2011No125 A. Acceptance of bribe

B. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. (a) . letter* (50), public officials;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

2. (a) most** (63) and a public official;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

3. (a). (b) above ** (56) above, public officials;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

4. A. (b) oil** (55), and non-permanent,

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

5. (a). (b) Periodical** (49), public officials;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

6. (a) Periodical** (51), public officials;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

7. A. Kim* (57), public officials;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

8. A. Kim** (39), and Non-Service

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

9. A. Gambling** (45), and non-permanent

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

10.2.O(66), non-permanent

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

Defendant **, this*, *, Ma*, Ma**, Kim*, Park*, and Prosecutor (Defendant Choi*);

With respect to this**, U.S.*, U.S.*, Kim*,*, U.S.)

Residents of Jins;

Law Firm as Law Firm (Defendant*, Jeong, * For A)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Park Chang-sik (Defendant Choi * For the purposes of this Article)

Attorney Go-ro (Defendant**)

Law Firm Malisung (for the defendant's conviction)

Attorney Han Jae-chul

Attorney Man-su (Defendant*)

Attorney Park Jong-young, Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant*

Attorney Kim Jong-sung (Defendant Kim Jong-hoon)

Attorney Park Jong-woo (Defendant Kim*, and Cheong-OO)

Attorney Kim Ge-tae (Defendant Park* Korea)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Gohap280 Decided February 24, 2011

July 7, 2011

Of the judgment of the court below, defendant**, best**, *, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Park*, Park*, Lee*, Lee O*, and the part of the acquittal against the defendant*,**, the part of the defendant's acquittal against the defendant in the judgment of the court below. The defendant**, Park*, Kim*, Park**, Lee** in June, the defendant last*,**, this**,**, Lee* in the period of six months of imprisonment and the fine of ten million won in the judgment of the court below, the defendant Park** in the crime of acceptance of bribe, the fine of two million won in the judgment of the court below, and the fine of ten million won in the amount of a fine of ten million won in the amount of a fine of one million won in the amount of a fine of one million won in the case of the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act.

The above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,00 won into one day if they did not pay each fine as above**, this*,*, due*, Kim*, and CivilO.

However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment with prison labor has been suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive with respect to Defendant **, best**, **, Ma*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Park***, the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. Defendant *,**, this*,*, due*, Kim*, Kim**, and CivilO.

The seized 10,00 won (Evidence No. 1) shall be confiscated from the defendant ***. The defendant last*, this*,*, current*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*,**, Kim*, Park*, respectively, and KRW 5 million from the defendant *** the defendant * and the defendant * of the public prosecutor**, the defendant *, *, * the current *, * the current ** each of the convictions.

So1. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. In light of all circumstances, including the fact that the above defendant ** partially (the appeal of the above defendant) surrenders himself to the investigative agency and the first offender, etc., the original sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable. (b) The defendant ** Part (Appeal of Public Prosecutor) above ****** since the investigation commences after a considerable period has elapsed from the date of the crime, the above states**** because the defendant maintains consistency in the main parts of the crime, and its credibility is recognized, the court below judged that it is difficult to view that the above defendant received the bribe on the grounds that the statement of the above state ******* is not reliable. This is a violation of a mistake of facts against the rules of evidence. (c) The above defendant * Part (1) of the Public Official Election Act and the crime related to the above defendant's violation of the Public Official Election Act and the circumstances leading the above defendant to the above defendant's receipt of the money.

(B) A prosecutor;

(A) misunderstanding of facts

The judgment of the court below which judged that the above state**'s statement is not reliable as mentioned above, and that the credibility of the statement is lacking** on the ground of the above state***'s statement, and that the above defendant's acceptance of bribe is difficult, there is an error of law of mistake of facts against the rules of evidence.

(b)In light of the gravity of the offence itself in relation to the violation of the Public Official Election Act of the above defendant, the sentencing of the court below against the above defendant (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unfair.

D. Defendant U.S.* (Public Prosecutor’s Appeal) (A)

The judgment of the court below that the above state** has credibility as mentioned above, and in particular, despite the fact that the field funeral at the time of the crime is very specific and factual, the above statement is rejected, and that the above defendant cannot be deemed to have received a bribe, there is an error of mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the gravity of the crime itself in relation to the above defendant's violation of the Public Official Election Act, the sentencing of the court below (2 million won of fine) against the above defendant is too uneasible and unfair. E. the defendant Jeong* part (1) above.

(A) misunderstanding of facts

Although the above defendant sent*** at the date and time stated in the facts of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, there was a fact that he tried to build a plastic bag to the above defendant, the above defendant was only refused to do so, and there was no receipt of the above defendant**** 5 million through 5 million, and he was sent *** * in accompanying with the above defendant in light of the above statement **** * without credibility, the court below found the above defendant guilty of a violation of the Public Official Election Act on the grounds of the above statement.

(b)Notwithstanding the recognition of conviction against the above defendant for the above criminal facts, the sentencing of the court below against the above defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable in light of the normal relationship of the above defendant.

(2) According to Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act, the public prosecutor's (legal scenarios), despite the fact that a sentence should be imposed separately when a crime other than the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act is concurrent crimes, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act. The lower court held that there is no consistency in the statement *** as to the timing of delivering the bags to the above Defendant * part (Defendant's appeal) and the circumstances or details of telephone conversations with the above Defendant at the time. The above state*** in relation to the list of the City Council members who received a bribe from the above *** Kim**, **** in a request for exclusion of their names from the list through the above state **** in consideration of the fact that there is no possibility of arbitrary inclusion of the above Defendant into the list * in accordance with its own interest, there is no credibility in the statement * in consideration of the facts of the above Defendant * in consideration of various circumstances such as the statement * in consideration of the above facts*.

G. Defendant Kim* (Inspection Appeal)

According to the above states***'s statement that the above defendant accepted a bribe from the above states**, despite the fact that the above defendant received the bribe from the above states **, there is an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below which judged that the above defendant's statement is difficult to be deemed to have received a bribe by the above states** on the ground that there is no credibility. H. Kim* part of the above defendant's appeal.

Although the above defendant received KRW 5 million from state***, he did not know who he had any particular explanation about the reason for the delivery of the money, and he did not know that he was related to his duties because he did not receive any explanation, and he did not immediately return the money to the above state**, but he did not have any choice but have to keep the above money. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the above defendant received the money in relation to his duties.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if it is recognized that the above defendant was a criminal offense against the above defendant, considering all the circumstances leading to the above defendant's occurrence of this case, the sentencing of the court below against the above defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

I. Defendant Park * (the above Defendant’s appeal)

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Although the above Defendant received the bags containing KRW 5 million from the above state**, he was aware of the fact that he was in the above bags, at the time of receipt, he was responsible for the above state****** the above state*** the above **, and he did not hear the opinion that he was about the correction activities of the above *** the above * for a long time, and he did not know that he was related to his duties because he did not know that he was about the above money **** the answer or encouragement according to such friendly relationship and did not know that he was related to his duties. However, the court below did not consider that the above money was related to his duties.

As such, it is judged that the above money was received, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to business relationship.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the above defendant was found guilty of the above defendant, considering all circumstances such as the circumstances leading to the above defendant in this case, the sentencing of the court below against the above defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(j) The part of Defendant 1’s private interest (public prosecutor’s appeal)

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The above defendant's receipt of five million won or more from this defendant is reliable *,

* The decision of the court below that recognized that the above defendant received only two million won, not five million won, despite the full recognition by the statement*, there is an error of mistake of facts. ② unreasonable sentencing (B).

