 뛰어나고 FD가 세종시로 떠나니까 후임자가 필요하다. 그러니까 시켜라." 그렇게 얘기를 했고, B은 "제자다. 그냥 시켜라."고 했습니다. ' (2) 피고인 A, D과 AB 등과 모의 및 피고인 E에게 보고 '(E의 지시를 받은 후) D 장학사와 먼저 E이 지시한 사람을 어떻게 합격시킬 것인가에 대해 논의하고, 이후 A, AB을 불러서 E이 지목한 4명을 합격시킬 방법을 논의하였습니다. 2012. 6. 중순경 통화내역을 보면, 저와 A, AB이 함께 공주시 신관동에서 만난 사실이 나올 텐데, 그 무렵에 공주시 신관동 인근의 제 차량에서 이야기를 나누었습니다. 제가 A, AB을 만나서 E이 지시한 사람을 합격시킬 방법을 의논할 때 E이 B, AF, AG, AH를 합격시키라고 한다는 이야기를 하면서, "E이 될 만한 사람으로 계열별로 더 추천해 보라고 하였다"라는 이야기를 하자 AB이 눈치를 채고 "이왕 하는 것 더 뽑아서 선거자금이라도 만들어 보자"라고 하였습니다. 그래서 제가 "그게 어르신의 뜻이다"라고 하면서 E이 계열별로 전문성이 있고 능력 있는 친구들로 더 추천해서 선거자금을 만들라고 했다는 취지의 이야기를 했습니다. A이나 AB과 2012. 6. 19.경 만나서 대상자 확대를 논의한 후에 제가 E에게 합격시킬 사람을 확대하고 그 사람들로부터 돈을 받겠다는 내용에 대하여는 바로 보고했습니다. 제가 2012. 6. 30. 응시자 명단에 표시하여 보고한 것은 사실상 그때까지 합격시킬 응시자에 대한 종합보고라고 보시면 됩니다. 저는 수시로 E과 통화하고 만나기도 하므로 그때그때 마다 보고를 드리고 허락을 받는 것입니다. 그래서 A, AB이 대상자를 물색하여 저에게 보고하면 저는 즉시 바로 E에게 보고하고 E으로부터 허락을 받아 대상자를 직접 만나서 의향을 확인하는 절차를 진행하는 것입니다. 즉 A, AB이 나름의 기준으로 대상자를 선정해서 저에게 알려주면 제가 E에게 바로 보고하고 E의 허락이 있으면 제가 A, AB에게 허락되었다는 사실을 전달하면 A, AB이 그 대상자를 만나 확인하는 것입니다.'

(3) On July 5, 2012, DI will come into the USB with six questions stored on the vehicles parked in the ecologicalized apartment site. It asked DI will come into the USB to "I would have been aware of the problems that AB would have occurred." At that time, I would like to give I would like to "I would like to give the problems that I would have been created." At this time, I would like to say D I would like to do so, and I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like. At that time, I would like to think I would like to inform I that I would like to write I would like, and I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to think I would like to think I would like to understand I's importance. At that time, DI would like to explain IB's intention to be what I would have been called, but I would like to write I would like to know that I would like to write I would like to be more accurately.

(4) 이 사건 토지의 매수 및 피고인 C 명의의 근저당권 설정'2012. 1.경 CZ이 돈이 필요하니 맡겨놓은 돈을 융통해서 써도 되는지 E한테 여쭤봐 달라고 해서 E한테 말씀드렸더니 "급한 돈 아니니까 편하게 써라." 그렇게 얘기해서 (CZ에게) 그대로 전달했습니다. CZ은 "내가 돈 빌려 온 것은 땅을 팔아서 이자와 함께 갚겠다." 그렇게 얘기를 했습니다. CZ이 그 땅을 팔아서 돈과 이자를 함께 갚기로 했는데 땅이 팔릴 듯 팔릴 듯하면서 차일피일 미뤄졌습니다. 몇 달 지나다 보니까 E한테 CZ이 상당히 미안해 했습니다. 그래서 저한테 "E한테 바로 팔릴 것 같았는데 안 팔린다. 미안하다고 꼭 좀 전해달라."고 애기해서 E에게 "땅이 팔리지 않는다. 땅이 팔리면 돈 바로 드린다고 한다. 미안해한다."라고 전해 드렸습니다. 그러자 피고인 E이 그 땅이 어디에 있느냐고 한 번 가보자고 했습니다. 저희 집 가는 방향이고 E집에서 가까운 곳에 있어서 제 차로 모시고 가서 보여 드렀습니다. (E이 땅을) 보더니 "땅 위치가 상당히 좋다. 얼마냐."라고 물어서 "5억 1,000만 원에서 5억 2,000만 원 정도 간다. 이것이 130평이고 평당 400 정도 되는 것 같다."고 말씀드렸더니 "내가 사면어때?" 그렇게 말씀하셔서 제가 한번 말해보겠다고 해서 CZ에게 가서 말한 것입니다. CZ은 그 땅을 5억 2,000만 원에 팔려고 했었고, E께서 사신다고 하니까 5억 1,000만 원에 하자고 해서 E에게 5억 1,000만 원이라고 한다고 전해 드렸습니다. 그래서 매매가 이루어진 것입니다. (부동산 매입자금으로는 피고인 E이 이미 맡겨놓은 축의금 2억 원, FL기, FM기 때 수수한 돈으로 지급하는 것으로 하였다고 진술한 바 있는데) 사실입니다. (부동산 매매대금은) 5억 1,000만 원에 하기로 했습니다. E께서는 어차피 땅값이 거의 다 들어갔으니까 제 앞으로 가등기나 근저당 설정을 해놓으라고 했습니다. 그때 처음으로 제가 반대되는 얘기를 했습니다. "제가 부담스러우니 E 친척분에게 그런 부탁을 하면 어떻습니까?" 하니 "그냥 네 앞으로 해놔. 그게 편해." 그렇게 말씀하 셔서 제가 말없이 CZ에게 얘기해서 근저당설정을 하게 한 것입니다. 제가 (E에게) 6억 5,000만 원에 근저당 설정했다고 말씀드렸습니다. (근저당 설정 6억 5,000만 원은) CZ 이 땅값보다 더 많이 해서 E 보여 드려야 E 마음이 편하실 것 아니냐." 어차피 그 땅은 E 땅이기 때문에 거기서 최대한 많은 액수로 해주었다고 말씀드린 것입니다. (최초 경찰 및 검찰 수사 시에 수수금액 사용처에 대하여 부동산 매입자금으로 사용하였다고 사실대로 진술하지 못한 이유는) 제가 E을 모시고 있었고, 또 FL기 부분은 드러나지 않았던 부분이었습니다. 땅을 사고 그랬던 것은 부끄러운 범죄가 될 수 있어서 그것은 감추고 싶었습니다. 그런데 시간이 가면서 FL기 부분이 드러나고 모든 것들이 밝혀진 상황에서 제가 도와드릴 방법이 없어서 모든 것을 다 밝힌 것입니다. (피고인 E은 위 부동산을 매수하면서) 퇴직을 하고 나서 막내아들이 직업이 불안정하여서 건물을 지어서 주겠다고 저한테 얘기했습니다.'

2) The Defendant C’s statement is difficult to readily dismiss as follows in line with various objective circumstances.

A) A teacher who is close to, or has friendship with, Defendant E passed the FN test. Defendant C stated that Defendant E instructed to directly pass the FN test in relation to the FL N N test, and that Defendant B, AF, AG, and AH in relation to the FM N test. The person who appears to have a fM FN test is merely a CJ, AG, AG, and the person who is in a fM-related relationship with Defendant E (Defendant B and AF), a person who appears to have a fluoral relationship with Defendant E (CJ, AG), a person who was directly related to Defendant E’s side (CM, CL), and a person who was directly instructed by Defendant E to undergo the FN test (On the contrary, Defendant C failed to pass the fN test (hereinafter “FN test”).

In addition, Defendant E also calls with Defendant B directly or through EO, the phrase “AF is a person with administrative or teaching ability” against Defendant C, the fact that Defendant C received a request from Defendant C to the effect that “AF is well aware of the FLN test,” and the FM FN test plan was prepared, and Defendant C instructed to review how to select the same human resources as AH who had been recognized in the field of science education (Evidence No. 9924, 262 to 8,263, Defendant E’s legal statement). As such, if Defendant C failed to pass the FN test from Defendant E, the circumstances supporting the credibility of Defendant C’s statement that the person who was ordered to pass the FM test and the close relation between Defendant E and Defendant C were leaked to the person who received the direction from Defendant E.

