The defendant committed the crime of offering a bribe from June 2015 to August 5, 2015 against G.

Punishment of the crime

[Majority Facts] On April 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act at the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) and completed the execution of the sentence on January 30, 2014. On November 23, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment for forgery of private documents, etc. on January 30, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on January 30, 2015. On February 3, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution and became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

[2017 Gohap 114]

1. Offering a bribe;

A. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged pertaining to the offering of a bribe to G are stated that the Defendant offered a total of KRW 110 million to G from June 2015 to April 15, 2016, and the prosecutor seems to have charged the Defendant with a single comprehensive crime, including the Defendant’s crime of offering a bribe to G. This part of the facts charged is also deemed to have been prosecuted.

On the other hand, Article 132 of the Criminal Act, in addition to Article 129 of the Criminal Act, which is cited pursuant to Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act (the provision of a bribe, etc.), is also stated in the facts charged. In addition to Table 1 of the crimes attached to the indictment, even from June 2015 to August 5, 2015, the facts charged are differently stated in the name of a public offering and the name of a public offering from October 2015 to April 15, 2016, it appears that the offer of a bribe from June 2016 to August 5, 2015 is divided into a simple offering of a bribe concerning a bribe, and the offering of a bribe from October 2016 to April 15, 2015, respectively.

It is reasonable to view the crime of simple bribe offering and the crime of arranging bribe offering as a separate crime, as not only differing from the constituent elements thereof, but also differing from the type of act, the timing of receipt, and the object of solicitation, and thus, cannot be deemed as a single or continuous criminal act.

Therefore, the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap 799, decided on G, the counter-party to the crime of offering this part of the bribe.