In light of the gravity of the above defendant's crime itself, the sentencing of the court below against the above defendant (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) recognized basic facts;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

(1) around 2008, Pursuant to a plan to carry out projects for the production, purchase, and installation of environment-friendly and new energy landscape creation (hereinafter referred to as "extime landscape creation projects") in three coastal areas in the Hanman-si city, 2008, and the above project was prepared for the selection of the ordering company, but ************* (hereinafter referred to as "**") (including "the foregoing") entered the said construction project into *** through the participation of the head of the said construction project, who tried to help the said project and thereby agreed **(2) from June 2006 to June 2010, * (2008 to receive ** the above construction project's order * the head of the relevant construction project's order * the head of the relevant construction project's order * the head of the said * the head of the relevant construction project's order * the head of the relevant construction project's order * the head of the relevant construction project's order * the head of the construction project.

(3) On May 18, 2009, the above Kim** was asked for the above * to deliver a bribe to the first patroler **** on the phone of the above Kim**, and the consent was obtained on May 8, 2009 through the above Kim****************** on the front side of the apartment, and the above request was made for the above ** to deliver it to the above ** on May 18, 2009, upon the request of the above Kim*************************************** by the request of the same purport on the front side of the apartment road.

(4) On May 19, 2009, the above ** issued KRW 100 million out of 200 million out of 200 million to the above * in accordance with the direction of ** on May 19, 2009 ** on May 20, 2009 * on May 20, 2009 * on May 20, 2009 * Defendant’s milk*, Kim*, Kim**, Kim**, Kim**, Kim*, Kim*, Lee**, Kim*, Park*, Park**, Park**, Park**, Park**, Park*, the last *, the 12 list of 12 members of the Si, including *, and then, the ***, Kim Jong*, *, the last * *, the * 5 million states respectively.

(6) The police searched and searched the office****** from March 3, 2010, and collected money from the above Kim************** on March 31, 2010, the above Kim*** was urged to cause damage to a foreign country as of April 2, 2010, and paid a letter of apology on April 3, 2010, and was trying to depart from Korea to a foreign country as of April 3, 2010.

(7) On April 8, 2010, the above ** was recommended to escape from the above ** * * Na,000 with his wife, and the above * * * Ha left the Republic of Korea from Incheon to China on April 10, 2010 with his wife, and the above * * Ma * Ma * Ma Ma * Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma* * Ma Ma Ma Ma.

(8) On April 24, 2010, the above Kim* returned to China on April 28, 2010 after having met the above Notes*, and on June 10, 2010, after having been issued KRW 35 million from the side ** on June 13, 2010, and delivered KRW 10 million to China **** on June 13, 2010. The above O** on May 20, 2010 ** on May 20, 2010 * on May 20, 2010 * on delivery to * on May 20, 2010 * on the above transmission* on May 5, 2010 * on the last day of May 5, 2010.

(10) The above Kim** was detained after the self-denunciation to the police on June 15, 2010, and the above O * was temporarily locked and the whereabouts were reduced.

(11) The above Kim* entered China on July 26, 2010 and sought to visit the above State**, but the above State* was not aware of the whereabouts.

(12) On August 16, 2010, the above note** expressed his will to voluntarily return to the police by telephone from China to the police and at the police's request, all 16 members of the city in which they have contacted with the police, and members who have received money from the police are the defendant*,*,*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim**, Kim*, Park*, Park*, Park**, Park**, Park* and Park**, the members who have returned the received money are Kim**, Kim*, the best****, and the members who have refused to receive,*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim**, river**********.

(13) The above note** entered the airport on Aug. 20, 2010* At the same time, he was arrested at the police at the same time, and entered the police with police officers************************. Two verification color-North Korea bank was located in the village, one of them was an empty bank, and 5,000 Won in the rest of the bank.

B. Judgment as to the defendant **

Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 of the Criminal Act shall concurrently impose a fine of not less than double but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery as stated on the crime before the defendant alleged unfair sentencing. Since the above defendant failed to concurrently impose a fine under Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes even though he/she committed the above crime, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the above defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant L*** has received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks, such as budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and correction of the City, with the request to assist the market**** from the week****** from the Council underground parking lot of the Council, with the request to assist the City in cash (500,000 won), during the period from May 2009 to July 2009, where he/she has been in office as a Council member*** from the week*** from the Council underground parking lot of the Council, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of the City Council member with checks, such as the budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and correction of the City. ②

원심은, 위 주*이 첫 조사 이후 위피고인과의 대질 조사에서 위 일시. 장소에서 위 피고인의 차 조수석에 승차하면서 돈이 들어있는 봉투를 조수석에 놓자 위 피고인이 달갑지 않은 내색을 해서 얼른 차에서 내렸고, 주차장이 조금 어둡기 때문에 위 피고인이 봉투를 던졌는지는 보지 못했고 자신을 부르는 소리도 듣지 못했으며, 위 피고인이 돈 봉투를 받아갔는지 모르겠지만 회수를 해 오진 않았다고 하면서 위 피고인 말대로 던져버렸다면 누군가 주워가 버렸을 테고 어쨌든 자신은 건네줬다고 진술한 점. 그 후 위 주 ** 은 검찰과 원심 법정에서 대체로 같은 취지로 진술하면서 다만 위 피고인이 '회장님, 회장님'하고 자신을 불렀지만 돌아보면 위 피고인이 반환할 것 같아 못 들은 체하고 차를 몰고 주차장을 먼저 빠져 나왔다고 진술한 점 등을 근거로 위 주* * 이 위 피고인의 차량 안에 돈 봉투를 두고 주차장에서 먼저 나왔다는 진술 부분에 한하여 비교적 일관되었다고 보았으나, ① 위 주 ** 의 진술은 위 피고인이 돈 봉투를 보자 싫어하는 내색을 하고 자신을 불러 반환하려 할 것으로 생각했다고 하면서도 위 피고인이 돈 봉투를 가져갔는지는 돌아보지 않아 모르고 위 피고인보다 먼저 주차장을 나왔다는 취지인데, 이러한 진술내용은 위 피고인이 돈 봉투를 최종적으로 수령한 것인지 여부는 모른다는 취지라고 할 것이어서 위 주 ** 이 위 피고인에게 돈 봉투를 건넸다는 공소사실과 완전히 일치하지는 않고, 위 주 ** 이 일방적으로 내민 돈 봉투를 던져버렸다는 위 피고인의 주장과 배치되지도 않는 점, ② 위 주 ** 은 사건 당시 위 피고인과 위 주 ** 의 차량 위치에 관하여 처음 조사에서는 위 피고인과 위 주의차량을 나란히 그렸다가 대질 조사에서는 자신의 차량은 주차장 입구에서 직각 방향으로 그려 위 피고인이 그린 차량 위치도와 비슷해졌고 이후 현장조사에서는 주차장 입구를 기준으로 다시 방향이 달라지는 등 차량 위치에 관한 진술이 위 피고인과의 대질조사를 거치는 과정에서 바뀌고 더욱 구체화된 점에서 그 진술의 정확성 · 신빙성에 의문이 드는 점, ③ 위 피고인의 차량이 위 주 **의 차량보다 주차장 입구 쪽에 있었고 , 위 피고인은 자신의 차 운전석에 있었으며, 위 주 ** 은 위 피고인의 차에서 자신의 차로 걸어가던 중이었으며 위 주* *의 차는 시동이 걸려 있지 않았던 점에 비추어 보면, 위 주 ** 의 진술과 달리 주차장에서 위 피고인이 먼저 나왔을 가능성이 높은 점, ④ 위 ②. ③의 문제는 위 추정길이 위 피고인에게 돈 봉투를 건넨 이후의 상황을 알지 못한다는 주장을 정당화하는 과정에서 비롯된 것으로서 위 주* * 스스로 위 피고인에 대한 돈 전달이 성공하였다고 자신하지 못하고 있음을 반증한다고 보이는 점 등을 근거로 하여 위 주 * 의 진술이 정확한지 여부에 대하여 의문이 든다는 이유로 그 진술을 근거로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정할 수 없고, 달리 공소사실을 인정할 만한 증거가 없다고 판단하였다.