B) Defendant E, with a namephone, frequently exchanged with Defendant C beyond the ordinary level, and the monetary content conforms to Defendant C’s statement.

(1) Defendant E and Defendant C made a 339-time telephone phone for 223 days from January 24, 2012 to September 23, 2012. This means that the average of 1.52 times a day (39 times/223 days) and that the two defendants used the same office telephone, despite the existence of a mobile phone in the same office, frequently used the same name. In particular, Defendant C and the above reasons that it is difficult for Defendant C to receive an instruction from Defendant E to receive an instruction from Defendant E to obtain money from Defendant C, and that it is difficult for them to obtain money from Defendant E to receive an instruction from Defendant E, and that it is difficult for them to obtain an instruction from Defendant E and to report the credibility of the above reasons.

3) The statements made by Defendant D, A, and CZ also conform to the statements made by Defendant C. As long as it is difficult to see that the above-related persons belonged to Defendant C, the statements made by the relevant persons consistent with Defendant C’s statements are more reliable than the credibility of Defendant C’s statements.

A) Defendant D confirmed that Defendant C’s instructions were the importance of Defendant E, and participated in the instant crime, as follows.

(1) Around June 14, 2012, Defendant D obtained the FN type approval plan and made a statement that Defendant C was aware of the receipt of Defendant E’s order (Evidence No. 9924, 10,618, the evidence record No. 9924, 10,618,), and Defendant D, the school inspector of the actual FN type, did not need to discuss with Defendant C, who is a school inspector of DT, in relation to FN type, on the grounds that it is not highly necessary to discuss with Defendant C, who is a school inspector of the actual FN type, in advance, on the grounds that Defendant E and this statement was made.

(2) While presenting the first and second bills to Defendant E, Defendant D submitted a proposal for the selection of the members preparing questions and the members preparing questions, Defendant D submitted a proposal for the first and second bills to Defendant E, and the members preparing questions were selected according to Defendant D’s intent. Although the selection of the members preparing questions and members preparing questions should be based on an important part in the FN screening plan, it is quite unusual to report to Defendant E to “I” (Article 924 of the Evidence No. 9924, No. 9924 to 10,840 to 10,842 of the Evidence No. 2013). This means that Defendant E and Defendant had already followed the instant crime prior to the presentation of the above opinion.

On the other hand, Defendant E has been holding a proposal 1 and 2, and the proposal stated that “The first and second proposals were well selected, so it is called “a decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making, 2013, No. 924, No. 9924, No. 8,279), and it is difficult to find out any obvious motive or reason for Defendant D to make a false statement on what is not a decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making on Defendant E, and CY-making decision-making decision-making decision-making is consistent with Defendant D’s statement (Defendant CY’s testimony).”

(3) Report on the result of the essay test evaluation

Defendant D reported the result of the evaluation of a severe essay test conducted by the applicants, and Defendant E told Defendant E that “C Scholarship made a statement to E in advance with respect to the part with a large figure of score and the increase in the number of applicants,” Defendant E did not seem to have any reaction (Evidence No. 924, No. 924, No. 10,691, No. 17049, No. 2295, Dec. 2013), and this also means that Defendant E and Defendant C had any doubt with respect to the instant crime.

(4) Defendant D made a statement that “A” had been aware of the content divided with Defendant C at each time during the screening process eight times, and that “A was aware of the content divided with Defendant C” (Article 924 of the Evidence No. 9924 of 2013 to 10,943 to 10,944 of the Evidence No. 9924 of 2013). As such, Defendant C and Defendant D were aware of the conversation between Defendant C and Defendant D, the fact that Defendant C and Defendant D moved the contents of the conversation from Defendant C is true, and the above statement conforms to the objective situation, such as the selection of the applicant for the examination and the opening of the cell phone in another person’s name, and there seems to be no possibility that Defendant A was affiliated with Defendant C.

(1) It is true that C’s statement about the process of selecting and contacting persons. If C informs C of the subject matter in physical color, C has followed the procedure to confirm whether C has contacted the subject and received his/her will if it was reported to the upper line. It is impossible to contact the subject matter at will.

(2) The Defendant C expressed to the effect that “E has prepared for the following elections. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare election funds through this FN test.” In addition, Defendant C created a namephone because it is necessary for Defendant C to communicate with Defendant E.

C) The CZ also known that Defendant A and C’s money was the money of Defendant E. C. The CZ may be deemed as Defendant E’s money inasmuch as it is difficult for Defendant C to become aware of whose money was deposited in the CZ at any time and there is no reason for its affiliation, on the grounds that the money left to the CZ may be deemed as Defendant E’s money.

4) In light of the following circumstances, Defendant C’s statement that the instant crime was committed by Defendant E’s instruction is believed.

A) On September 2, 2012, at the beginning of the investigation, Defendant C expressed to Defendant E the fact that the problem was leaked and received money.

Even according to the statement of Defendant E, Defendant E, around September 2, 2012, was white to the purport that Defendant E was released from the FN Examination issue and received money from Defendant C to applicants, and if Defendant C planned the instant crime and moved to the commission of the crime, Defendant E was not aware of it at the initial stage of the investigation where the former appearance of the crime was not revealed, and attempted to conceal the possible facts of the crime. Furthermore, even at the early stage of the investigation, the problem outflow only occurred and the issue of receiving money was not unknown, Defendant C was aware of the leakage and receiving money and valuables before Defendant C’s report, and the circumstance that the aforementioned crime was committed under Defendant E’s instruction or implied.

B) Under the direction of Defendant E, Defendant A and C returned a bribe to the illegal applicants. According to Defendant E’s statement, around September 2, 2012, Defendant C heard the leakage of problems and the receipt of money and valuables from Defendant C, and the return of money and valuables to Defendant C. The Defendant C stated that “the amount at issue is KRW 70,000,000,000, and the money at issue was returned to Defendant E was considered as KRW 70,000,00,000,000,000,000 won was considered as KRW 70,000,000,000,000 won was returned to Defendant A and C” (the above statement of Defendant C was received by Defendant C and CZ, under the direction of Defendant E and C, and that Defendant C’s return of money to Defendant E and KRW 924,000,000,000,000,000 won was in line with each of Defendant E’s testimony and direction.

C) Defendant C left the money received in return for the outflow of the problem to the CZ that was in custody of Defendant E’s money.

The fact that Defendant E left the cattle in his child marriage to CZ is recognized by both Defendant C, E, and CZ. If Defendant C independently planned the instant crime without Defendant E’s instruction, it appears that the money received in return for the outflow of the problem would not have been left to CZ. Defendant C considered all the money received in return for the outflow of the livestock and the problem as Defendant E’s money, and thus, left to CZ. This circumstance is inferred that the instant crime was committed under Defendant E’s direction.

If Defendant C acquired the price for the outflow of the problem independently without Defendant E’s instruction, the money was kept or consumed by other means, and the fact that CZ continued to have been in custody of the said money is that the said money was funds for Defendant E’s election for U.S. election is consistent with Defendant C’s statement.

5) The possibility of Defendant C’s false statement

The reason why Defendant C made a false statement that Defendant E gave an order to commit a crime even without giving an order to commit a crime is that it is difficult to take into account in the process of committing a crime, since Defendant C committed a crime under Defendant E’s instruction. As such, even though Defendant C did not affect the establishment of one’s own crime, it is difficult to obtain information in light of the usual relationship with Defendant E, Defendant C’s status or situation, and personality.

Therefore, there seems to be no possibility of Defendant C to make a false statement with Defendant E’s instructions.

6) Sub-determination

Defendant C’s statement that the instant crime was committed under Defendant E’s instructions is not likely to have been made even if Defendant C did not follow Defendant E’s instructions. In light of the various objective situations consistent with Defendant C’s specific and consistent statements and the statements of related persons, the credibility of Defendant C’s statement that the instant crime was committed under Defendant E’s instructions.

F. Various circumstances have to be deemed that Defendant E instructed the instant crime

1) If Defendant E did not instruct the instant crime, the following actions of Defendant E are not reasonably explained. The following facts are significant circumstances in which Defendant E instructed the instant crime.

A) After the commencement of the investigation, Defendant E’s attempt to destroy evidence and direction

As seen earlier, Defendant E is investigating the instant case through ET.

It is not limited to Eul's identification, and ① inform defendants A, C, or FG of the progress of the investigation and the issuance of the search and seizure warrant, so that they may destroy evidence, ② directly related persons (ET and EF) also requested the reversal or false statement, ③ ordered the defendants D to control the entry of applicants for FM illegal acts. The above defendant E's attempt and direction of destruction of evidence are actions to not take place unless the defendant E did not participate in the crime of this case.

