(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.23.선고 2018노181 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by a fine of 10,000,000 won. Where Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. KRW 5,000,000 shall be collected from Defendant A.

The above fine and the additional collection charge are ordered to be paid provisionally. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (the part concerning the crime)

Defendant A prepared a budget for discretionary business expenses in accordance with the ordinary procedures, introduced (ju)G, which is a business operator suitable for the business, to the competent agency, and did not refund bags containing KRW 500,000,000,00,000, which were used as training expenses by D, the representative of (ju)G prior to leaving the overseas training. Accordingly, Defendant did not receive KRW 500,000,000 from D as a bribe, which is the cost for forming the budget for discretionary business expenses and arranging the business.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in matters of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine.

B. Defendant B

The punishment of the lower court against Defendant B (limited to three months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and 4 million won of fine, and 3.5 million won of penalty) is too unreasonable.

C. Public Prosecutor (Defendant A)

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part)

D has made very detailed statements about the background of acceptance of bribe, the method of calculating the amount of bribe, and the content of the order issued by Defendant A to make a false statement at the time of commencement of the investigation, and D himself was convicted of having provided Defendant A with a total of five million won as a bribe, and confirmed guilty of the facts constituting the crime that Defendant A provided Defendant A with a total of five million won as a bribe. The S, who is an employee of the (ju)G, also made a statement that seems to conform to D’s statement. Meanwhile, as the court below stated, the part on Defendant B among the statements made by Defendant D, is true and there is no reasonable ground to determine that the part on Defendant A was false. Accordingly, D’s statement

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the testimony of D was not reliable, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine or misconception of facts.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (the suspended sentence of August of the suspension of qualification, the fine of KRW 700,000,000, and the additional collection of KRW 500,000) is too unhued and unreasonable

2. Prosecution of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle against Defendant A by the public prosecutor

A. Summary of the facts charged

At around August 2014 and September 2014, Defendant A received a request from Defendant A to “(ju)G, which is a solar light light business entity, is difficult to start.” At the C City budget, Defendant A made it possible for Defendant A to build solar light, and around that time, Defendant A to compile a budget for “I project” with Defendant A’s budget cost at the Si’s own discretion.

As a result, in C City, the budget for the above project was compiled and granted to H Gu as the project cost of Defendant A’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Gu. Since August 2015, Hgu selected (ju)G as the public corporation while carrying out the above project from August 2015, and (ju) G supplied and installed solar street lights, etc. equivalent to KRW 28420,00 in J Park and K Park on September 25, 2015, and received the price from the budget organized as the project cost of Defendant A’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Si’s Gu’s Gu

B. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant A received additional KRW 4,500,000 as stated in this part of the facts charged, in addition to the fact that Defendant A received KRW 500,000 from D on the sole basis of the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

(1) On May 11, 2017, D was detained on suspicion of occupational breach of trust, such as his/her occupational embezzlement and occupational embezzlement, and thereafter was prosecuted on May 29, 2017 as occupational breach of trust. D was investigated on additional charges including the offering of a bribe to Defendant A and B, and was indicted on July 7, 2017 as additional charges on the same court Nos. 1237, 2017, 2017, 2017, and 1538 of the same court on August 24, 2017. Under such circumstances, D prepared and submitted the previous statement that denied the offering of a bribe to the prosecution on July 25, 2017. D appears to have been tried and submitted to the prosecutor to the effect that he/she was subject to the investigation of the aforementioned case, by taking account of the degree of cooperation in the investigation and submission of the aforementioned indictment for the purpose of the investigation.

(2) In the prosecution investigation on August 16, 2017, D made a statement to the effect that "4:30 :50 :00 : 50 : 500 : Mag (hereinafter referred to as "G")'s employees' pockets entered in the G's pocket book were false, and the defendant A made a statement to the effect that they were not memoryd in the investigation agency. However, the defendant A made a statement to the effect that it was 5,00,000 won. However, at any time and in the investigation agency, D made a statement to the effect that "4:30 :30 :000 won was written for any circumstance, and 5,000,000 won was written separately, and D also made a statement to the effect that there was no reason to notify the relevant employees of the fact that 's name was a bribe in the court below, and that it was no more persuasive in light of what circumstances it did not have any reason.