(4) Judgment of the court below

The above defendant stated at the date and time and place of the facts stated in the prosecution ** above mentioned above * in this state*, and he stated to the effect that he was aware of the fact that he was out of the vehicle steering unit of the above defendant ** * he was out of the vehicle, driving the vehicle, and refusing to receive it at the parking lot. The above state** * * the above defendant was placed in the front line of the above defendant * the above defendant * * the above defendant was on board the vehicle in the front line of the above defendant * * the above defendant was on board the vehicle before leaving the parking lot after he was on board the vehicle, and it is difficult to accept the above defendant * the consistency or rationality of his statement and the objective circumstances and degree recognized through evidence of the above * the credibility of the above defendant * the above statement made by the court below * there is no justifiable reason to recognize that the above defendant * the above defendant's most reliable statement * there is no error in the court below's reasoning or evidence * the above misunderstanding *.

(A) On August 24, 2010, the above defendant made an oral statement to the effect that he had stated 0. The above one week * whether he opened the front door of this Article * Professor he left the front door of this Article? The above defendant's oral statement to the effect that he had stated 9. The above defendant's oral statement to the effect that he had stated 0. The defendant's prior written statement to the effect that he was not allowed to leave the front door of this Article* 1. The defendant's oral statement to the effect that he had stated 0. The above written statement to the effect that he had stated 1. The defendant's prior written statement to the effect that he was not allowed to leave the front door of this article* 1. The defendant's oral statement to the effect that he had stated 0. The above written statement to the effect that he had not been allowed to leave the front door of this article* 1. The defendant's oral statement to the effect that he had not been allowed to leave the front door of this article* 20. The defendant's oral statement to the above.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the above defendant was out of the vehicle or whether the above defendant was able to return money bags to the above state**** in this case where the above defendant stated that he was unable to return money bags from the above defendant * the above state **** in the above state *** in the above case where he stated that he was unable to return money bags. As seen above, the above defendant's change that the defendant's continuing reversal of his statement cannot be said to be due to a simple difference of expression or mistake due to the limit of his ability, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the above defendant's statement that he was in a money bag out of the above vehicle was insufficient, and rather, it is difficult to believe that the above defendant's statement was credibility because the above defendant was unable to return money bags because he was on board the above defendant's first-class boarding, and the above defendant's statement was missing with the above parking lot because he was about to return money.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the above Note*** the above defendant's delivery of a plastic bag to the above defendant, and there is no doubt that the above defendant refused to receive a plastic bag in addition to the above defendant's statement that there is no credibility, or there is no circumstance that the above defendant returned to the above Note****, without any reasonable doubt that the above defendant received money as stated in the facts charged. (b) The court below judged that there is doubt about the accuracy and credibility of the statement in that the statement made by the investigation agency as to the location of the above vehicle and the above defendant parked in the parking lot at the time of the formation of the plastic bag * the above note *, the statement made by the investigation agency as to the location of the vehicle and the above defendant was continuously reversed and further specified as a result of the investigation.

In this case, the above Note*** in this case's statement on the location of this vehicle, there are circumstances in which the statement was made once as stated in the judgment of the court below, but on the other hand, the above Note* in this case's statement * in this case's statement * in this case's period of time * in this case's period * * in this case's period * * in this case's period * in this case's period * in this case's period * is more than 1 year's period ever the fact of prosecution, and it is also possible that the specific location of the vehicle at the time

(C) In light of all the circumstances, the court below judged that there is a doubt about the credibility of the above state*** on the ground that the above defendant was likely to have been absent in the parking lot before the above state**, but in light of the above various circumstances, etc., it is judged that there is no particular influence in judging the credibility of the above state***'s statement or the above defendant's appeal. Judgment on this part*

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

(a)a summary of the facts charged;

The defendant*** ********** from the head of the environmental welfare chairperson's office in which the above defendant is working, with the request from the head of the city to assist the market **** 500,000 won in cash (500,000 won), and the budget review and resolution for the city. The defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the duties of the City Council members with checks such as administrative audit and corrective quality.

(B) Defense of the above defendant

The above defendant did not have met the above Note** in the Council's office during the above period, but he was found in the above Note**** around October 2009 at the Council's office and divided a talk together with the talk, but he did not pay the money. (C) The judgment of the court below is justified.

원심은 위 주의 진술과관련하여 위 주이 첫 조사 이후 위 피고인과의 대질 조사에서 위 피고인의 변소에 대하여 정확한 시기는 잘 기억나지 않지만 피고인에게 돈을 건넨 것이 확실하다고 하면서 서로 대화한 내용에 관하여는 위 피고인에게 미안한 마음에 자꾸 되풀이하고 싶지 않다며 첫 조사에서의 내용으로 갈음한다고 진술하였고, 이후 검찰 조사에서는 위 일시, 장소에서 위 피고인을 찾아가 '오시장을 잘 도와달라'며 돈 봉투를 건네주자 위 피고인이 '잘 하고 있습니다'라고 말하였고, 원심 법정에서도 비슷한 취지로 진술하면서 위 피고인의 사무실 문은 평소 열려 있고 자신이 들어간 후 누군가가 문을 닫았다고 진술한 점을 근거로 하여 위 주 ** 이 2009년 여름 무렵 위 피고인에게 돈 봉투를 건넸다는 부분에 한하여 비교적 일관된 진술을 하고 있다고 판단하면서도, ① 원심 증인 안**는 원심 법정에서 2009년 가을경 자신이 위 피고인의 사무실에 찾아갔을 때 사무실 문이 열린 채 위 피고인과 위 주 ** 이 이야기를 하고 있어 위 주** 이 나갈 때까지 기다렸다고 진술하였는데, 위 주 ** 이 위 피고인에게 돈을 건네줄 때 이외에 위 피고인을 따로 만난 적이 없다고 하는 점을 고려할 때 위 안* * 의 진술은 위 피고인을 만난 시기가 2009. 6.경부터 2009. 7.경 사이이거 나여름이라는 위 주 ** 의 진술이나 그에 기초한 이 부분 공소사실과 서로 맞지 않고, 위 피고인의 사무실에 들어가 문을 닫았다는 위 주 ** 의 진술과도 다른 점, 그럼에도 위주 ** 이 위 피고인에 대한 금품 전달시기를 2009. 6.경부터 2009. 7.경 사이라고 고집하는 것은 2009. 5. 19.경 위 김 **으로부터 받은 돈 1억 원 중 5,000만 원을 그 무렵부터 2009. 9.경까지 시의원들에게 배포하였고 나머지 5,000만 원은 집에서 보관하다가 압수당하였다는 최초의 진술을 유지하기 위한 것으로 보이는데, 위 주 ** 이 위 피고인을 만난 시기가 2009. 10.말경으로 달라질 경우 위 주 ** 진술의 전체적인 틀이 유지될 수 없고, 이에 따라 그 신빙성에 대한 의문을 떨칠 수 없는 점. ② 위 주 **은 이 ** 에게 돈을 전달하는 과정에서 한 대화 내용에 관하여 처음에는 비교적 명확하게 진술하였다가 피고인과의 대질 조사에서는 구체적인 진술을 피하였고, 원심 법정에서는 검찰과 변호인의 신문에 대하여 자신 없는 태도로 진술이 다소 달라지는 모습을 보인 점 등 여러 사정에 비추어 볼 때 위 주**의 진술의 신빙성에 관하여 의심이 든다는 이유로 위와 같이 공소사실 특정의 핵심요소인 범행일시에 관하여 신빙할 수 없는 위 주 ** 의 진술을 근거로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정할 수 없고 달리 위 공소사실을 인정할 만한 증거가 없다고 판단하였다.