B) Recognizing that Defendant E paid a sum of KRW 90 million to Defendant C, Defendant E paid KRW 12,16,10 million on January 2, 2013, and KRW 90 million on January 2, 2013, Defendant E claimed that it was only lent at Defendant C’s request, and not paid for the purpose of concealing the crime.

그러나 이 법정에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 C은 검찰에서, 수사가 시작된 이후 피고인 E으로부터 "나는 관여되지 않은 것으로 하고 지켜줄 수 있지", "변호사 비용은 걱정하지 마라"는 취지의 말을 들은 적이 있다고 진술한 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,296면), ② 피고인 E도 피고인 C이 범행을 고백하였다는 2012. 9. 2. 이후 피고인 C에게 '변호사 비용이 부족하면 내가 마련해볼게'라는 취지로 말한 적이 있다고 인정하는 점(피고인 E의 법정진술), ③ 피고인 C은 피고인 E으로부터 2012. 12. 16. 받은 1,000만 원은 바로 CZ에게 맡긴 것으로 보이므로(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 6,909면), 피고인 C이 돈을 받은 이후에 보인 모습이 급하게 쓸데가 있어서 돈을 빌린 사람의 태도로 보이지 않는 점, ④ 장학사인 피고인 C이 상급자이자 U인 피고인 E에게 돈을 빌려달라고 하였다는 것은, 피고인 C이 피고인 E의 지시에 잘 따르는 심복인 점을 고려하더라도 매우 이례적이고, FN 시험문제 유출이라는 중대한 사건에 직면한 E이 범행을 주도한 주범에게 9,000만 원을 빌려준다는 것은 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점(더구나 피고인 E의 진술에 의하면, 피고인 C이 2012. 5.경 불법적으로 선거자금을 마련하자고 제의하여, 자신이 호통을 치면서 나무란 사실이 있다는 것인데, 자신의 질책을 무시하고 불법을 저지른 피고인 C을 혼내기는커녕 오히려 9,000만 원을 빌려주었다는 것은 도저히 납득하기 어렵다), ⑤ 피고인 E이 피고인 C에게 지급한 합계 9,000만 원은 모두 현금으로 지급된 점, ⑥ 피고인 C은 2013. 1. 2. 피고인 E으로부터 수령한 합계 9,000만 원 중 4,200만 원은 부정응시자들에게 돈을 되돌려주기 위하여 피고인 A에게 교부하고, CZ에게 'E의 돈인데 A이가 필요하다고 하면 주세요'라고 말하면서 나머지 4,800만 원을 교부한 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 6,905면 ~ 6,907면, 10,525면 ~ 10,526면), ⑦ 피고인 A은 피고인 C로부터 4,800만 원을 받고, 2013. 1. 2. BY에게 3,000만 원을 반환한 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 9,058면) 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 C의 진술대로, 피고인 E은 2012. 12. 16. 피고인 C에게 요즘 어려울 텐데 필요한 곳에 쓰라는 취지로 말하면서 1,000만 원을 교부하였고, 피고인 C이 부정응시자들에게 돈을 돌려주기 위하여 8,000만 원 정도가 필요하다고 하자, 피고인 E이 2013. 1. 2. 피고인 C에게 8,000만 원을 교부한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, Defendant E’s delivery of KRW 90 million to Defendant C cannot be deemed as a loan, and Defendant E paid money to conceal the instant case by holding Defendant C in return for money or returning money to the illegal applicants. Thus, the aforementioned money payment is a circumstance where Defendant E was involved in the act of committing the instant crime in depth.

C) Defendant E and Defendant C’s attitude at the time of dialogue and conversation on February 5, 2013

(1) Defendant E’s attitude before and after the dialogue

① On February 5, 2013, Defendant E’s attitude appeared in this court, Defendant C’s attendance at the police on February 4, 2013 (on February 10), and Defendant E stated to the effect that “A himself/herself was present at the police on February 2, 2013 ( Saturdays) and stated to the effect that he/she was involved in the crime,” and the EF stated to the prosecutor’s office that “A statement was made by Defendant E to the effect that he/she was involved in the crime,” and the EF stated to the effect that “A statement was made by Defendant E in the form of Defendant E before dividing the following conversations with Defendant C at the mother of the YY schik Schik-sur Europe, unlike other days.”

② EF은 검찰에서, 두 사람의 대화가 끝나고 방에 혼자 있던 피고인 E의 태도에 대하여, '가서 뵈었더니 얼굴이 창백해져 있었고, 한숨만 쉬다가 "C이 울고 가더라"고 하였다고 진술하였다(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,871면). 또한, ET는 피고인 E으로부터, "C을 여관으로 불러서 이야기했는데, C이 어쩔 수 없었다면서 눈물을 흘렸다"는 말을 들었다고 진술하였다(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,726면).

(2) a conversation on a record;

According to the record of the recording of the Defendant C and the Defendant E’s dialogue on February 5, 2013 (Evidence No. 9924 No. 89), which recorded the conversation between Defendant C and the Defendant E, the following conversations between Defendant C and the Defendant E was made, and the following contents can be inferred through the said dialogue:

전략(前略)1E : 앉아. H이하고 통화는 했어. 전화통화를 하니까 그 검** 후배랑 만났대. 만났는데, 상황 보니까 나도 최악의 상황을 대비해야 될 것 같다는 느낌을 받았다.고... 나도 준비를 해야 하잖아2C : 가장 좋은 방법이 뭣이냐...3E: 어쨌든 좋은 방법도 찾고 일단 그것보다도 이 사람들이 불려가면 경찰로 갈거 아니야. 그럼 이야기는 해야 될 거 아니야.4C : 이야기를 제가 한 것, 어떻게 이야기를 했냐면 있는 사실대로 이야기를 했어요.5 E : 글쎄 얘기를 해서 그걸 알아야지 내가.

C: 1G, AF and P. 8: B. : B. : if you were to : B. : 0, and if you were to : 10, 00, 100, and 3:0,000 won were to :3:0,000 won were to :3:0,000 won were to :0,000 won were to :3:0,000 won were to :0,000 won were to :6:0,000 won were to :3:0,000 won were to :0,000 won were to :0,000 won were to 1:0,000 won were to :0,000 won were to 1:0,000 won were to 1:0,000 won were to 1:0,000 won were to 0,000 won were to 1:0,000 won were to 1:0,000,000 won were to 1.

T. He reported that 90,000 won was 9: 30,000 won, and 42,000 won was made by A and Y. These stories were about 1,00,00,000 won. These stories were about 3:0,000,000 won, and they were about 3:0,000 won, and they were about 2:3:0,000 won, and they were about 3:0,000 won, and they were about 2:0,000 won, and they were about 3:0,000 won, and they were about 2:0,000 won, and they were about 3:0,000 won, and they were about 2:0,000 won, and 3:00,000 won, and 3:00,000 won, and 3:00,000 won, and 3:00,000 won, were about 2,000.

34. C: 35 E: He did not go to the 4th: He did not go to the 4th, which he did not go to the 4th, but did not go to the 4th, which he did not go to the 4th, which he did not go to the 4th, so far as he did not go to the 4th, the 4th, which he did not go to the 4th, and the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 5th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would go to the 5th, which he would go to the 4th, which he would not know.

I returned, and continued to do so: 50,000 won of 8:30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 3:00,000,000,000,000,000: 6:3:00,000,000,000,000,000,000: 6:0,000,0000,0000,0000: 6:0,0000,000,0000,000,000: 6:0,000,000,0000,000,000,000: 6:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000: 6:0,000,00,00.

64 C:65 E: there are internal responsibilities. It is so far as there is any error in the decision of the internal organ.** The indication is impossible to listen to.

A) In light of the fact that Defendant E had the right to drink to Defendant C in the middle of a dialogue (Records 27,30), Defendant C had the right to sleep on the part that Defendant E stated truely in the police (Records 62), etc., the above dialogue between Defendant C and the Defendant E is deemed to have been conducted in a normal atmosphere (the argument of Defendant E that Defendant C had expressed a different attitude from that of the peace in the course of a dialogue). The content of the conversation or the content of the conversation is difficult to accept).

Defendant E refers to what kind of statements were made by other related persons in police, and Defendant C responded to this. In particular, Defendant C was asked about whether Defendant C had made a statement at the police with respect to the instant crime (Records 49,57). Defendant E appears to have heard that Defendant E had a true statement from Defendant C with the police and expressed her sense of view. Defendant E did not participate in the instant crime. Defendant E did not appear to have been aware that Defendant E did not appear to have been engaged in the instant crime. Defendant E did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant E did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant E had been engaged in the instant crime. Defendant E did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant E did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant E did not participate in the instant crime. Defendant E did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant E had been aware of the fact that Defendant E had been engaged in the instant investigation from time to time in view of the relationship between Defendant E and the police. Defendant E, who was aware of the content of the instant investigation.

