2018 Highest 887 Meritoriouss, Misappropriations, Improper Solicitations and Money and Other Valuabless Prohibited

Violation of Korean law

A (63 - 1) and journalists

August 9, 2018

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant is a master inspection by the director general of the editing bureau of the ○○○○○ newspaper (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○ new text”) located in the following cities established around March 2009.

(a) Collaboration;

1) On September 2009, the Defendant continuously published a slandered article such as ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”)’s waste disposal business for the purpose of waste disposal business, etc., which is located in the city of Basan, on the newspaper, and continuously released the article to ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○”). Accordingly, upon the request of the ○○○ representative director, the Defendant continued to release the article to ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the ○○○”). On the other hand, the Defendant’s complaint was made to ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the ○○”)’s waste disposal business against sewage sludge, and the Defendant’s complaint was made on the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 3th day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day.

At the time of ○○, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy had been making efforts to obtain the certification of excellent recycled products (GR mark certification) for the 'high freight for the restoration of waste stone acid' from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and it was still the period for which ○○ had been making efforts to obtain the certification of excellent recycled products (GR mark certification). If the above slandered articles are continuously reported, the certification of the GR mark was in a crisis for which the

Therefore, the above B demanded C, who is a director of ○○, to contact the defendant and suspend the above report of slandered articles, and the above C demanded the defendant to suspend the above report of slandered articles around that time.

The Defendant, from May to June 2012, to around 3, 2012, the amount of KRW 30 million is required as office operation expenses, etc., and the Defendant demanded money under the condition of slandering news articles to the effect that “...” provided the same attitude to repeatedly report the maliciously slandered news articles about ○○, unless he knows gold articles.

B listen to the requirements of the Defendant through C, and if the Defendant does not receive money, B repeatedly reports the article of maliciously slandering against the above ○○○○, without giving money and valuables to the Defendant, and instruct C to deliver KRW 30 million to the Defendant, “C,” and accordingly C, around June 2012, issued KRW 30 million in cash to the Defendant in the vicinity of the mutual influent restaurant located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

As a result, the Defendant, using the position and status of the Director-General of the Editorial Office in the media, posted or posted maliciously slandered articles in accordance with the ○○○○, and then received KRW 30 million from the victim by threatening the victim B.

2) The Defendant continuously posted an article of slandering the Defendant’s place of business ○○○○ newspaper prior to the 2013 anniversary of the 2013 anniversary of the 2013 anniversary of the 2013 anniversary of the 2013 drilling.

Therefore, the victim B again demanded C to contact the defendant and suspend the above reporting of the unconstitutional news, and C around that time, after finding the above ○○○○ newspaper, the defendant met the defendant, and then demanded C to suspend the above reporting of the unconstitutional news articles.

Accordingly, the Defendant requested C to provide money and valuables on the condition that she would not be able to give up wages to employees, and there is a need to provide 500 to 60 million won. Inasmuch as she did not provide money and valuables, the Defendant did not repeatedly report maliciously slandered articles about ○○.

The injured party listens to the requirements of the accused through C, and if the accused does not receive money and valuables, repeatedly reports the article of malicious slandering to the above ○○○○, and instructs C to deliver KRW 5 million to C, which is likely to receive a big impact on ○○’s business. Accordingly, C, on September 19, 2013, issued KRW 5 million in cash to the accused at the businesshouse of the non-dissected tea house located in the following cities:

As a result, the Defendant, using the position and status of the Director General of the Editorial Office in a press organization, took an attitude of posting or publishing maliciously slandered news articles as ○○○, and by threatening the victim, received five million won from the victim by threatening him/her, and harming him/her. From that time, on January 28, 2017, the Defendant took five times in total from the victim in the same manner as the list of crimes (1) in the same manner as the list of crimes in the attached Table (1).

(b) Violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act;

The Defendant, as the Director-General of the ○○○○ Newspaper, has a duty to maintain strict objectivity and implement the duty of fair reporting by practicing the duty of fair reporting, and not to speak for the assertion of a specific company in the process of news reporting, and to refuse private preference or convenience provided from the source of news gathering, without taking undue advantage of his status in the process of news reporting.

1) On June 19, 2017, the Defendant received a solicitation from the head of the general affairs division of the Dolsan-won Association of the Dolsan-si (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○○○”) to prepare a public relations article about the above ○○○○, and received, as a consideration, KRW 1.1 million from the account of ○○○○○○○○○ on June 19, 2017.

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables in exchange for illegal solicitation in relation to his duties and received money and valuables exceeding one million won at the same time.