(d)The decision of the Central Committee;

① In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money, the accused’s statement alone requires admissibility of evidence, as well as credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, it should also be examined as well as the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency in the contents of the statement itself and its human nature. In addition, even though the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the determination should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of in-depth formation for finding the Defendant guilty in a criminal trial (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act) is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Article 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). This does not require that it be excluded from all possible doubts, and it is also unreasonable to see that it is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and thus, it is not reasonable doubt that it is inconsistent with the logical and empirical rule 2010.

② Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as seen earlier and the facts duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, it is reasonable to view that the above note *** has credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out has merit. The lower court’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit. The lower court ** * * was divided into the members of the Si Council who received or returned money from the members of the Si Council who attempted to receive the money from the investigative officer to the court of the first instance, and even though it appears that the statement is unclear or somewhat inconsistent with the time and specific circumstances, it appears that the member who received the money appears to be unclear or somewhat inconsistent, and the member who received the money was also the member who received the money, and * 100 million won was escape in China at the time of the police bribe, * was delivered to him as the above-mentioned order* there was no error in the above circumstances***.

e The above Note** was arrested and detained and immediately released to the police in China, and the above Note****, in particular, did not peep into circumstances for the member who stated that he received this money, but rather stated that he and the nearest member was not receiving money, while the member mentioned above mentioned that he and the nearest member was in receipt of this money.

It is difficult to see that a member, such as a member who is close to himself/herself, voluntarily chosen a member according to his/her interest, and the above Notes* is also a constituent element of a crime, and it is also difficult to see that a false statement is made with an intention to care for another person while taking charge of his/her punishment.

* The above-mentioned testimony was made by the defendant as the above-mentioned witness to the above-mentioned office * The above-mentioned defendant's whereabouts were 10 years old, and the above-mentioned defendant was found to be 10,000 won after his/her arrest * the above-mentioned office * the above-mentioned office * the above-mentioned office * the defendant's statements that he/she had no intention to be 10,000 won * the above * the above-mentioned office * the above-mentioned office * the above-mentioned office * the defendant's statements that he/she had no intention to be 10,000 won * the above * the defendant's statements that he/she had no intention to be 1,000 won * the above-mentioned office * the defendant's statements that he/she had no intention to be 1,000 won * the above-mentioned office * the defendant's statements that he/she had no intention to be 1,000 won * the above.

The judgment of the court below regarding paragraph (1) 1 of the part of the judgment below cited by the court below is justified, and there is no reasonable ground to regard the above state * the time when the above defendant was delivered on October 2009, based on the statement of the above case * the time when the above defendant was delivered without credibility or the above defendant's assertion. It is recognized that the above state *** the time when the above defendant was delivered money to several members, and it seems that the above defendant was delivered money individually for a considerable period of time after the above defendant made statements at an investigative agency after the lapse of time when the time when the money was delivered to the members, and it is nothing more than that of accurately memory about the time or order when the defendant delivered money was delivered. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above state *** the credibility of the above criminal investigation agency's testimony or the above defendant's assertion that it was difficult for the court below to find that the above defendant's testimony was made without any criminal investigation authority's testimony about the above facts.

The purport of strictly regulating the act of contribution by the Public Official Election Act is to prevent the act of contribution to the establishment of the candidate's foundation or the act of purchasing the candidate's personal knowledge and policy, rather than to be an opportunity to evaluate the candidate's personal knowledge and policy, and the above defendant has the history of punishment for the same kind of crime. Meanwhile, the above defendant is the confession of the crime of this case, the crime of this case does not have a significant influence on the actual election, ** because the above defendant's act of this case does not have a significant influence on the election ** * in this election, the defendant's age, ordinary character and behavior, family environment, etc., and if the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case such as the above defendant's age, reputation, family environment, etc. are considered to be too heavy or unreasonable, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the public prosecutor are without merit.

E. Determination as to Defendant U.S.*

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

(a)Summary of the facts charged** from the end of May 2009 to the early of June 2009, was parked in the vicinity of the campus****************** in the passenger car****** in cash upon the request of the Mayor to assist the market?** in 10,000 won (10,00 won) in a large bag and received a bribe with respect to the duties of the City Council members with checks such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, and correction function for the city. (b) The criminal defendant's defense counsel received a bribe.

The above defendant did not have any fact that he met the above Note* at the above time and place. (C) The judgment of the court below is made.

The court below held that the above state*** after the first investigation, the above state-owned statement was made to the defendant during the above period after telephone call from the above defendant to the court of original trial, and * University** the above defendant who was set up on the right side of the above defendant's vehicle that was parked on the front side of the above defendant's vehicle **** the above defendant who was laid down on the front side of the above defendant's vehicle that was parked on the front side of the campus ** the above defendant * * the above defendant's statement that he was placed first on the front side of the above defendant's vehicle * * the above defendant's statement that the above defendant's statement was relatively specific and consistent, but *** the above state-owned vehicle * the above defendant's statement that it was hard to find that the above defendant's statement was made on the front side of the above defendant's vehicle * the above part of the charges * the above defendant's statement that it was hard to recognize the credibility of the above defendant's vehicle * the above 9.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the above Note ** has credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal pointing this out has merit. ① The above Note *, as stated in the court below's decision, stated the location of the automobile-scrapping operated by the above defendant, the model, color, parking location, etc. of the above defendant, and the above statement seems to be consistent with fact. In particular, the above defendant's statement that the above defendant parked on the rear side of the front half-west, which was not the vehicle-scrapping bill, was not allowed to make a statement if he did not directly witness the vehicle, and (in the interrogation of the police suspect, the passage of the vehicle is narrow, so the above defendant also seems to be consistent with the above facts of appeal * even if he did not have a relation with the above facts of appeal *.

② On the point of Paragraph (1) cited by the court below, the above Note* as stated in the court below's decision * The above Note** as at the time of delivery of the above Defendant ** The above Note ** on the mobile phone call records of the above Defendant ** The above Section *, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below ** the above Defendant * * the above Defendant * even before the Defendant *, the first instance court * * the cell phone * even after having contacted Defendant * with Defendant 1 and delivered money bags, the telephone contents with them * the above Defendant * even after having contacted Defendant * and delivered money bags. Considering the above note * the possibility of excluding the possibility of using a general telephone machine other than this mobile phone * it is difficult to view that the credibility of the above Note ** * the above statement can be rejected solely on the basis of the circumstances cited by the court below.

(3) Meanwhile, according to the evidence above, it is recognized that the above state** was holding the Defendant with the enveloped money bags, ** the market was using the enveloped money well. Thus, it is recognized that the above Defendant received money in connection with his duties.