Defendant E refers to the information that is more than that of Defendant C, and Defendant E refers to: (i) as Defendant C mentioned in AG, AF, and AH that he was instructed by Defendant E to pass directly in connection with the FM flag; and (ii) the name of Defendant B is immediately the name of the other person; and (iii) as to the amount of the bribe in question, the amount of the bribe in question is KRW 20 million per non-party 1 (including record 6,7); and (iv) the amount of the bribe in question is KRW 59).

f) The response to Defendant C’s statement that Defendant C made a statement that he had received direct pass from Defendant E

Defendant E said that “and Defendant E said that he would make a good decision by making anyone whom he would in turn be given.” The meaning of “the part is less than .... this part....” appears to be indirectly expressed that, in the context before and after, Defendant E’s change of the statement about the part on which Defendant E stated that he was given a direct pass by the Defendant C, it appears that Defendant E reversed the statement and gave a good decision.

(G) Defendant E, at the latter end, said that Defendant E’s statement that “I would like to mislead the other party to make a decision on whether I would know about the situation.” (Records 65), and that Defendant E was aware of the crime of Defendant C in advance, and it appears that Defendant E appears to be an expression that the crime of this case was committed according to its judgment.

(3) The foregoing circumstances were the following circumstances: Defendant E’s attitude before and after the dialogue on February 5, 2013; the situation inferred through the conversation on February 5, 2013; and the atmosphere at the time of dialogue between Defendant C and Defendant E, which was confirmed as a result of the verification by this court, are the circumstances to confirm that Defendant E was involved in the instant crime.

D) Defendant E expressed that he was involved in the instant crime. In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, it can be seen that the instant crime was committed by Defendant E’s instruction.

ET, at the prosecutor’s office, decided that Defendant E was in the initial relationship with Defendant C, and that Defendant C was in the police. The same talked that Defendant C was “undefilledd Da,” and that “B would not have any problem until her.” (Article 924, No. 924, No. 10,726). In light of the relationship between Defendant E and ET, the speech from Defendant E is likely to be true. In light of the relationship between Defendant E and E, the speech from Defendant E is likely to be true. The contents of Defendant E’s speech are that Defendant C was involved only in the instant crime in the investigation agency and that Defendant E was not involved in the instant crime. In fact, Defendant C took part in the instant crime in the police police, and Defendant C did not take part in Defendant E’s participation in the instant crime.

2) It is difficult to understand that Defendant E does not have to perform an act as a matter of course as U as follows, and such factual relations also constitute a flexible circumstance in which Defendant E instructed the instant crime.

A) Defendant E was aware that the issue of FN tests pointed out through multiple routes was reported and did not take any measures, and Defendant E did not make any effort to identify the truth, such as ordering the audit even after the commencement of the investigation on September 2, 2012, with the knowledge of the commencement of the investigation.

(1) As seen earlier, Defendant E did not take any measures, such as ordering the audit and inspection prior to the FC’s decision on January 15, 2013, despite having received suspicions related to FN testing through various routes (CX, FB, and FC). As such, Defendant E did not take any action since the instant corruption was based on Defendant E’s instruction and did not want to have revealed the truth.

(2) On September 2, 2012, Defendant E asserts that consideration given to Defendant C, who had been at ordinary times, and how the case would be easily resolved if known to the outside. However, it is difficult to understand that Defendant E, as a matter of course, has taken measures to find out the truth in U in the situation where the Office of Education is doubtful, even if the investigation was conducted and the case was doubtful, it is difficult to understand that Defendant E did not take any measures.

B) Defendant E did not take any measure against the selection of the instant members of the examination committee, and impliedly approved Defendant E.

AJ has been selected as the chairperson of the FL and FMN screening system for two consecutive years, and since Defendant E also served as Defendant EN, it was problematic that the same person would be selected as the members of the examination committee for two consecutive years (the former DX also entered as the members of the examination committee for two consecutive years). However, it was pointed out that Defendant E did not point out any of the above matters (the former CX was entered as the members of the examination committee for two consecutive years). It can be deemed that Defendant E impliedly agreed on the selection of the members of the examination committee for the purpose of committing the instant crime.

3) Sub-determination

In light of such various circumstances, the fact that Defendant E instructed Defendant C to commit the instant crime can be acknowledged.

G. Defendant E’s counsel and other defense counsel

1) As to the assertion that Defendant E did not have any reason to gather election funds through the instant crime

Defendant E’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant E did not decide whether to close to the next U election at the time of the instant case, and that Defendant E’s election funds that were disbursed are preserved by the Election Commission under certain conditions. Thus, Defendant E’s defense counsel did not have any reason to block the instant crime in order to raise election funds.

그러나 이 법정에서 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고인 C의 진술에 의하면, 당초 이 사건 범행이 2014년 실시 예정인 U 선거를 위한 선거자금 마련 및 선거에 도움이 될 교사를 장학사로 선발하기 위하여 기획된 점, ② ET는 검찰에서, '(피고인 E이) 교육계 모든 행사를 출마에 맞추어 하였고, 지역별 학부모 모임에 참석하고 특강을 하는 것으로 알고 있고, 제게 "선거에 대비하여 교회나 종교단체에 계속 신경을 써줬으면 좋겠다"라는 말도 하였습니다. 그 외에도 수시로 제게 "내년 선거에 나올 예정이다. 유권자들에게 좋은 어필을 할 수 있는 정책이 있으면 내놔봐라"고 하였다'는 취지로 진술한 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,732면), ③ 피고인 E의 비서인 EF도 검찰에서, '(피고인 E이 선거에 대비하여) 열심히 행사에 참여하였는데, 내년 선거에 대비하여 공식적이건 사적이건 행사나 애경사에 열심히 참여하였다'는 취지로 진술한 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,876면), ④ 피고인 C이 피고인 E의 U 선거 준비를 위하여, 다수의 지역 행사를 주선한 것으로 보이는 점(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 10,907면 ~ 10,911면) 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 E은 이 사건 당시 2014년에 시행될 U 선거에 출마할 의사가 있었다고 보인다.

In addition, it is true that the Election Commission preserves the election fund in the requirement of a certain ratio of votes obtained, but in the form of ex post preservation, it is necessary to prepare the election fund in advance for the election campaign period; ② the election fund is to be preserved as a certain ratio of votes obtained; ② the election fund is not always able to be compensated as election expenses; ④ The election expenses can be compensated as election expenses by the Election Commission only within the limit of statutory election expenses limited to the election expenses that are reasonably paid within the limit of the amount limited; ④ As such, Defendant E obtained a large number of votes and obtained the election in the past, it does not need to prepare the election fund at the Election Commission, on the ground that Defendant E does not need to prepare the election fund.

Therefore, Defendant E’s defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected.

2) As to the assertion that using the money collected from the election fund as the purchase price of the land in this case goes against the common sense.

Defendant E’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant E’s statement is contrary to the common sense that Defendant C used the money that Defendant E received as the purchase price of the instant land for the purpose of the instant crime. Defendant C kept in custody the money that Defendant CZ received as the instant crime, but Defendant E offered that “the purchase of the instant land was made by the proposal of the purchase of the instant land and the sale of the instant land was made.” Defendant C’s statement on the process of the purchase of the land is consistent with the statement of Defendant C, and the statement of CZ is consistent with the statement of Defendant C.

In addition, there is a way to lend money by using real estate as collateral (C has been enough to do so from the court until the time of ‘the time of commencement', the location of the land of this case was good, and at any time when money is needed, Defendant E stated that Defendant E intended to purchase the land of this case since it can be loaned at any time). Defendant E cannot be deemed as going against the common sense to use the money collected as the purchase price for the land in order to use it as election funds.

Furthermore, Defendant E loaned the amount of KRW 200 million which was previously stored in CZ, and only stated that Defendant E created the right to collateral security within the limit of KRW 200 million with respect to the instant land. However, although Defendant E could have confirmed whether the amount of KRW 200 million loaned to CZ was returned or the right to collateral security was established within the limit of KRW 200 million with respect to the instant land without Defendant E’s instruction, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have established the right to collateral security with a maximum amount of KRW 650 million with respect to the instant land, on the ground that it is difficult to view that Defendant E purchased the instant land and made Defendant C establish the right to collateral security with a maximum amount of KRW 650 million with respect to the instant land without Defendant E’s instruction.