2) On November 1, 2017, the Defendant received a solicitation from E, the actual representative of ○○○○○, to prepare a favorable news article on (mul) ○○○ product, for the purpose of the telecommunication construction business, etc. in front of the week, and received, as a consideration, KRW 4 million from the account of ○○○○ Newspapers on December 1, 2017.

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables in exchange for illegal solicitation in relation to his duties and received money and valuables exceeding one million won at the same time.

(c) Violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act;

No representative of a press organization nor its executives or employees shall receive, request, or promise any money or valuables, etc. exceeding one million won at one time from the same person or three million won at each fiscal year, regardless of the pretext thereof, such as whether they are related to their duties, and donation, sponsor, donation, etc.

Nevertheless, while the head of the editing office of the ○○○ newspaper, a media company, demands the F to demand monetary support from the F, who is a director of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as above, and received KRW 3.3 million from the FF on December 12, 2016 from the said FF to the account of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as indicated in the attached Table (2) and received money exceeding KRW 35,463,00 in total one time by the same method over 15 times in total.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The crime of robbery

A) Part 30 million won

As indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not report ○○ on September 30, 201 or on January 30, 2012, as indicated in the facts charged, in bad faith with respect to ○○ on or around January 30, 201, nor did the Defendant threaten the Victim B on or around May 201 to 6, 201, and did not receive KRW 30 million from the victim’s side as the victim did not recognize that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim, as seen below, the Defendant did not examine the remainder of the allegations).

2) Violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Acceptance of Misappropriation and Receipt of Money and Valuables

A) Part of the crime of taking property in breach of trust

The defendant received money from each company with the ○○○○ Examination Account as stated in the facts charged, but this does not violate his duties as an administrator of the administrative affairs of the ○○○○ Examination.

B) Part of the violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

Although the defendant received money from each company as advertising expenses or subsidies, it is not a violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act that received money from the account of ○○○○ newspaper for the purpose of ○○○○○○ newspaper.

B. Determination

1) Crimes of conflict (Article 1-1(A) of the facts charged)

A) Part 30 million won

① The victim’s birth village C, which directly delivered money to the Defendant, had been 10 million won before the prosecutor’s office, sent 30 million won to the victim who was the representative of ○○○ when the Defendant formed a relationship with the Defendant, such as delivery of sewage, etc. The victim first made a contract with the victim. The victim made a deposit of KRW 30,000 to his own account on June 21, 2012. The victim made a statement to the effect that withdrawal of money and directly given 30,000 won to the Defendant (Evidence No. 19 of the Evidence Record). The victim made a statement to the effect that it was not easy for the victim to withdraw 10,000 won from the prosecutor’s office as above, and then the victim again made a statement to the effect that it was not easy for the victim to make a new statement to the effect that it had been given 10,000 won as well as 30,000 won as evidence at the time of the subsequent investigation.

② Above all, considering the relevant financial transaction details, the victim sent 30 million won to C on June 21, 2012. However, on the other hand, C appears to have transferred 1.1 and 2 million won to G by cash. On the other hand, the above G withdrawn 1,8380,000 won from C’s account (Evidence No. 184 of the Evidence No. 184 of the Record) to the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office for the same day. Further, on June 21, 2012, the victim did not appear to have withdrawn 30,000 won from the Defendant’s account (Evidence No. 5, No. 6 of the Evidence No. 1) to the extent that 30,000 won was later transferred from the Defendant’s account, but it did not appear to have been transferred from the Defendant’s account to G to 4,500,000 won out of the apartment date to G’s account.

③ 나아가 피해자는 검찰에서 자신 계좌의 금융거래정보 등을 토대로 2012 . 6 . 21 . 3 , 000만 원을 C에게 전달하였고 , C가 자신의 지시에 따라 피고인에게 3 , 000만 원을 지 급한 것으로 알고 있다는 취지로 진술하고 있다 . 그러나 C가 피고인에게 3 , 000만 원을 전달했다고 주장하는 무렵 C가 피해자로부터 받은 돈을 자신의 아파트 분양대금 등으 로 사용한 모습이 이 법정에서 발견되자 피해자는 이 법정에서 새로이 자신이 큰 사업 을 하고 있기 때문에 500 ~ 1 , 000만 원과 같은 뭉칫돈은 항상 집에 보관하고 있었고 자 신의 금고에 있는 그런 돈들을 C에게 건네주면서 피고인에게 전달해달라고 부탁하였 다는 취지로 진술하고 있다 . 그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 C의 검찰 및 법정진술을 믿기 어려운 마당에 돈의 원천과 그 지급방법에 관한 피해자의 진술도 검찰과 이 법정에서 의 내용이 달라 그 경위도 믿기 어렵고 , 변경의 경위나 변경된 내용에 대해 합리적이 라고 보기도 어려워 이를 믿기 어렵다 . 나아가 피해자도 이 법정에서 C에 대한 증인신 문을 마친 다음 자신에 대한 증인신문과정에서 사실은 C에게 6 , 000만 원을 건네주었 고 , 그 중 3 , 000만 원은 결국 피고인에게 전달되었다는 취지로 주장하나 , C의 법정진술 과 마찬가지로 근거가 뒷받침되지 않고 그 경위도 믿을 수 없다 .