(2) Judgment on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The purport of strictly regulating the act of contribution by the above defendant is that if the act of contribution contributes to creating the foundation for supporting the candidate or it is highly likely that the act of contribution will be associated with the act of purchase, it is necessary to strictly punish the above defendant in light of the fact that it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that the election itself is likely to lead to a risk of congrating the financial resources of the candidate rather than being an opportunity to be evaluated as a candidate's personal figure, dog, policy, etc.

However, on the other hand, the above defendant did not have any specific criminal record in addition to the fine, and has no record of being punished for the same crime, and the crime of this case does not have a significant influence on the actual election *** in the above election **. Other conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the above defendant's age, ordinary character and behavior, family environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the above defendant is too unreasonable. The prosecutor's order of dismissal is groundless.

F. Determination as to Defendant 1**

(1) Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of legal principles

Notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act, a separate sentence shall be imposed on concurrent crimes which are different from those of the above crimes (Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act), and the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act constitutes election crimes (Article 18(2) of the same Act), and despite the fact that the above defendant's crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the punishment for acceptance of bribe should be imposed separately, the court below rendered a single sentence on each of the above crimes, and there is an error of law that adversely affects the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's above assertion pointing this out has merit. Accordingly, the part against the above defendant among the judgment of the court below is reversed. However, even in this case, since the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, it shall be decided

(2) Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by the above defendant

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On May 29, 2010, about 2010. 29.13:30, the above defendant ** in the small room at the restaurant*** in the small room at the restaurant*** in the middle of the election organization of the leisure market** in cash, with a bag containing one bag containing five million won (50,000 won) (10,000 won) and was contributed from the candidate ** (b) the judgment of the court below.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the court below found the above defendant guilty of the violation of the Public Official Election Act, on the ground that the court below found the defendant guilty of the above defendant's statement on the ground that the above defendant was sent money bags to the above defendant, including the defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor the above defendant's statement that the above defendant was sent money bags to the defendant, such as he was sent to the defendant, after the investigation of a water fraud pipe such as the replacement of the above defendant * * * * * * * Ma's relative with the above defendant, and he was in the above restaurant * * * * * * * * * Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor * * * Professor Professor * Professor Professor Professor * Professor Professor * Professor * * * *'sle's's's's's's''s's's's's's'''''s''s's''''s's''''s'''''s's'''''

(C) Judgment of the court below

Examining the above determination by the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and the above argument by the above defendant is without merit. g. the judgment of the court below*

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

(a)Summary of the facts charged** At the time from August 2009 to September 2009, the summary of the prosecution** at the above-mentioned defendant's office*** from the above-mentioned defendant's office**** at the above-mentioned defendant's office** at the above-mentioned defendant's office, with the request to assist the market * at KRW 5 million in cash (500,000,000,000) and received a bribe in relation to the City's budget deliberation and resolution for the City, administrative audit, correction, etc. (b) the judgment of the court below

The court below stated that * 0. From August 2009 to September 2009, the above defendant made a statement that * 0. from 00 to 2009, the above defendant sent the above money to 20. The above defendant's telephone call * 0. The above defendant's phone call * 9. The above defendant's phone * 2. The above defendant's phone * 9. The above defendant's phone * 9. The above defendant's phone * the above 9. The above defendant's phone * the above 9. The above defendant's phone * the above 9. The defendant's phone * the above 9. The defendant's phone * the above 9. The defendant's phone * the above 1. The defendant's phone * the above * the above 1. The defendant's phone * the above part of the defendant's phone * the above * the defendant's phone * the above defendant's phone * the above * the defendant's phone * the above *.

10.1. up to June 1, 2009, the above note** the above note 15:38:09, 17:21:01 on June 1, 2009, and the above note** the above note ** the above note **, * the last note *, *, * the last* and *** the last time of delivery of the above money to the above defendant * the above defendant * the date of delivery of the money to the above defendant * was not on June 1, 2009. However, considering the above note *** the maximum number of the defendants listed as additional subjects of delivery with the above defendant * the above note * the point of delivery * the above note * the point of delivery * the above note * the point of delivery * the above order of correction * the point of delivery * the above defendant 1's oral statement * the point of delivery * the above note * the above note * the above note * the above * the above.

(C) Judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below and the court below's judgment, the above argument by the above defendant is without merit, since the court below's judgment is justified, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. ① The above part of the defendant's statement ** in relation to the time when the defendant delivered a plastic bag, lack of consistency in the statement ** in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the above part * in the defendant's statement made by the investigative agency after the lapse of time more than the time of delivery, it seems that the above part * * in the above part * in the above part * * in the above statement.

(2) With respect to the list of the members who received a bribe from the above states, the above defendants asked that the new defendants called above Kim******* through the list of the members to accept bribe to the defendant ***, and they did not request that the name of the above defendant be excluded from the list. However, the above Kim*** was present in the court of the first instance and asked that the defendant will not be deducted from the list of members to Kim***** upon the request of the above states ******** upon the request of the above states that the defendant asked that the defendant would not be deducted from the list of members to the list of members to receive a bribe, but it is difficult to believe that the above Kim***'s statement was made to the effect that it was confirmed that he would have paid money to the defendant ***.

As seen earlier, the court below did not concurrently impose a fine on the above defendant who committed the above crime, even though the person who committed the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 of the Criminal Act should be concurrently punished by a fine of not less than double but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery. Thus, the part of the judgment below against the above defendant in the judgment below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

H. Determination on Defendant Kim*

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant Kim** received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks, such as budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and correction of the City, with the request to assist the market******* from the conference room in the conference room ********** 5 million in cash (10,00 won) with the request to assist the market, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks and checks, from the end of May 2009 to July 2009, in which he/she was in office as the fourth branch of the City. (2) The above Defendant’s change suit

The above defendant had not been in contact with state** at the above date and time and place, however, around December 209, ***** in the above place** in dunes* in dunes* in dunes* in the above state** in this telephone, but he did not build a plastic bag at the time.