(3) A made a statement that is different from D’s above statement on the following grounds: (a) during the confession of the offering of a bribe, Defendant A and B were identified as the bribe recipient; and (b) Defendant A had been introduced through Defendant A, but Defendant A refused to accept the fee of 20% for 20% even her. However, Defendant B was aware of the fact that she could receive one’s bribe, but he did not intervene in the process of making a referral or determination of her fee; and (b) Defendant B was aware of her first in the process of making a referral or a determination of her fee.” In addition, even text messages on the cell phone used by D, there was no perception of the Defendant A’s specially referred to in the process of exchanging D and Defendant B’s text messages.

(4) Around July 25, 2017, D written self-statement was prepared as if it had been made to Defendant A at one time, but thereafter, D made a statement as if it had been made at least KRW 500,000 and KRW 4,500,000,000 on two occasions consistently from the prosecutorial investigation. There is no explanation that the statement was modified. In particular, D consistently stated that it gave KRW 4,50,00 to Defendant A around 10:0,000 at ten (10) night, but the time does not coincide with “30:0,000,000 from the time written in this domain.”

(5) The statement that Defendant A provided money to Defendant A at the Y's coffee shop operated by Defendant A. After recognizing the part that Defendant A received at the prosecution, there is a consistent part of the statement as to the place where Defendant A provided money, such as making up for KRW 500,000 in the future of the 'M restaurant' in A according to the Defendant's statement, and changing the statement.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether or not to accept money or valuables, in order to be convicted solely by a statement made by a person who provided money or valuables where there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables, the fact that the defendant denies the receipt of money or valuables, and there is no objective evidence, not only the admissibility of evidence, but also the credibility of the statement should be ruled out. In determining credibility, there is a need to also examine whether there is an interest in the statement that he or she is a human being as well as the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, and in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime against him or there is a possibility that the investigation is being initiated against the suspect, or if an investigation is being conducted on the suspect, whether there is a possibility that the admissibility of the statement may affect the statement that he or she intends to go beyond the imminent place, even if there is a suspicion that he or she would use it, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 4, 2011>

(2) Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, D’s statement, which is a money and goods provider, may be reliable, and according to the statement, Defendant A was convicted in the lower court in return for assisting Defendant A, the representative of G, to take measures to compile budget for discretionary project costs and to take measures to install parks, etc., etc., around October 2015.

In addition to the prescribed KRW 500,000, additional KRW 4.5 million can be recognized. Therefore, this part of the original deliberation is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the prosecutor's assertion is with merit.

(A) Amount and number of offers of the bribe

1) From the prosecution to the trial of the party, D asked Defendant A to deliver and install solar street lamps, etc., and promised 20% of the price for supply in return for the request from the prosecution to the trial of the party, D promised 20% of the price for supply. The amount of KRW 5,160,000 to KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000 from the value added tax of KRW 28,400,000,000,000,000,000 won, and around August 2015, Defendant A paid KRW 4,500,000,000 to verify that the price for supply was 20% of the price for supply, and instead, it is consistent with the purport that “D’s statement was put into an envelope with the money in which separate settlement details are written to the effect that it is difficult for a person who did not directly experience the specific method of calculating the amount of grant.”

2) Upon receipt of summons notice from the prosecutor's office in the trial, Defendant B stated to the effect that Defendant A gave rise to the issue of attorney appointment from the office of AG, etc., Defendant A made a statement to the effect that Defendant A gave rise to only KRW 4.5 million, excluding KRW 500,000,000,000, which was paid for the delivery and installation of solar street, etc. at travel expense, and Defendant B made a statement to the same effect in the trial. Considering Defendant B's career, the relationship with Defendant B, etc. with Defendant B, there was no motive for Defendant B’s non-guilty until Defendant B puts the burden of perjury. Meanwhile, Defendant B did not find any motive for Defendant B’s non-guilty during the first time, recognizing the fact of bribe provision, and stated that “The self-written statement of July 25, 2017, which was submitted to the prosecutor’s office, was stated as 500,000 won, and there was no additional statement between Defendant A and the prosecutor's office, and its remainder to the effect.

D's statements concerning the frequency of providing such statements are not consistent.

(B) The reasons why Defendant B was introduced

1) As a result, D consistently offered a bribe from the prosecution to the trial of the party, which exceeds 20% of the price of supplied goods to Defendant A, and did not yield profits therefrom, the Defendant introduced and requested the other members of the Council. While Defendant A introduced Defendant B, Defendant B also provided 20% of the price of supplied goods to Defendant B, Defendant B consistently stated that the amount equivalent to 3.5 million won equivalent to 15% of the price of supplied goods is equivalent to that of Defendant B.