④ Ultimately, as to the fact that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim in cash, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s prosecutorial and legal statements were made above, and the remainder of the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize them.

B) Parts 2 and 5 million won

① In an investigative agency and this court, C generally exchanged the Defendant’s business status with the Defendant, and formed a relationship with the Defendant. Once an article that slanders ○○○○○○ newspaper, C made a statement to the effect that 5 million won was paid in cash in the name of Defendant’s office personnel expenses, etc. in order to prevent this from going through, it appears that there would be a reasonable price corresponding thereto if it was paid in excess of a gift given in the name of courtesy, and the victim or C paid money in order to prevent the subsequent article after a malicious article about ○○○○○○○ was published.

② 우선 2013 . 9 . 19 . 추석 직전 500만 원 , 2014 . 1 . 31 . 설 직전 500만 원 , 2014 . 9 . 8 . 추석 직전 500만 원 지급과 관련하여 ( 별지 범죄일람표1 순번1 ~ 3 ) , ① 먼저 돈을 지급하게 된 동기에 대해서 보건대 , 피해자 측에서 피고인에게 돈을 주게 된 계기로 지목한 2013 . 4 . 15 . 자 ○○○○신문의 기사 내용을 보면 , 그 내용은 ○○을 비방하는 것이 아니라 익산시와 ○○이 폐기물 재활용 방법을 놓고 충돌했다는 내용으로 익산시 와 ○○의 입장이 대체로 균형적으로 서술되어 있고 ( 증거기록 제196 ~ 198쪽 ) , 2013년 추석 이후 ○○에 대한 악의적인 기사를 찾을 수는 없다 . 그리고 그 이전의 기사들 2011 . 9 . 19 . 자 기사나 2012 . 1 . 30 . 자 기사는 2013년 추석과는 직접적인 관련이 없다 . 고 ( 피해자나 C는 2012 . 6 . 21 . 피고인에게 3 , 000만 원을 주었다고 진술하고 있다 ) , 시 간상으로도 한참이 지난 마당에 이들을 원인으로 피해자가 피고인에게 돈을 주게 되었 다고 보기도 어렵다 . 게다가 ○○은 2013 . 2 . 5 . ○○의 운영에 중요한 GR인증을 받았 기 때문에 2013년 추석경 이후부터 회사 운영의 결정적인 위기는 넘겼다고 보이고 달 리 그 무렵 ○○에 대한 악의적 기사도 보이지 않는다 . 한편 피해자는 위 기사 외에도 피고인이 익산시청의 공무원들 다수와 친분을 유지하면서 각종 민원을 제기하는 태도 를 취할 것 같아 돈을 주지 않을 수 없다는 취지로도 진술하였다 . 그러나 피해자의 진 술에 따르더라도 피고인이 익산시청 공무원 누구와 어떤 경위로 친분을 쌓게 되었고 그 무렵 어떤 민원을 제기할 듯한 태도를 취했는지 , 그로 인한 결과는 어떠했는지에 대해서 구체적인 설명이 없다 . 결국 제출된 증거들만으로는 피해자가 피고인에게 돈을 지급하기로 결심할 만한 경위나 동기를 찾을 수 없다 ( 기소취지는 악의적 기사를 막기 위하여 돈을 지급한 것으로 되어 있기 때문에 익산시청 등 담당공무원에 대한 조사는 이루어지지 않았다 ) . ㉡ 그뿐만 아니라 돈을 준 사람인 C의 진술변경에 대하여 보건대 , C는 최초 검찰 조사에는 2012년 추석을 포함하여 2013년 설 및 추석 , 2014년 설 및 추석 , 2015년 설 , 2017년 설까지 각 500만 원씩 모두 7차례에 걸쳐 3 , 500만 원을 주었 다고 하다가 조사 후 피해자와 이야기를 한 이후에 이 사건 공소사실과 같이 돈을 준 것이 맞고 자금을 만들어서 준 사람의 기억이나 진술이 더 정확하다고 생각하여 진술 을 변경하였으나 , 이러한 진술의 변경경위는 일반적으로 볼 때 쉽게 납득하기 어렵다 ( 통상은 돈을 직접 건네준 사람의 기억이 생생하거나 분명하다 ) . 게다가 C는 이 법정에 서 증인으로 출석해서는 검찰 최초 조사와 같이 모두 7차례에 걸쳐 3 , 500만 원을 지급 한 것이 맞다는 취지로 다시 진술을 번복하여 ( C에 대한 증인신문 녹취록 제24쪽 ) , 그 진술이 일관되지도 않는다 . 또한 C는 피고인에게 각 명절 무렵 500만 원을 현금으로 건네주었다고 하면서 그 장소를 검찰 조사 처음에는 " 2013년 명절의 경우 ' 미 ' 자로 시 작하는 일식집에서 전달하였다 . " 고 하다가 ( 증거기록 제23쪽 ) , 나중에는 익산시에 소재 하는 현대자동차 영업소 2층에 찻집에서 주었다고 최종적으로 정리하였다 . 그러나 C는 이 법정에서 익산시에 소재하는 현대자동차 영업소 건물 사진을 모두 확인하고서도 그 중에는 돈을 전달한 장소가 없다고 하면서 만난 장소의 법정동이나 거리명 등에 대해 서도 제대로 된 진술을 하지 못한다 . 그런데 이러한 진술은 C가 검찰 조사 당시에는 ○○○○신문의 사무소 소재지 등 익산의 지리에 대해서 구체적으로 진술하였으며 익 산시에서 원광대학교와 대학원을 다니면서 약 7년간 거주했던 점을 고려할 때 쉽게 납 득하기는 어렵다 . ㉢ 나아가 돈의 출처에 대하여 보건대 , 피해자는 C에게 돈을 전달해 주었고 그 무렵 자신의 급여계좌에서 돈을 인출해주었다고 하면서도 ( 증거기록 제37 , 39 , 40쪽 ) 그에 대한 금융거래정보를 확인할 수 없고 ( 증 제3호증 ) , 오히려 그 후 검찰 조사나 이 법정에서는 자신의 집에 있는 금고나 급여계좌에서 돈을 인출해주었다고 진 술하는데 이러한 진술변경의 경위에 대해서도 납득하기 어렵다 .