(3) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 위 주·의 진술내용과 관련하여 위 주·*은 위 피고인과의 대질 조사에서 위 피고인의 사무실에서 위 피고인은 테이블 끝에 앉고 위 주* *은 옆으로 앉아서 위 오 * * 을 도와달라는 취지로 위 피고인에게 돈 봉투를 건네고 함께 사무실을 나와 건물 아래에서 헤어지는 인사를 하고 자신은 대우부품센터 앞에 세워두었던 차를 타고 갔다고 하며 위 피고인의 사무실이 지저분하고 비어있는 사무실 같았다고 하였고, 당시 사무실을 거의 사용하지 않았고 2009. 12.경 *** 사무소에서 만난 사실이 있을 뿐이라는 위 피고인의 주장에 대하여는 위 동사무소에서 피고인을 만난 적은 없는 것 같고 가본 적도 없는 것 같다고 진술하였다가 위 현장조사 중 돈을 건넨 장소가 위 피고인의 사무실이 아니라 위 동사무소라고 말하여 위 동사무소에서 현장조사가 이루어졌고, 그 다음날 이루어진 조사에서 돈을 건넬 당시 위 피고인에게 전화를 하니 위 동사무소로 오라고 해서 사무실에서 동장 등과 인사를 하고 위 피고인과 사람이 없는 회의실로 들어가 테이블을 사이에 두고 마주 앉아 위 오 ** 을 도와달라는 취지로 봉투를 건넸고 주차장에서 위 피고인이 뒤에서 차량의 수신호를 해주었다고 진술한 후 검찰 조사와 원심 법정에 이르기까지 같은 내용으로 진술한 점과 다음에서 보는 사정, 즉 ① 위 주* *은 돈을 전달한 장소로 위 피고인의 사무실을 지목하며 사무실 위치와 모습, 돈을 전달하는 과정, 전달 후 상황을 자세하게 말하다가 위 피고인의 사무실에서 현장조사가 이루어지기 직전에 장소와 돈 전달 과정, 전달 후 상황 등을 달리 진술하였는바, 이 사건과 같이 금품의 교부가 문제된 사안에서 금품제공의 장소와 상황은 사건의 중심이 되는 사항인데, 위 주 * 이 위 피고인과의 대질 조사를 거치면서 장소를 번복하게 되었고 전후 금품제공의 상황에 차이가 나는 점에 비추어 이를 기억력의 한계로 인한 사소한 부분이라고 볼 수 없고 위 주 ** 의 진술이 번복된 경위나 그 정확성에 의문이 들 수밖에 없는 점. ② 위 주**은 위 피고인에게 전화를 걸자 위 동사무소에 있다고 하여 찾아갔고 이전에 위 동사무소에 가본 적이 없다고도 하는데, 위 주 * 의 통화내역에 따르면, 위 주 ** 이 위 오 **으로부터 돈을 받아 시의원들에게 전달을 시작한 2009. 5. 22.부터 주 ** 이 시의원들에게 돈을 모두 전달하였다는 추석(2009. 10, 3.) 이전인 2009. 10. 1.까지 사이에 위 피고인과의 통화내역을 찾을 수 없는 점. ③ 원심 증인 류 **, 문**은 원심 법정에서 2009년 겨울 위 동사무소에서 위 피고인과 대화를 나누던 중 위주 ** 이 와서 같이 차를 마시고 현관에서 함께 위 주 ** 을 배웅하였으며 위 피고인과 위주 * 이 따로 회의실로 들어가는 것은 보지 못했다고 진술하여 위 피고인의 변소와 부합하는 점 등을 고려할 때 위 주 ** 의 진술은 신빙성이 없어 이를 근거로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정할 수 없고 달리 위 공소사실을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 이 부분 공소사실은 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당한다고 판단하였다. (4) 당심의 판단

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is reasonable to view that the above Note ** has credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

(가) 비록 위 피고인이 경찰에서 범행장소가 위 동사무소가 아닌 위 피고인의 사무실이라고 진술하였고, 위 피고인과의 대질에서도 자신은 위 피고인을 그의 사무실에서 만났을 뿐 위 피고인 주장과 같이 동사무소에서 만난 사실이 없다고 진술하다가 현장조사에 이르러서야 돈을 건넨 장소가 위 피고인의 사무실이 아니라 위 동사무소 내의 회의실 이라고 그 진술을 번복한 점에 비추어 볼 때 일응 위 주 **의 진술의 신빙성이 의심되고, 오히려 위 피고인의 진술의 일관성이 있는 것처럼 보인다. 그러나, 위 주 ** 은 경찰에서 위 피고인과의 대질 신문에서 자신이 위 피고인의 사무실을 찾아 갔을 때 그 사무실이 다른 사무실과 달리 허술하고, 깨끗하게 정돈되지 아니한 상태였으며, 주로 비어 있는 사무실 같았다고 진술하였고, 한편, 위 증거들에 의하면, 위 사무실이 위치한 건물에 화재가 발생한 적이 있고, 그 후 위 사무실은 피고인이 거의 사용하지 아니하여 비어있었던 사실이 인정되는바, 그렇다면, 위 사무실의 현황은 위 주 ** 이 목격하였다고 진술한 현황과 대체로 일치한다고 보이고, 이는 위 주** 이 경험하지 않으면 진술할 수 없는 부분으로서 위 주 ** 이 위 사무실을 한 번 찾아가 위 피고인을 만난 적이 있다는 정황을 나타내고 있다고 보이며(한편, 위 피고인은 위 주 ** 을 위 사무실에서 만난 사실이 없다고 진술하였다). 따라서, 위 주 * * 이 위 피고인의 사무실에 가본 적이 없었음에도 불구하고, 그곳에 가서 위 피고인에게 돈봉투를 건넸다고 허위로 진술하였다고 보기 보다는 자신이 위 사무실로 찾아가 위 피고인을 만난 적이 있기 때문에 돈봉투도 그 때 지급하였을 것으로 착각하여 그러한 진술을 하였다고 보는 것이 합리적이라고 판단된다.

또한 위 주 ** 이 위 피고인을 만나 돈을 교부한 사실이 없음에도 거짓으로 이러한 진술을 하였다면, 진술을 번복하여 새로운 거짓말을 하는 것보다는 위 사무실에서 위 피고인을 만났다는 기존의 진술을 유지하는 것이 거짓을 감추는 데 더 용이하다고 보임에도 불구하고, 위 주* * 이 기존의 진술을 번복하고 위 피고인을 만난 장소가 위 피고인의 주장처럼 위 동사무소라고 진술한 것은 위 피고인에게 돈을 교부한 장소가 위 피고인의 사무실이었다는 전의 진술이 착오에 의한 것을 깨닫고 이를 번복하여 진술 하였다고 볼 수 있어 위 주* *의 진술의 신빙성은 인정된다고 보인다. (나) 위 주**은전화로 위피고인에게 연락하여 위 피고인이 위 동사무소 에 있다는 것을 알고 찾아와 동장인 류 **, 계장인 문 ** 과 함께 동사무소 내의 민원인 탁자에 앉아 차를 마시며 이야기하다가 위 피고인과 둘이서 동사무소 내의 회의실로 자리를 옮겨 그곳에서 돈봉투를 건넸다는 취지로 진술하였고, 이에 대하여 위 피고인은 위 주 * 이 전화한 뒤 자신을 찾아 와 민원인 탁자에서 위 류 **, 문* *과 함께 차를 마신 적은 있지만 위 주**과 따로 위 회의실로 들어갔거나 그 곳에서 그로부터 돈봉투를 받은 사실이 없고, 위 주 ** 과 차를 마시며 통상적인 이야기만 나눈 채 헤어졌다는 취지로 변소한다.

The fact that the defendant was found as the above-mentioned office after making a telephone to the above-mentioned defendant * The above-mentioned defendant * the above-mentioned defendant * the above-mentioned defendant * the above-mentioned defendant * the above-mentioned presumption

The fact that the above defendant was found after the telephone was sought is persuasive to view that he had been found in work, such as getting back with an envelope like the above state*, and some of the above defendant was found, and it is difficult to understand that the above state* simply frighting without any specific use, such as the above defendant's argument, and the above state ** the above state **** the above defendant's appearance as witness at the time of delivery ** the above defendant ** the above defendant * the above * the above defendant * the above defendant * the above * the above state * the above * the defendant * the victim * the victim * the victim * the victim * the victim * the victim * the above * the victim * the victim * the above * the defendant * the defendant * the above * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the defendant * the above *'s statement made to the purport.

(C) Although the above Note** was aware of the fact that the above Defendant was not recorded in the above Note***'s mobile phone call records as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of delivery, the above Note** was found to have been lawfully adopted and examined in the court below and the trial court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the above Note** was also the above Defendant * * * even before the above Defendant Ma, the first instance court * Co-defendant * and the cell phone * even after having contacted the above Defendant with the Defendant in advance and delivered the plastic bags, the telephone records with him cannot be deemed to have been believed to be the above Note**** due to the circumstance cited by the court below.