2) Defendant B also made a clear statement that Defendant A was introduced from Defendant A in the trial of the party. Although Defendant B made a statement to the effect that it is inconsistent with the above, Defendant B made a false statement at the prosecutor’s office on the premise that “Defendant A was introduced from Defendant A and asked Defendant A not to make a statement but to protect the same by requesting it.” The prosecutor made a false statement that “The prosecutor made a false statement on the grounds that he reversed the statement.”

1) From the prosecution to the trial of the prosecution, the Defendant A told the U public official in charge of H-gu office from May to July 2015, 2015, and informed the employees of the contact address, notified U of U’s contact address and carried out the business of delivering and installing solar lamps, etc., and the Defendant A prepared a business plan before compiling the drilling budget and sent it to the Defendant A.

2) At the prosecutor's office and the court below called "D's office to get off the budget of 30 million won from Defendant A, and therefore, S sent contact address of public officials in charge of H-gu ecological city and public officials in charge as text messages to verify the location and location of street lamps installed, and sent a design proposal including the number of street lamps and the price in accordance with the budget by making a design in line with the budget, and sent it to D. He responded to U.S. who was called "G by telephone and sent a phone call, and explained the products that brought about Kabrogs. We sought new public officials in charge of public officials in charge of the Kabrogs. It stated to the purport that "I knew that T is aware that the content was received by the transferee." The above statement corresponds to D's above statement.

3) On July 29, 2015, Defendant A sent to D a text message to D the Hgu ecological city and U public official in charge of U’s phone number as a text message, and confirmed the progress of the project by sending a text message to D on August 17, 2015, stating that “D d d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d', and submitted to the prosecution, the content

4) On the other hand, Defendant A selected a park for installation of solar street lamps after preparing a business plan, preparing a project plan, and applying for a budget through the H-gu office, Defendant A asserts that there is no credibility of the statement made by D and S that it selected a park for installation of street lamps after compiling the project budget. However, according to the C Si inquiry replys at the trial, the C Mayor sent a reply to question as to whether the location of the project for installation of the street lamps in this case is specified as J Park and K Park at the time of budget application and compilation, and at the time of additional revision, general, revenue and expenditure budget bill in January 2015, 200, the budget was applied for and compiled only by the detailed project items, such as “I” without specifying the location of the project, unlike other projects, such as “AH project” and “AI. Therefore, at the time of application and compilation of the budget, it seems that the instant solar street park was not specified in detail at the time of application and compilation.

(d) false statements to the persons concerned;

1) At the prosecutor's office and the court below stated that "A asked the defendant A to talk about the part of 4.5 million won by telephone on the date on which he was examined the suspect prior to detention." It does not seem that D made a false statement even though D stated a false statement on the part related to the core part of the facts charged by the defendant A by referring to the false statement.

2) Defendant B also stated in the trial that Defendant A received money from Defendant A as “a person who denies the receipt of money from Defendant A,” and that the fact that Defendant B received money from Defendant A was requested by the prosecutor that he did not make a statement at the prosecution.

(e) The motive of false statements

1) The lower court determined that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of false or exaggerated statements to be made through investigation cooperation in the circumstances where the Defendants, including the offering of a bribe to the Defendants, were investigated by the prosecution for various criminal facts, including the crime of offering a bribe to the Defendants, after being detained.

2) In this case, Defendant B consistently prepared a budget for the installation of solar lights in the budget for discretionary project costs upon D’s request from investigative agencies to the trial of the party, and made a statement that received KRW 3.5 million in return, Defendant B made a statement consistent with D’s statement.

3) Meanwhile, at the Jeonju District Court: ① the crime of offering of bribe to the Defendants; ② the introduction of AK, a chief specialist for the operation of the Council Secretariat of the Council of the AJ, by the request of the head of AK to provide and install solar street, etc. to the UNFCCC; and upon the direction of AM to the AO by the head of AL-Gun regional fishery and coastal management team; and upon the supply and installation of G’s solar street, etc. to AK, AK, AM, AM, and AO in return for such instruction.

The "AP elementary administrative office" provided money and valuables to the Do Council's budget for the discretionary project cost of "AP elementary school as a reward for the selection of G to the installation company in the AP elementary school to install solar street lamps." "AP elementary school was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a two-year period (2017 high group912, 1237 (Joint), 1538 (Joint)) by combining criminal facts, etc. (2017 high group912, 1237 (Joint), 1538 (Joint)).