③ According to the following facts, 201: (a) the Defendant appeared to have made an oral statement 1: (b) the Defendant and the Defendant did not appear to have made an oral statement for KRW 500,000,000; (c) the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 1: (d) the Defendant and the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 50,000,000; and (d) the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 1:5,000,000; (e) the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 1:6,000,000; (e) the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 5,00,000; (e) the Defendant did not appear to have made a false statement for KRW 6,00,000,000,000,000; and (e) the Defendant appeared to have made a false statement for KRW 1.6.

④ Finally, it is difficult for the Defendant to make a statement to the effect that it would be difficult for the Defendant to receive money on January 28, 2017 (Attachment Table 15) regarding the payment of KRW 500,000,00,000, and ① to give money to the Defendant on the part of the victim, I prepared an article of ○○ Newspaper from October 10, 2016 to February 2017, and I would like to make it difficult for the Defendant to make a statement to the effect that it would be difficult for the Defendant to receive money from the prosecutor’s office at the time of 00,000,000. Furthermore, it is difficult for the Defendant to receive money from the prosecutor’s office at the request of 1,000,000, as well as to receive money from the prosecutor’s office at the time of 1,000,0000,000,000 won. Meanwhile, the victim did not appear to have been able to receive money from the Defendant.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is hard to recognize that the defendant used intimidation to the victim as a means of the crime of intimidation, such as the entries in the facts charged, or received money from C as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) Breach of trust and violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (hereinafter “violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act”) (Article 1-B and (c) of the facts charged)

A) Part of the crime of taking property in breach of trust

① In addition, according to the relevant reinforced evidence, the Defendant appears to have received KRW 1,100,00 as the name of requesting the preparation of promotional articles from the head of the general affairs division D of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Association of the Republic of Korea, and KRW 4,00,000 as the name of requesting the preparation of promotional articles from E, the actual representative of the ○○○○○, to each of the ○○○○○ newspapers.

