The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. From February 6, 2009, the Defendant was working as the head office E Team Vice-head of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) from around February 6, 2009 to the present day, and the Defendant was the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) engaged in the business of purchasing electric motors, etc., and F was the person who entered into a contract for purchasing “H” worth KRW 2,149,64,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with D on March 14, 2011 as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and I is the person who takes exclusive charge of business affairs as the vice president of G.

On March 24, 2011, the Defendant received delivery of KRW 15 million under the name of “the convenience to conclude the instant contract” from I, who received F’s instructions from “K” cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul J, as well as “after the direction, it would make an audit by giving convenience to conclude the instant contract.”

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of 15 million won in relation to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s and his/her defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant received KRW 15 million from F or I at the time and place specified in the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. On March 24, 201, the circumstantial evidence I required doubt from the investigative agency to this court. On March 24, 201, 201, at the middle restaurant of "K" located under Seoul L, one thousand won cash of 50,000 won was placed in a yellow bag with a size of 5,00,000 won, which is smaller than the administrative plastic bags, and the reason why the place of promise was designated as a restaurant among "K" was because there was a room where two things can come. At this point, he dices and Chinese drinking, and the Defendant dices the instant bribe, and the Defendant was parked around M prior to the delivery of the Defendant, and it is consistently stated that I was returned using the substitute driving after he was taken. Accordingly, the Defendant is not a bribe that the Defendant received from I.