4) In this Court, AK introduced AM to Do, and received cash from Do in return for arranging that G would receive solar street lamps in the N Park, and received cash from Do upon request from Do to transfer cash. "AK was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years and a fine of 4 million won in October (2017 high group 1312). In addition, AM, AO, and Q received a bribe from Do, and the prosecution suspended prosecution for the criminal facts that were received a bribe.

5) If so, D’s very poor situation where it is necessary to cooperate in investigation at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation.

Even if the Defendant was faced with, it is difficult to deem that there was a special circumstance that only the amount of money and valuables provided to Defendant A ought to be distorted.

(f) the joints of the Z and the places where the Z offers a bribe;

1) At the prosecutor’s office, D stated that the Z, an employee of G, stated that the 5 million won met to Defendant A on the 4:30 :30 mar of the 500 marg group chairperson, which was written in G’s pocket book, was written, but the court below and the trial court did not notify the Z of the fact that “Defendant A was on a bribe.” The prosecutor’s office reported the mar and stated to the effect that the Z was aware of the instant case, and stated that “the Z was stated as such.”

2) D은 1회 검찰조사에서 50만 원과 450만 원을 모두 피고인 A가 운영하는 Y커피숍에서 건네주었다고 진술하였다가, 3회 검찰조사에서 피고인 A가 50만 원은 커피숍이 아니라 AA에 있는 M식당 앞 도로에서 만나서 받은 것이라고 한 진술을 듣고, '곰곰이 생각해보니 50만 원을 건네준 장소는 피고인 A의 진술이 맞는 것 같다. 그러나 450만 원은 Y 커피숍에서 건네준 것이 확실하다.'는 취지로 그 진술을 변경하였다. 3) D이 검찰에서 약 2년 전에 발생한 이 사건 사실관계를 진술하면서 기억의 한계로 인한 착오로 일부 내용을 사실과 다르게 진술하였을 여지가 충분히 있고, 검찰조사 과정에서 관련자들의 진술을 전해 듣고 기존에는 착오로 잘못 진술하였다고 인정하며 진술을 변경하는 D의 태도가 부자연스러워 보이지는 않는다. 그렇다면, 앞에서 보았듯이 D이 검찰에서부터 당심에 이르기까지 뇌물의 액수와 제공 횟수, 피고인 B을 소개받은 경위, 태양광 가로등의 설치 경위 등과 같은 이 사건 공소사실의 핵심적인 부분에 대하여 매우 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하고 있고, 다른 관련자들도 D의 진술내용에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있는 이상, D이 진술의 일부 내용을 변경하였다는 사정만으로 섣불리 D의 진술 전체에 신빙성이 없다고 단정할 수 없다.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is reasonable to view Defendant A’s KRW 500,000,000 received from D around August 2015 as a bribe given in return for the attempt to arrange the Si’s discretionary project cost and to receive solar street services.

(1) Defendant A is a member of C City Council (Special Committee on Budget and Accounts) and D appears to have not made a monetary transaction, such as lending money with a private-friendly relationship or making an investment, from March 2013 to a member of C City Council, who operates G for the purpose of installing solar streets, etc.

(2) D submitted a self-written statement to the prosecution on July 25, 2017, and consistently from the original trial to the original trial, to consistently obtain the Defendant A’s discretionary project cost, and consistently begin to work for solar street lamps, and S, an employee, began to work, and paid KRW 50,000 to Defendant A in return for the grant of discretionary project cost.

(3) At the end of July 2015, the Defendant informed D of the contact number of the Hgu ecological city and the public officials in charge of U belonging thereto by text messages, and confirmed D’s name. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant confirmed D’s name to verify whether D went to Hgu office.

(4) After installation of solar street lamps, D received KRW 2842,00,000 as the installation cost on October 7, 2015. Ultimately, Defendant A received KRW 500,000 from D due to the Si’s discretionary project cost budget.

(5) Although the lower court stated to the effect that Defendant A gave KRW 500,000 to Defendant A as travel expenses, it is difficult to view that Defendant A received KRW 500,000 as pure travel expenses from Defendant D, and even if the nature of the consideration for duties and the case of acts other than duties is mixed, it is reasonable to view the overall amount of KRW 50,00 as a bribe, which is the consideration for Defendant A’s duties, as a whole.

B. Judgment of the court below

(1) Relevant legal principles

When a public official receives money, valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties, he/she shall be paid to the person who received money or other benefits from the former public official, and it shall be deemed that he/she merely received money from the public official in light of the social norms, or where it is clearly recognized that his/her personal friendly relationship is due to the need for decentralization, etc.