(i) Determination as to Kim*

(1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

(A) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the above defendant, as a member, was in the position to have the right to deliberate and vote on the budget for the major policies of women and women, including night landscape lighting projects promoted by the above defendant as a member 4th*************, the above defendant, as he was aware of the state****, and was made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that he was made a sense related to the election at the time. The above defendant did not take measures to return money even though he could easily confirm his contact details by several calls, it is difficult to view that the above defendant was not in a private-friendly relationship with the above **** the above money exchange * the above money, or that there was no special-friendly relationship with the above money clearly and as a result of the need to deny business relationship, and therefore it cannot avoid the crime of acceptance of money for the crime of acceptance of bribe.

(b)The decision of the Central Committee;

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the fact that the above defendant delivered the above amount to the above defendant ***** the purport that he attempted to help the interference market, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts otherwise, the above defendant's above argument is without merit. (B) ex officio judgment is without merit.

As seen earlier, prior to the judgment on the recommendation of unfair sentencing by the above defendant, the health care unit and the person who committed the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 of the Criminal Act should be concurrently sentenced to a fine of two to five times the amount of the accepted bribery, but the court below did not concurrently impose a fine on the above defendant who committed the above crime. As such, the part of the judgment below against the above defendant in the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(A) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the above defendant cannot escape from the liability for the crime of acceptance of bribe on the ground that it is recognized that the above defendant was a member of the fourth National Assembly and was in the position to have the right to deliberate and vote on the budget for the major policies of the leisure city, that there was a conflict with the fourth National Assembly with respect to the large policy projects, such as the night landscape lighting project, which was promoted ** The above defendant's above state** or the above ** the above * cannot be viewed as a private-friendly relationship that gives and receives the above money, or that it is difficult to regard the above amount as a courtesy due to the need for the doctrine to deny the relationship of duty clearly, considering the fact that the above defendant was deemed to have received the money in relation to his duties as a member of the leisure City. (b) The court held that the above defendant cannot escape from the liability for the crime of acceptance of bribe.

Examining the above determination by the court below in comparison with records, the court below's judgment is examined.

The judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, so the above defendant's above argument is without merit. (B) Judgment ex officio.

As seen earlier, the lower court did not concurrently impose a fine on the Defendant who committed the above crime, even though, prior to the judgment on the recommendation of unfair sentencing by the above Defendant, the health care unit and the person who committed the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 of the Criminal Act should be imposed a fine of not less than two times but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery amount. As such, the part of the lower judgment against the above Defendant in the lower judgment is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant 1:30 on May 29, 2010, ** the her husband near the police box** the her husband before the police box ** the size of election campaign **** he received the direction of this **** “The string of work, like the President of the Lao market, would have transferred to her,” and he received a donation from the above Defendant 1’s candidate for the election, by making one bag containing KRW 5 million in cash ***(ii) the change of the above Defendant.

Although the above Defendant received an envelope as stated in the facts of the crime, the money contained in the envelope was not KRW 5 million but KRW 2 million, and at the time, this*** was unaware of who was unaware of who was the sender because he was unable to hear the horses well. (3) The judgment of the court below is erroneous.

The court below found that the above size**, this**, this*'s statement in an envelope 5 million won, and this** delivered the above envelope to the defendant without confirming the contents. The defendant stated that the first investigation agency received KRW 30 million from the above species***** in the Si Council by receiving KRW 5 million from the above types of investigation agency and delivered the above amount to the six members of the Si Council by five million. After the fact that the delivery of money to the five members of the Si Council was recognized only due to the lack of clearly stating the above delivery of money to the five members, despite the change of the above defendant's complaint, the above size*** in full trust of the statement of the above **, the amount of the envelope was received within 5 million won, but the above * the above defendant received money from the above candidate * 200 meters away from the list of the above candidates * * the above defendant made a statement that he received money from the above candidate * in light of the fact that he received money from the above defendant * 2000 meters from the above donation market.

(4) Judgment of the court below

원심이 적법하게 채택, 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 위 곽** 은 봉투 2개에 500만 원 (50,000원 권 100장 )을 담아 매제인 이** 에게 건네면서 피고인 최** 과 박**의 유세 현장에 가서 전달해 달라고 부탁한 점. ② 위이 ** 은 위 곽 ** 으로부터 두께가 같은 돈 봉투를 받아 바로 위 박 ** 의 선거 유세장으로 가서 그에게 봉투 1개를 전달하였고, 다음으로 피고인 최 * 의 선거 유세장으로 가서 그의 처인 피고인 민OO에게 '오시장님 심부름으로 갖다 주라고 해서 왔습니다'고 하였더니 피고인 민○○가 '시장님이 많이 도와주시는데 뭘 또 주시느냐'며 거절하다가 재차 내밀자 이를 받았다고 진술하고 있는 점. ③ 피고인 민OO는 위 이** 으로부터 받은 봉투에 200만 원이 들어 있었다고 기억하면서도 그 중 100만 원을 가게 인건비로 사용하였는데, 10,000원 권 지폐인지, 50,000원 권 지폐인지 모르겠다고 진술하고 있어 피고인 민OO가 사실을 그대로 진술하지 않고 있다고 보이는 점, ④ 위 이 ** 이 위 곽**으로 부터 받은 현금 중 일부를 피고인 민OO에게 전달하지 않고 중간에서 착복하였을 가능성은 희박한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 피고인은 위 이 **으로 부터 500만 원이 들어 있는 돈 봉투를 지급받았다는 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 원심이 이와 달리 이 부분 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 것에는 사실을 오인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있고, 이를 지적하는 검사의 이 부분 항소이유 주장은 이유 있다.

3. Conclusion

A. Defendant this***’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal under this***, current** because all appeals against each guilty part are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. (b) Defendant *, *, *, *, Kim*, *, Park*, Park* because there are grounds for ex officio reversal as seen earlier with respect to the above part **, under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the above part is reversed and the prosecutor’s appeal under Article 364(2) of the above Act without examining the above part *, *, *, *, *, *, *, * the appeal against ○○, and the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal part * on the guilty part * on each of the above parts of the judgment of the court below under Article 364(6) of the same Act (the grounds for the appeal against the above part * the Defendant’s appeal against the unjust sentencing part on the part

Criminal facts

Defendant ******* above ** (former*****) * (former*******) *, Kim*, Park*** * ** 4) *** * (former 1 July 1, 2006 to 30 June 30, 201) * * * the head of the urban development project at the time of election * * * the head of the urban development project at the time of election * * * the above 1) * the above 2) * the above 1) * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the head of the Si election * the above * the head of the Si election *.

1. Defendant letter*** The Defendant received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member who has an check-up function, such as budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and corrective quality, from June 2009 to September 2009, with the Defendant’s office* from the above week****** * * 5 million in cash, with the Defendant’s request to assist the market ** 5 million in cash, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member who has an check-up function, such as budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and corrective quality.

2. A bribe concerning the duties of a Si Council member who has the function of checking, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, and correction for the city, * the last day of May 2009 through July 2009, in which he/she has been in office as a Council member********************, in the underground parking lot upon the request that he/she assist the market, in cash, five million won (500,000 won) in a yellow bag was dried, and has the function of checking, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, and correction.

the Corporation received the Company.

3. Defendant this*** Defendant this** from June 2009 to July 2009 ****************** from the above week***** upon the request of the chairperson of the environmental welfare committee where the above Defendant works for the above Defendant, in cash, received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checking functions, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, correction, etc.

4. Defendant U.S.**** Defendant U.S.** from the end of May 2009 to the early of June 2009 to the early of early of June 2009 *** in************************ in the passenger car ***** in the car *** in cash with the request for delivery of the market 5 million won (500 Won KRW 10,000) in cash, and received a bribe with respect to the duties of the City Council members who have the function of check-up, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, and correction.