3) As to the assertion that Defendant C artificially produced evidence, Defendant E’s defense counsel stated that the place in which Defendant C paid KRW 80 million to Defendant C through EF was installed, and that Defendant C received money from the office of education due to the recording of the CCTV in order to cover the name of Defendant E. However, Defendant C received money from the office of education due to the recording of the CCTV in order to collect KRW 80,000,000,000 from the office of education. However, Defendant C’s defense counsel stated that it was 80,000,000,000 from the front door of the Office of Education, and that it was difficult for the investigation agency to obtain money from Defendant C to receive KRW 80,000,000,000 from the front door, and again, Defendant C did not know at any time when it appears to have been delivered to Defendant C’s defense counsel at any time, and that it was difficult for Defendant C’s office of education to receive the evidence by means of video recording of KRW 80,000,0000,00,0000.

H. Conclusion

Therefore, according to each evidence of the judgment, the facts charged that Defendant E disclosed the FN test and received a bribe in collusion with Defendant A and C, who is another accomplice, are fully convicted.

2. Determination on Defendant F and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that Defendant F was released from the examination issue by Defendant A through Q, and there is no fact that Defendant F paid money to A in return.

B. Determination on the credibility of Defendant A and C Q’s statements

Defendant A and Q made a statement as direct evidence consistent with the facts charged, and this article examines the credibility of Defendant A and Q’s statements.

1) Defendant A’s statement

가) 검찰진술 'C 장학사가 지역 사회에서의 활동, 지역 사람과의 유대관계 등 선거에 활용할 수 있는 사람을 추천해달라고 하여 CQ과 F을 추천하였습니다. CQ은 고등학교, 대학교 직속 후배이고, 충분한 합격능력을 갖추고 있어서 제가 아꼈던 후배이며, 선생님들과 지역에서 신망이 두터웠기 때문에 추천하였습니다. 그리고 F은 고등학교 친구이기도 하고 FN에 여러 차례 응시하여 충분한 능력을 갖추고 있었습니다. 그렇지만 F의 활동영역을 자세히 몰라서 외부지역 사회와의 접촉이나 활동내역, FS 활동내역, 선생님들과 모임에서 총무나 회장을 맡고 있는지 등을 프로필에 쓰라고 하였습니다. 메일로 CQ과 F에게 양식을 보내주면서 작성하라고 하였고, CQ과 F이 프로필을 작성하여 다시 제게 메일로 보내왔습니다. 그리고 당시 AB으로부터 CS, DJ의 프로필도 메일로 받았고, CQ에게 F의 프로필을 참고하라고 보내주기도 하였습니다. 이후 CQ, F, CS, DJ 프로필을 출력하여 C에게 전달해 주었더니, C이 윗선에서 승낙하면 다시 연락해주겠다고 하였고, 10여 일 정도 지난 후 C 장학사가 위에서 허락하였다고 추진하라고 하였습니다. CQ과 F 모두에게, 위에 어필하려면 너에 대한 신상을 그쪽으로 알려 드려야 하니까 지역사회에서의 활동을 자세히 잘 쓰라고 하였습니다. 그리고 시험이 끝난 후인지 돈을 받을 무렵인지, CQ과 F에게 "은혜에 보답하려면 선거 때 E을 열심히, 최대한 도와드려라. 지역사회에서 선생님과 지역사람들과의 관계를 잘해 놓아라"고 위에서 내려온 이야기를 전달하기도 하였습니다. 제가 F의 프로필을 소속, 성명 등을 삭제하고 (CQ에게) 보내 준 것입니다. 당시에는 CQ에게도 누구에게 프로필을 받는지 비밀로 해야 해서 F의 소속과 이름을 삭제하고 보내준 것입니다. 2011. 11. 10.경 대학수학능력 시험이 있었고, 제가 서산중앙고에서 수능 감독관으로 들어갔는데, 감독 업무가 언제 끝날지 몰라서 CQ을 서산중앙고로 오라고 하였고, 저녁 시간 무렵에 CQ이 서산중앙고로 찾아왔기에 논술문제를 주면서 어디에 가 있을 거냐고 물었더니 CR중학교에 가 있겠다고 하였습니다. 그래서 F에게 CR중학교로 찾아가 CQ 선생을 만나서 문제를 받아 가라고 하였고, CQ에게는 누가 찾아갈 것이니 문제를 복사해 주라고 하였습니다. (FO 문제를 CQ을 통하여 F에게 준 이유는) 제가 두 사람 모두 추천한 상태이고, 두 사람에게 도움을 주어야 하였기 때문에 서로 알고 지내면서 같이 공부했으면 하는 마음도 있었고, 그리고 F이 천안에서 서산까지 찾아오는 것이 너무 거리가 멀고, 제가 수능 감독의 업무가 언제 끝날지 몰랐기 때문에 CQ에게 맡겨둘 테니 받아가라고 한 것입니다. 제가 CQ에게 어디서 공부하는지를 물어보고 (F에게) 이야기해주었습니다. (F이 CQ에게 찾아가 면접문제를 받아간 이유는) 논술문제도 CQ에게 받아가라고 했기 때문에 F에게 연락하여 면접문제도 CQ을 찾아가서 받아가라고 하였습니다. (F에게서 논술 및 면접 평가문제를 제공한 대가로) 5만 원권 현금으로 2,000만 원을 받았습니다. 추천할 무렵에 돈을 미리 준비해 두라는 이야기가 있었고, 자기 계좌에서 돈을 뽑지 말라고 강조했기 때문에 당시 F에게 돈을 받을 때 돈을 어디서 뽑았느냐고 물어보았던 것으로 기억합니다. F이 와이프가 천안시 FI에 있는 아파트 1층에 있는 어린이집인가 무슨 사업을 한다고 하면서, 통장에서 뽑았다는 이야기는 없었고 와이프가 한다는 그 사업과 연계해서 돈을 마련하였다는 것으로 들었기 때문에 F의 처가 FI에서 사업을 할 무렵이나 그 이후에 받았을 것 같습니다(2013년 형제 17049호 증거목록 순번 98).'

B) Legal statement

(AB과 함께 C로부터 선거에 도움이 될 만한 사람 중에서 FN전형에 합격시킬 만한 부정응시자들을 추천하고, 그들로부터 그 대가로 돈을 받아 선거자금을 마련하자는 말을 들은 사실이) 있습니다. 저는 F, CQ을, AB은 CS, DJ을 추천하고, 저와 AB은 이들로부터 FN 응시횟수, 주요경력, 지역사회연계 교육활동 등이 기재된 프로필을 받아 C에게 건네주었습니다. (프로필) 항목은 C 장학사가 주었고 양식은 제가 만들었습니다. 이후 피고인 E에게 저와 AB이 추천한 부정응시자들을 합격시키겠다고 보고하고 승낙을 받은 C이 저와 AB에게 피고인 E으로부터 승낙받은 사실을 알려주었습니다. 피고인 F을 알고 있고, 고등학교 동창입니다. 피고인 F과는 자주 연락하는 사이는 아닙니다. (피고인 F을 추천하게 된 이유는) 주변에서 F 장학사가 똘똘하고 학교 내에서도 여러 선생님과 융합도 잘한다는 이야기를 들었고, 고등학교 동기라는 것도 조금은 작용했습니다. (피고인 F에게 프로필을 작성하도록 한 사실이) 있습니다. F으로부터 작성된 프로필을 받아, 그 프로필을 피고인 C에게 건네주었습니다. 2011. 7.경 피고인 F에게 FN에 합격하려면 낙점을 받아야 한다면서 윗분들에게 너를 어필할 필요가 있는데, 2,000만 원 정도가 필요하다고 말하였습니다. 2011. 11. 10.경 피고인 F에게 전화하여, CR중학교 체육관 사무실에 가면 CQ이 있을 텐데, CQ으로부터 FO 문제를 받아가라고 말하였습니다. CQ은 당시 F에게 FO 문제를 전달하였다고 하였습니다. 정확한 날짜 기억은 없습니다마는 그때가 수학능력시험이 있을 때입니다. 그때 제가 서산중앙고등학교 감독관으로 갔을 때이고, 그쪽으로 오라고 해서 (CQ에게 FO 문제를) 전달했습니다. 2011. 11. 하순경 F에게 전화하여 FO 때와 같이 CR중학교 CQ으로부터 FP 문제를 받아가라고 말하였습니다. CQ은 당시 F에게 FP 문제를 전달하였다고 하였습니다. 대전 방향으로 대전 · 당진간 고속도로 면천 임시 휴게소에서 (CQ에게 FP 문제를) 전달했습니다. (F에게 문제를 알려주는 대가로) 제 기억으로는 12.경에 공주대 주차장에서 2,000만 원을 받은 것 같습니다.'