② However, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Act is established when a person who administers another person’s business obtains property or benefits from property in return for an illegal solicitation. It is established when a person who administers another person’s business obtains property or benefits from property under paragraph (1) of the same Article, even if he/she receives an illegal solicitation regarding his/her duties, the above crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1202, Apr. 24, 2008, etc.). Since 2000Do12000, 2000Do1207, supra, it cannot be viewed as an act of acquiring property or benefits from property in breach of trust by another person who received property or benefits from another person, such as an act of acquiring property or pecuniary benefits from another person under a trust relationship with 200 Do3,000,0000,0000,000). This does not constitute an act of acquiring property or pecuniary benefits from another person under general norms.

③ In light of the above legal principles, the composition of the management of the ○○○○ Newspapers, which appears in the evidence first, appears to have been significantly involved in the management of the ○○○○ Newspapers. However, considering each account’s financial transaction information used by the ○○○○○ Newspapers, it is not easy to see that the Defendant personally used the ○○○○○○○○ Card or used the ○○○○○ Card’s money, unlike advertising revenue and monthly wage. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant received money by putting the ○○○○○○○ Newspaper account into the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Newspaper.

In addition, the purport of ○○○○○’s receipt of indictment by itself is that the act constitutes a crime of taking property in breach of trust. Thus, even if the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the ○○○ Association or the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Association, which is the director general of the editing bureau of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as seen above, even if the Defendant received an illegal solicitation, it cannot be said that the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established.

B) The part of the charge of violating each Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (Article 1-2(b), (3) of the charge)

① As to the part of Article 1(b) of the facts charged, the Defendant is recognized as having received money under the pretext of preparing a friendly or promotional article from the following: (a) Dolsan ○ Cooperatives or ○○○○○○○, such as as indicated in this part of the facts charged; and (b) ever based on relevant reinforced evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant received money in total from each company as stated in the facts charged, 35, 463,00 won, as stated in the facts charged, when comprehensively considering the statements or the Defendant’s statements, etc. related to Article 1(c) of the facts charged. The Defendant appears to have received money in total from each company as indicated in the facts charged.

② Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damages Caused by Press Reports defines a press organization, etc. under Article 2 subparag. 12 of the same Act as "public institution". Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act defines a representative, executive, employee, etc. of the said press organization as "public official, etc." In addition, Article 8(1) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act provides that public official, etc. shall not receive money or valuables, etc. in relation to their duties and receive money or valuables, etc. in the name of the public official, etc.

Therefore, the duty to prohibit receipt of money and valuables is not applied to the "public institution, such as a representative, etc. of a press organization". The duty to prohibit receipt of money and valuables is not applied to the "public official, etc.". Next, even if the title holder who received money and valuables is a press organization, he can be seen as being actually receiving money and valuables from the personal status of the "representative, etc.". However, if he receives money and valuables from the personal status of the "representative, etc.", he can be punished in accordance with Article 22 (1) 1 of the Improper Trade Act.In any case, however, whether money and valuables are received from the personal status of the "representative, etc. of a press organization, etc." should be comprehensively considered.

③ According to these legal principles, the representative director of the ○○○ newspaper is K, the director L is the defendant's head; the director L is the defendant's denial; the director M is a personal-friendly business with the defendant; the director N is recognized as being composed of most of the executives who are in a relationship with the defendant or have a friendly relationship with the defendant due to the denial of M. In light of these points, it seems that the defendant exercises a considerable influence on the management of the ○○○○ newspaper; and it is difficult to view that the defendant received the ○○○ newspaper account as an individual.

However, according to the evidence, it is difficult to view that ○○○○ Cooperative or the Defendant’s personal use was used only for other advertising expenses or for other expenses as well as for personal use (Evidence No. 12-1, 2). Thus, the reason why each company deposited into ○○○○○○○○ Examination is either a consideration for an friendly article within the promotional nature, such as as indicated in the facts charged, or for an advertisement or support, and it is not a personal circumstance between the Defendant. The funds deposited into ○○○○○○○ Examination Account are mixed with other advertising expenses, etc., and it is difficult to view that the funds were used for the Defendant’s personal use (Evidence No. 12-1, 2). Accordingly, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Examination received money from each company in return for the preparation of articles or advertisements as a party and received money from each of the Defendant as an employee or employee of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Examination.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the part of the facts charged in the instant case against the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Receipt of Money and Valuables constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the part of the crime of taking property in breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case is to be acquitted in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act in a case where the part of the crime of taking property in breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case does not constitute a crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Judges Lee Jae-dae

List of Offenses (1)

A person shall be appointed.

List of Offenses (2)

A person shall be appointed.