5. Defendant fixed **

A. Acceptance of bribe

Defendant fixed** received a bribe in relation to the duties of the City Council members who have the check-up function, such as budget deliberation and resolution, administrative audit and correction, etc. for the City, ********************* in the vicinity of the above State***** in cash with the request for delivery of the market.* in cash with the request for delivery of the market.

On May 29, 2010, the above defendant received one bag containing five million won in cash (50,000 won) (50, 13:30 on May 29, 2010, ******* in the small room inside the restaurant ** in the above transmission** in the small room inside the restaurant ** in the above transmission*.

6. Around June 1, 2009, Defendant 1* Defendant * stated that “A public prosecution was held from August 2009 to September 2009, but there is no impediment to guaranteeing the Defendant’s right to defense as seen below, and thus, the correction is made without modification of the indictment.”***** from the Defendant’s office at the above week*** ** * * * 5 million in cash upon the request of the Defendant to assist the market, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks such as budget deliberation, resolution, administrative audit, and correction.

7. A bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, correction, etc., who has been employed as 4th class***** from the end of May 2009 to July 2009 who has served as 5th class**** in the conference room*** in the conference room**** in the above week**** in cash with the request of the Mayor to assist her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she she

the Corporation received the Company.

8. Defendant Kim**** Defendant Kim** on June 2009, in leisure time******* apartment in which he resides** apartment in the said parking lot***** from the above state********* in cash upon the request of the head of the Si to assist the market, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of the Si Council members who have checks and checks, such as budget review, resolution, administrative audit, correction, etc. of the City.

9. Defendant Gambling** Defendant Lbling** From June 2009 to July 2009 ******* Civil** from the preceding parking lot** from the above state**** in cash upon the request of the Mayor to assist the market, and received a bribe in relation to the duties of a Si Council member with checks such as budget deliberation and resolution, administrative audit and corrective quality.

10. Defendant’s citizens;

Defendant CO received instructions from Defendant CO on May 29, 2010, around 19:30, about 19:30, *** her husband last her husband around the police box** * *’s election campaign cause *** *’s direction ** * * * because the president of the Red NO, who works like the President of the Lao market, called “NO, took one bag containing five million won in cash, and was contributed from the above * as a candidate for the election.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant **]

1. Defendant letter* Defendant 1. Witness note 1. Witness note * at the court of the trial * at the court of the trial * at the court of the trial and the court of the trial 1. Notes * Each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution * at the prosecutor *

1. Protocol of seizure (west** submitted KRW 5 million);

[Defendant Choi*]

1. Witness note* Legal Statements in the original trial and the trial court 1. State* Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation as to *

[Defendant*]

1. Witness note* Legal Statements in the original trial and the trial court 1. State* Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation as to *

[Defendant*]

1. Witness note** the legal statement in the original trial and the party trial 1. State* Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation as to *

【Court of the defendant* The acceptance of bribe in the judgment of the court below】

1. The above defendant's oral statement 1. witness statement at the court below 1. witness statement* State 1. State * Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination of the defendant *

【Contribution Act by the Defendant’s holding】

1. Partial statement of the above defendant;

1. Witness**, Kim * each legal statement at the original trial 1. O.O.* each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation as to *

1. Forwarding* mobile telephone calls;

【Defendant *】

1. Defendant fixed ** Part of the legal statement at the original trial 1. Witness 1. Witness * at the original trial * at the original trial * at the original trial * at the original trial * a copy of each protocol of examination of suspect by the prosecution * at the prosecutor *

1. Note* Each protocol of suspect examination of prosecution and protocol of statement by the prosecution against *

1. Defendant 5* Each police suspect interrogation protocol (ju** part of the statement) against Defendant 1*

1. Fixedity** and State* Currency* Contents of currency

[Defendant Kim*]

1. Defendant Kim** Part of the legal statement at the original trial 1. Witness Note* at the original trial * at the court below's 1. Defendant Kim* at the court below's * Part of the police and the suspect examination protocol of prosecution against Defendant Kim*

1. Details of telephone calls for related persons;

[Defendant Park*]

1. Defendant Park Jong-chul's partial legal statement at the original trial* 1. Witness Note* the legal statement at the original trial* 1. Relevant persons' mobile telephone calls

[Defendant OO]

1. The defendant O's partial statement 1. witness statement 1. *, *, * each of the legal statements in the original trial ** the copy of the police interrogation protocol * the copy of the police interrogation protocol * the certified copy of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol / the application of each prosecutor's protocol

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

(a) Defendants **, *, Kim*, Kim*, Park*: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of acceptance of bribe as indicated by the above Defendants, each of the choice of imprisonment, and as seen earlier, fines should be imposed concurrently pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, as seen earlier, but the above Defendants have appealed only, and thus only the above Defendants have appealed, they are not concurrently punished by fines in accordance with the principle on prohibition of disadvantageous change). ***, *, **, *, Kim *: each of the bribe as stated by the above Defendants?: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of acceptance of bribe as stated by the above Defendants, each of them has selected imprisonment, each of them has been fined pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes? Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the election of Defendants 27(1) of the Public Official Election Act) and Article 25(25(1) of the Act) of the Act.

Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act (Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 (Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 18(3) of the same Act (Article 18(1) of the same Act, separate from the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act as stated in the judgment of acceptance of bribe *, this*,***, the current*, the last**, the current*, the current**, the current**, the current**, the Kim *.* Kim *. Kim *, the current**) of the Criminal Act and Article 62(1)1 of the same Act.

A. Defendant L***, this**,***, current*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Park*, Park*: the part of Article 134 of each Criminal Code. Defendant Jeong**, the part of the proviso of Article 257(4) of each Criminal Code **, the part of the first sentence of Article 257(1) of the Public Official Election Act ***, the last part of this*, the last*, Kim*, Kim**, privateO). The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act **, the last part of this*, the last part**, the last part*, the fact that the above Defendants, a member of the local council, received a bribe****, the trust and trust of citizens in the addition of the duties of the members of the Si by taking over the bribe ******, the above Defendants should have committed the crime corresponding to the above Defendants.

However, on the other hand, although the money received by the above defendants can not be comprehensively avoided business relationship, it is difficult to view that the above defendants were related to their individual duties or committed unfair acts in relation to their duties, the defendants did not first demand money, the defendants ** voluntarily reported to the investigation agency the facts of the crime, the defendants * *, Kim** the above states****, the above states*** because they could not actively refuse to deliver the said money, and the above defendants' character, behavior, environment, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime are considered to cause the crime of this case as ordered.

2. Defendant fixed * The above Defendant’s position* accepted a bribe in the position of a member of the local council with a wide and comprehensive authority above** 5 million won from the above Defendant, and left the same line immediately before simultaneous local elections*** the integrity of the City Council members’ duties and the trust of citizens in relation thereto by receiving the money again from 5 million won before simultaneous local elections. However, the money received by the above Defendant cannot be generally avoided business relationship, but it is difficult to deem that the above Defendant was related to a specific individual duty or that the Defendants committed an unfair act related to his duties, including the above Defendant’s character, environment, family relations, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and determine the sentence as ordered by taking full account of various circumstances, such as the sentencing conditions after the crime.

3. The above Defendant’s citizen’s receipt of KRW 5 million from ** to 5 million before simultaneous local elections, thereby impairing the transparency and fairness of the election. However, the above Defendant’s character, character, environment, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, including the fact that the above Defendant did not have the same criminal power, etc., as well as the character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime. In full view of the various circumstances, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

(Presiding Judge)

Rule 5

No. 50

nan