2) Statement of Q Q

가) 검찰진술 '(A로부터 프로필을 작성하라는 이야기를 전해 들을 때 특히 6번 항목, 지역 사회에서의 활동, 지역사람과의 유대관계 등을 자세히 쓰라는 말과 나중에 U 선거에서 E을 열심히 도와드리라는 말을) 전해 들었습니다. (A로부터 참고하라고 받은 소속과 성명 등이 공란으로 된 프로필을 제출하면서) 소속과 성명이 공란으로 된 채로 A이 참고하라고 보내준 것이라 누구의 것인지는 모르겠습니다. A이 참고하라고 하여 보내 주었기에 이를 참고 해서 작성한 후 제 프로필을 A에게 메일로 보내주었습니다. A로부터 논술 평가 문제를 받아 왔던 저녁 8시 무렵, 깜깜할 때 F이 찾아왔었습니다. CR중학교 체육관 사무실에서 공부하고 있는데, F 선생이 찾아왔습니다. A 장학사가 천안에서 누가 찾아올 것이라고 하면서 오면 문제를 복사해 주라고 하였기 때문에 교무실에 가서 미리 문제를 복사해 두었는데 F 선생이 제가 공부하는 체육관 사무실로 찾아왔기에 A로부터 받은 6문제를 복사해둔 것을 그대로 전해 주었습니다. 아마 A 장학사가 제가 체육관 사무실에서 공부하고 있다는 이야기를 해주었기 때문에 직접 제가 공부하고 있는 곳으로 찾아온 것 같습니다. 2011. 11.말경 오후 늦은 시간에 A 장학사로부터 전화가 와서 공주에 가는 길이라고 하면서 만나자고 하여 면천휴게소에서 만나서 면접 문제 3문제가 기재된 A4용지를 건네받았습니다. 제가 A 장학사에게 면접문제를 받은 날 저녁 시간에 F 선생이 CR 중학교에 있는 체육관 사무실로 찾아왔기에 A에게 받은 3문제를 복사해서 주었습니다(2013년 형제 17049호 증거목록 순번 98).'

B) Legal statement

It was true that the FO and FP issues were delivered to F. It was not known to F. It was the first time to deliver FO and FP issues. It was not known to F. It was prepared by F. It was known from A that it was to be referred to A at the time of preparation of the protocol, but it was known by another person. It was known that the program sent to A for reference during the investigation process is Defendant F. It was F. It was at the Busan Central High School parking lot around November 10, 201, and the issue was F06 from A. It was known to Defendant F. It was notified by CFO's office to Defendant 10 if it was known to Defendant 1 F. It was at the end to Defendant 2, 100.

3) Determination

Defendant A and Q consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that the FLN test was leaked to Defendant F, and there is no special circumstance or motive to deem that Defendant A and Q made a false statement in order to gather Defendant A and Defendant F despite their criminal liability, despite the fact that Defendant A and Q could not be responsible for their criminal liability. In addition, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the credibility of Defendant A and Q’s statements can be acknowledged.

① Defendant A stated that Defendant A received protograms containing the FN application frequency, performance, career, and relationship with local society from Defendant F, and delivered them to Defendant C. Defendant C also received protograms from Defendant F and delivered them to Defendant E. As such, Defendant A’s statement consistent with Defendant A’s statement (Evidence No. 17049, 2,286, 287, 2,317, 2,318, 2,318, 2,318).

② Defendant A asked Q to prepare a protocol, and stated that he deleted his affiliation, name, etc. from the protocol received from Defendant F and sent it to Q for reference (Evidence No. 17049 of 2013 to No. 2,318 to No. 2,319 of 2013). The content of the protocol that Defendant C Q received as reference from Defendant A is consistent with Defendant F’s activities (Evidence No. 17049 of 2013, No. 2,320 of 320 of 30, and Defendant F’s legal statement).

③ Defendant A, at the prosecution, testified to the effect that “the Defendant F’s wife provided money in connection with the child care center business on the first floor of the apartment in 2013 FI” (Evidence No. 17049, No. 17049, No. 2325) and the actual Defendant F’s wife tried to open the child care center around December 201 (Defendant F’s legal statement).

4) Defendant C made a statement that Defendant A received KRW 36 million from the illegal applicants on January 2012 in return for the outflow of problem (as evidence No. 17049 of 2013, 2013) and Defendant A received KRW 36 million of the total amount stated by Defendant C Q (16 million) and Defendant F (20 million).

C. Defendant F’s counsel or other legal counsel

1) As to the assertion that Defendant F did not have any reason to accept the proposal for the leakage of the problem, Defendant F’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant F’s Defendant F’s Defendant F’s Defendant F’s Defendant F’s practical capabilities had been exceeded since FN was prepared for about seven years and Defendant FFN was passed two times before passing the FN examination in the FL period of the FV Qu year, and that Defendant F’s Defendant F’s consent to the proposal that Defendant F will leak the problem of examination.

However, Defendant A does not merely mean that he will leak the examination problem, but it is necessary for Defendant A to take a width on the upper part while passing the FN test to the effect that “the degree of KRW 20 million is required.” Thus, Defendant A’s aforementioned assertion by Defendant F’s attorney cannot be accepted in light of the fact that Defendant F’s defense counsel could not pass the FN test if it appears that he would not pass the test even if he was a trainee who prepared to pass the test for a long time, separate from his ability and ability to pass the test.

2) As to the assertion that there is doubt that only Defendant F and Q’s protocol exists is doubtful, Defendant F’s defense counsel asserts that, in light of the fact that only C and Defendant F’s protocol among Defendant F and F were confirmed, Defendant F’s defense counsel asserted that Defendant F and Q submitted Defendant F’s protocol, it is doubtful whether Defendant C and C were written out by the illegal applicants, such as Defendant C and C’s statement. Therefore, it is difficult to view C and Q as evidence to acknowledge Defendant F’s guilt.

However, in light of the fact that the police did not prepare and inform the AB of one of the applicants for the FL-based illegal examination, the AB stated to the effect that the AB made the data to be distributed to the upper line by asking whether it would be available to the AB (Evidence No. 17049, No. 17049, No. 1288, No. 289, No. 201, No. 1289, No. 201, No. 2013), it appears that the AB directly prepared the protocol of the CS, and that there was the propy of other illegal applicants than C Q and Defendant F, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the assertion of Defendant F’s defense counsel on the different premise.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, according to each evidence of the judgment below, Defendant F was found guilty of the facts charged that Defendant F was released from the FLN test writing and interview issue by Defendant F through C Q and that Defendant F offered KRW 20 million in return for the outflow of problem to Defendant F. Thus, Defendant F and the defense counsel’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months to 22 years and 6 months;

[Basic Crimes] Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Acceptance of Bribery, and Demand for Bribery

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 5 (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500 million) / Special mitigation element

In case where the degree of participation and the actual amount of profit are minor: Defendant A’s defense counsel does not have any profit actually acquired through the bribe of this case, and Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that the degree of participation should be determined to be minor when based on Defendant E, the core proposer of the crime of this case, and that the above special mitigation element should be applied.

However, Defendant A is not subject to the said special mitigation since the degree of participation cannot be said to be minor, by directly participating in the commission of the instant crime by divulging the problem directly to many applicants for the FN test, receiving a bribe, etc.

○ The defense counsel of the defendant A asserts that the defendant A voluntarily surrendered to the investigation agency about the crime of bribery against the FL and that the special mitigation factor should be applied even if he voluntarily surrenders to some of the crimes of bribery against the entire crime of bribery.

However, the above special mitigation factor is not applicable in light of the fact that the sum of the sum of the bribe amounts (275 million won) of the crime of bribery to FM flag, which Defendant A voluntarily surrenders to an investigation agency, exceeds KRW 100 million, which is the standard for the application of the type 5 of the crime of bribery to FL flag, solely based on the fact that the sum of the total sum of the bribe amounts (76 million won) of the crime of bribery to FM flag, excluding the sum of

Special Aggravations

○ Impropers Related to Acceptance of Bribery: Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that the application of the above sentencing elements is unreasonable insofar as Defendant A was prosecuted only for committing a crime of acceptance of bribe.

However, in light of the fact that the above special key factor in the sentencing guidelines does not apply to the case where the above special key factor is charged for a simple crime of bribery, and that Defendant A can be deemed to have committed an illegal act by divulging examination questions to the bribe offerer.

Aggravated factor shall apply.