Unless there exist any circumstances, it may be deemed that the given and received money and valuables are related to a public official’s duties, even if they were given and received money and valuables in the form of a private case. Whether a public official’s profit constitutes a bribe, which is an unjust profit having a quid pro quo relationship, or is due to the need for a religious doctrine or an individual-friendly relationship in accordance with the social rules, and whether it is not related to a public official’s duty, should be determined by taking into account the circumstances such as the content of the relevant public official’s duties, the relationship between the duties and the provider of the benefits, the details and timing of the receipt of the benefits, as well as the type and value of the benefits provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 201

(2) Specific determination

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court, including Paragraph 2-C of the above, even if D, around August 2015, 50,000 won was dry for Defendant A as training expenses, the above 50,000 won was promised by Defendant A to compile a budget with the Si cost project cost and to receive five million won equivalent to 20% of the price of supply in return for assisting Defendant A to deliver solar street, etc., and to receive some of them in advance, and thus, it is reasonable to view Defendant A as a bribe received in relation to his duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by Defendant A.

4. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Defendant B recognized the instant crime and against the mistake, and recognized that the Defendant only was punished by a fine once for the instant crime, and that Defendant A committed the instant crime of acceptance of bribe with the introduction of Defendant A.

However, although the Defendant, as a member of the City Council, handles his duties in a fair and integrity manner, and uses the discretionary project cost as the budget for projects necessary for the improvement of the welfare of local residents, he was provided as a bribe 3.5 million won equivalent to 15% of the price of supplied goods for the purpose of obtaining private interests rather than the objective necessity of the project. As a result, the trust of local residents in the fairness and transparency of the work of the City Council members has been considerably damaged, and the budget to be used for the public interest has been used for the private interest of the Defendant and the specific company. In full view of such unfavorable circumstances and other unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable, by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances, means and consequences of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the prosecutor's appeal on the acquittal portion of the reasons for not guilty against the defendant A is justified, and since this part and the remaining conviction portion are related to the blanket crime, one sentence should be imposed. Thus, without examining the prosecutor's judgment on the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing against the defendant A pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below against the defendant A among the judgment below is reversed, and the defendant B's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4)

【Grounds for the Judgment Re-written against Defendant A】

Criminal facts

The criminal facts of Defendant A, recognized by the trial court, were delivered KRW 50,000 to Defendant A under the name of “M in the same process as above” restaurant near August 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe equivalent to KRW 500,000 in relation to his/her duties, such as the case of subsidization of discretionary project costs.” The Defendant received a bribe of KRW 500,000 from D in the same process as above and around August 2015, under the name of “M in L” restaurant, and received KRW 4,50,00 in the same name in X around October 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 5 million in relation to his/her duties, as stated in the relevant column of the judgment below, in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness D, S, B, and AG;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, S, and T in the original judgment

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning D;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning S, T, U,B, and D;

1. A copy of the Statement No. 2 dated May 16, 2017

1. Each investigation report (in relation to 5 million won, 5 million won, the report on the results of the analysis of seized articles, related to the D Practice Budget, data files printed out of the Z, data files of suspect text messages, files of D-A-B text messages, copies of the D-B text messages, data files of individual data files of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea, and trial records, etc. against Bribery);

1. Submission of data on a request for cooperation in investigation -C H district and the beginning person of a business plan;

1. The fact inquiry report to the C market in this Court;

1. A statement of inquiry into summary information of the case and a written judgment;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (In general, the choice of imprisonment and the concurrent imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, for the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, has been provided as a bribe in the business budget for a specific company for the purpose of acquiring private interests rather than the objective necessity of the business, even though the discretionary business expenses are used as the business budget for the projects necessary to improve the welfare of local residents, Defendant A, as a member of the C City Council, to handle the affairs fairly and in good faith, and was provided with KRW 5 million equivalent to 20% of the price of supply for the purpose of acquiring private interests. Accordingly, not only the residents’ trust in the fairness and transparency of the work of C City Council members has been significantly damaged, but also the budget to be used for the public interest has become a reason for the interest of the Defendant and

The introduction of the Defendant B, which is the cause of the same fee, to the donor, has also been high in possibility of criticism. Nevertheless, the Defendant shows only the attitude to deny the instant crime and avoid the liability until the trial is held, and the attitude after the commission of false statements to the relevant parties in the course of investigation and trial is not good.

However, if the defendant is the first offender, it shall be considered in favorable circumstances, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, means and results of the crime.