[Special Person] Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribe and aggressive Demand

[General Mitigation] If the degree of participation or the actual amount of profit is minor, it shall not be true

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months to 18 years (the area of special aggravation of Type 5), 9 to 18 years, shall apply. However, in the case where the most serious type of a single crime is higher than that of the most serious one as a result of summing up according to the method of dealing with the same concurrent crimes, the minimum of the sentence range shall be reduced by 1/2) [the minimum of the sentence range shall be reduced by 1/2] (the crime of obstruction of execution of deceptive acts due to leakage of problems against BD and BY

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, and Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means) Special Aggravations

○ Concurrent Crimes, not concurrent crimes: A prosecutor presented a written opinion on the sentencing criteria on the premise that the above special aggravation factor is applied, but in light of the fact that it is not concurrent crimes but concurrent crimes, it shall be excluded from concurrent crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties. In this case, several deceptive schemes are prosecuted for concurrent crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the above special aggravation factor is not applicable.

Special Mitigation Elements

○ The prosecutor presented a written opinion on the sentencing guidelines on the premise that the above special mitigation factor is applied to the prosecutor, but the defendant A only voluntarily surrenders to the crimes related to the FL period. As such, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the FMF which did not voluntarily surrenders should be selected as concurrent crimes in handling multiple crimes, so the above special mitigation factor is not applicable.

[Special Person] Where the degree of interference with official duties is serious

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, one year to three years

[Multiple Crime Processing Criteria] From June to June 20 years of imprisonment: (i) 3 years of imprisonment + 3 years + 3 years X1/2 + 3 years + 1/3 years 】 3 years of fine; (ii) the Defendant was aware of the substance as a public educational official; (iii) the Defendant was actively involved in the commission of the instant crime by taking advantage of the fact that he was involved in the instant crime by taking advantage of the fact that he was aware of the substance as a public educational official; (iv) the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was involved in the FN examination; and (v) the Defendant was actively involved in the commission of the instant crime by taking advantage of the fact that he infringed the fairness of personnel affairs; and (v) caused the general public to feel the entire educational community

However, considering the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, surrenders himself to the investigation agency for the crime related to the FL, there is no penalty heavier than fines, there is no profit acquired individually by the crime of this case, there is no profit acquired by the defendant as a public educational official, and the defendant works faithfully as a public educational official, the lower limit of the range of sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines shall be set as the order.

2. Defendant B

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months [Basic Crimes] The obstruction of performance of justice by fraudulent means

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, and Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means)

[Special Person] Where the degree of interference with official duties is serious

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, one year to three years

[Concurrent Crimes] Bribery

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Bribery, or 1 type (special mitigation factors) below 30 million won, a case where a bribe recipient complies with the affirmative demand of the bribe recipient.

[Special Aggravations] Where the contents of solicitation are illegal or illegal in the course of business.

[General Mitigation Elements] No history of criminal punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from April to October

[Multiple Crime Criteria] Imprisonment from 1 to 3 years (=3 years + 10x1/2)

[Determination of Sentence] One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution

Considering the fact that the Defendant received the FN test issue and issued a large amount of bribe in return, thereby infringing on the fairness of the FN test system, causing the general public to infer about the overall education community, and the Defendant again received money from a third party, the Defendant’s criminal liability is not less than that of the Defendant.

However, it is not easy for the defendant to refuse to make a proposal that he will leak the examination issue as an applicant for FN examination. Although the defendant first denies his criminal act in an investigative agency, the defendant recognized all of his criminal acts after the fact that he did not have any specific criminal history, etc., he shall determine the punishment as ordered by the order in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no specific criminal history.

3. Defendant C.

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months to 22 years and 6 months;

[Basic Crimes] Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Acceptance of Bribery, and Demand for Bribery

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 5 (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500,000)

【Special Exploitator subject to Multi-Disputes】 Special mitigation factors

In case where the degree of participation and the actual amount of profit are minor: Defendant C’s defense counsel does not have any benefits that Defendant C actually acquired by committing the instant bribe, and the degree of participation should be determined that the degree of participation is less exceptionally when based on Defendant E by the core conspiracy of the instant crime. As such, Defendant C’s defense counsel asserts that the said special mitigation element should be applied.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant C, either directly or through delivery of Defendant E’s instructions to Defendant A, D, or AB, leaked problems to applicants for FN examination, participated in the execution of the instant crime by receiving a bribe, etc., and participated in the custody of a bribe received, etc., the degree of participation cannot be deemed minor. Accordingly, the foregoing special mitigation element is not applicable.

Special Aggravations

○ Improper Action Related to Acceptance of Bribery: The judgment of the defendant A prior to the foregoing.

○○ affirmative demand: Defendant C’s defense counsel is related to this case’s long-term structural corruption, and the applicants were aware of most of them, and thus, Defendant C’s defense counsel should not be subject to such special aggravation.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant C and AB, upon receiving instructions from Defendant C, have contacted most applicants first, proposed the leakage of the examination problem and demanded the consideration, the above special provisional suit shall be applied.

[Special Mitigation] Self-denunciation

[Special Person] Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribe and aggressive Demand

[General Mitigation] If the degree of participation or the actual amount of profit is minor, it shall not be true

[Scope of Recommendation] From 4 years and 6 months to 12 years (at least 9 years to 12 years of imprisonment, which is the subject of the aggravated punishment of Type 5, and at least 2 stages of a single crime as a result of summing up according to the method of treating identical concurrent crimes, the minimum range of sentence shall be reduced by 1/2) [the minimum range of sentence shall be reduced by 1/2] BD and BY problems leakage

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, and Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means) Special Aggravations

○ Cumulative crimes, other than concurrent crimes: The same shall apply to the judgment of Defendant A prior to the aforesaid crimes.

[Special Mitigation] Self-denunciation

[Special Person] Where the degree of interference with official duties is serious

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] 16 Aggravated Punishment, 1 year to 3 years

[Multiple Crime Criteria] From June to June 14, 4 years: (i) imprisonment of 4 years to 12 years (12 years + 3 years + 1/2+3 years x 1/3) [Pronouncement Decision] 3 years to be sentenced ] imprisonment with prison labor; (ii) a fine of 30,00,000 won to be a public educational official; (iii) the Defendant was aware of the principal portion of the Defendant as a public educational official; (iv) the Defendant leaked the problem to the FN examination applicants by directly or by delivering E instructions to A, D, and AB; and (v) the Defendant actively participated in the commission of the instant crime by receiving a bribe, thereby infringing on the fairness of personnel affairs; and (v) caused the general public to feel satisfy the entire educational community.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency and actively cooperate in the investigation, and that the defendant is in violation of his mistake, that the defendant, a school inspector, seems to have been practically unable to refuse U's instruction, that the defendant has no record of fine or heavier punishment, that the defendant does not have any profit acquired by himself from the crime of this case, etc., the lower limit of the range of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines shall be set as the order.

4. Defendant D

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years and six months (basic crimes and concurrent crimes 1, 2] AG, BD, and BY crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means due to leakage of problems against AG, BD, and BY

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, and Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means) / Special Mitigation Elements

○ The number of self-denunciation: Defendant D only voluntarily surrenders to the crimes related to FL, and as such, Defendant A was determined in the preceding part of the judgment.

Special Aggravations

○ Cumulative crimes, other than concurrent crimes: The same shall apply to the judgment of Defendant A prior to the aforesaid crimes.

[Special Person] Where the degree of interference with official duties is serious

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, one year to three years

[Multiple Crimes Criteria] One year to five years of imprisonment (=three years + three years + 1/2+3 years x 1/3)

[Determination of Sentence] Two years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution

In light of the fact that the Defendant, as a bachelor of EN, played a key role in the process of leakage of a problem in FN examination, thereby infringing on fairness in personnel affairs, and causing the general public to feel in the whole education community, the Defendant’s quality of crime is not weak.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant has violated his/her wrongness, surrenders himself/herself to an investigation agency for a crime related to the FL, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and does not participate in the crime of bribery, etc., the punishment like the order shall be determined.

5. Defendant E

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 5 years to 45 years

[Basic Crimes] Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Acceptance of Bribery, and Demand for Bribery

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 5 (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500,000)

[Special Person in Charge of Acceptance] Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribery, aggressive Demand, and Teachers to Orderer

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[A public official of Grade III or higher in general]

[Scope of Recommendation] From 4 years and 6 months to 18 years (at least 9 years to 18 years of imprisonment, which is a special aggravation of Type 5, and at least 2 stages of a single crime as a result of adding up the most serious amounts of concurrent treatment, the minimum range of sentence shall be reduced by 1/2) [the minimum range of sentence shall be reduced by 1/2] BD and BY problems leakage

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means)

-special persons;

○ Cumulative crimes, other than concurrent crimes: The same shall apply to the judgment of Defendant A prior to the aforesaid crimes.

[Special Person] When the degree of interference with official duties is serious, the teacher for the person under command.

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Aggravation, Imprisonment from one year to four years from June

[Multiple Crime Criteria] Imprisonment from 5 to 21 years (=3 years + + 18 years + 6. X1/2 + 46. X 1/3, however, the lower limit is set at the lower limit of applicable sentences under the law)

[Pronouncement of Punishment] 8 years of imprisonment, fine 200,000 won

피고인은 FJ으로서 일반인이나 다른 공직자보다도 훨씬 높은 도덕성과 청렴성을 가져야 함에도 FN 시험에 응시한 교사들의 조급한 상황을 이용하여 거액의 뇌물을 수수하여 직무의 염결성(廉潔性)을 해쳤고, 이 때문에 교육계의 위상과 권위를 실추시킨 점에서 그 죄질이 매우 좋지 않다. 특히 이 사건 범행은 FN 시험 문제 유출의 대가로 돈을 수수하는 등 사실상 장학사직을 매관매직하여 개인적 이익을 추구한 행위로서, 우리 사회가 교육계에 대하여 요구하는 높은 도덕성과 청렴성에 비추어 매우 중대한 범죄행위이다. 또한, 피고인은 이 사건에 대한 수사가 개시된 이후, 수사정보를 빼내어 공범들에게 증거인멸을 지시하거나, 수사 대상자들에게 진술을 번복할 것을 요구하는 등 범행 이후의 정상도 좋지 않다. 그럼에도 피고인은 이 사건 공판과정에서 자신의 잘못을 반성하기는커녕 자신의 지시로 이 사건 범행에 가담한 다른 피고인들에게 책임을 전가하고 있다. 따라서 피고인에 대하여 그 책임에 상응하는 엄정한 처벌이 불가피하다고 보인다.

However, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no particular criminal history and has served for a long time as a public educational official.

6. Defendant F

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months [Basic Crimes] The obstruction of performance of justice by fraudulent means

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, and Type 2 (Obstruction of Fraudulent Means)

[Special Person] Where the degree of interference with official duties is serious

[General Mitigation] No criminal record

[General Persons] A planned crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, one year to three years

[Concurrent Crimes] Bribery

[Determination of Type] Bribery, Bribery, and Type 1 (less than KRW 30 million)

[Special Mitigation Elements] If the consignee complies with the affirmative demand

[Special Aggravations] Where the contents of solicitation are illegal or illegal in the course of business.

[General Mitigation Elements] No history of criminal punishment

【General Aggravations】 Business Relations

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from April to October

[Multiple Crime Criteria] Imprisonment from one year to three years (=three years + x 1/2 October)

[Decision of Sentence] One year and three months of imprisonment, considering the fact that the defendant passed the FN test and delivered a bribe in return, thereby infringing the fairness of the test and causing the general public to feel in the whole area of education, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, under the circumstances where the defendant applied for the FN examination for several years, but failed to pass the examination, it seems not easy to refuse the proposal to overcome the examination problem, the defendant seems to have any particular criminal punishment history, and the fact that he/she has faithfully worked as a public educational official shall be determined by the sentence like the order in consideration of favorable circumstances.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges of the presiding judge and assistant judges

Judges Hongnn

Judges Cho Jeon-soo

1) Although FN was conducted in the FQ year, FN type was promoted as FN type in consideration of the fact that it was scheduled to be employed in FR.

2) The facts charged are the accomplice of the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means, and described in AI, AJ, AK (Question makers and examiners);

Since there is room for dispute over the facts of the crime, the above people's deletion in relation to the accomplice and the facts of the charge related thereto.

The content of division of roles of case-related persons is deleted.

(iii) the members preparing questions and setting questions to persons who can lead them to refrain from pre-disclosure in real evaluation;

The meaning of the proposal for the selection of members

4) In the indictment, except for the case where Defendant B applied for the examination after leakage of examination questions, BW from Defendant B

The fact that the examination was taken by leakage of the problem is also stated, and the facts about the above facts during the 12th trial are also stated.

To the name of the full bench, the prosecutor answers that only the part of the examination taken by the defendant B out of the problem is prosecuted.

As such, the BW-related parts are deleted and recognized as above.

5) According to the respective statements of BH and Defendant A (Evidence 8,558 pages, 10,371 pages, 2013)

Since it can be recognized that the delivery of 20 million won to CE sending this kind of name is made ex officio, the above change is made.

and recognized by the court.

6) In the facts charged, CF, CG, CH, CI, and AI (Question makers and members) as accomplices for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Although the above people are written, there is room to dispute the facts of the crime, so they are deleted in relation to accomplices and related thereto.

Of the facts charged, ‘the role sharing of the persons involved in the case' is deleted.

7) FK’s integrated support service network to support students’ school life in connection with local communities of schools and offices of education (science)

FKK in the school, FK in the district office of education, FK in the City/Do office of education, and FK in the course of operation in the City/Do office of education).

In order to reflect the outstanding performance of life guidance by a private person, FK Department is included in FN type.

8) BK is not clear at the police, but at the time of memory based on its monetary content, Defendant A around August 17, 2012, and around August 17:30.

에게 2,000만 원을 건넸던 것으로 기억합니다'라고 진술하였으나(2013년 형제9924호 증거기록 8,919

Myeon) Defendant A: (a) since July 27, 2012, the interview issue that was changed to BK on July 27, 2012, Defendant A, starting from July 28, 2012 to August 2012

13. up to July 28, 2012, the fact that the currency details are confirmed several times between Defendant A and BK (C 1, July 28, 2012, July 2012).

29. Character1, 20. 7. 30. 7. 30. 2, 2012. 3, 3 times in currency, 1. July 31, 2012, 3. 8. 8. 3 times in currency, 2012;

8.12. 12. Currency, August 13, 2012, and August 13, 2012, Defendant A, at around 13:39, on August 12, 2012, in the valley of the East Sea.

At the center of the branch office, Defendant C was called to Defendant C, and Defendant A and Defendant C from August 13, 2012 to August 16, 2012

The details of telephone conversations between the Ulledo are confirmed, and the defendant C is together with the family of the defendant at the time of domination.

The statement that there exists a fact between Ulledo (Evidence No. 9924 of 2013, Evidence No. 11,085, Witness C testimony), Defendant

A Taking into account that the delivery to CZ of KRW 10 million on August 9, 2012, and KRW 50 million on August 10, 2012, KRW 201,000,000,000,000,000 to B

The time of granting KRW 20 million to Defendant A is highly likely to be prior to August 10, 2012.

9) AB delivers 35 million won its financing to the CZ in advance through the Defendant, and thereafter, from the applicants:

Since a bribe of KRW 50 million received was stored or consumed, the total amount of the bribe delivered by the Defendant A to CZ (200 million)

The total amount of bribe received (275 million won) as stated in the written indictment has a difference between 60 million won and 15 million won.

It seems that it appears that it is.

10) Defendant C’s statement that he was present at this court on February 5, 2013 and that he was aware of his self-denunciation to Defendant E.

However, February 5, 2013 seems to be a statement by mistake because it is necessary to do so.

11) Evidence No. 9924 of 2013 and evidence records 10,843

12) Defendant C knows that with respect to U election, many '(U election) voiced money is entered.'

L. L. E (Defendant E) in the U.S. election in 2010, for one example, has the accumulated money.

It is also true that we have the test and personally hold the public order, and that it is not the official money.

The testimony of the witness C was stated (the testimony of the witness C).

13) Telecommunications supports Defendant E in the previous U election before FH, but recently Defendant E and FH in the past.

FH U to support a person other than Defendant E in the following U election:

The Defendant C also made a statement to the effect that it was “C,” and submitted it to the prosecution (the punishment of 2013).

Evidence of heading 924 10,730, 10,906)

14) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of demand for bribe constitute identical concurrent crimes.

In case of physical crimes, the type of money shall be determined by adding the amount of bribe according to the special rule of processing standards for multiple crimes.

15) Although the case is considered as a special mitigation factor in the requirement commitment in the sentencing guidelines for bribe crimes, the crime of demanding bribe in its holding.

The sum of the values of the required bribe 20 million won and the amount of the bribe received as excluding 20 million won is the acceptance of bribe 5

Since the minimum amount of KRW 100 million exceeds the minimum amount of KRW 100 million, it shall not be considered as a special mitigation factor separately.

16) Special mitigation is an element of conduct and a special mitigation factor is an element of conduct, so an addition is made by taking into account the person who committed the conduct more seriously.

It was selected in the territory.