2010 Highest 1605, 201 Highest 1061, 201 Highest 1062, 2011 Highest 201

Gohap1075 (Joint), 2011 Highis1079 (Joint), 2011 Highis647, 1060-1

(Separation)Separation (combined)

A. Acceptance of bribe

(b) Offering of bribe;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.(a) C

4.(a) D.

5.(a) E.

6.(a)F

7.b. G.

8.(a) H

9.(a) I

10.(a) J

11.(a) K

12.b. L

13.(a) M

14.(a)N

15.(a) This

16.(a)P

17.A. Q.

18.(a) R

19.1.S

20.(a) T:

21.A. U.S.

22.(a) V

23.(a)W

Lee Jong-tae, Kim Tae-tae, Shin Tae-so, Park Jong-young (public prosecution of more than one) and melting (public trial)

Law Firm X (SaC for Defendant A)

Y. Law Firm

Law Firm Z (the private line for defendant B)

Attorney AA

Law Firm AB (private ships for defendant C)

Attorney AC, AD

Attorney AE (private ships for defendant C)

Law Firm AF (private ships for defendant D)

Attorney AG, AH

Law Firm AI (private line for defendant F)

Attorney J J

Attorney AK (private ships for defendant G)

Attorney L (Defendant H)

Law Firm AM (Defendant I, S)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm AO (private ships for defendant J)

Attorney AP

Law Firm A Q (private line for Defendant K)

Attorney AR

Attorney AS (private ships for defendant K)

Attorney AT (the national election for defendant L)

Law Firm AU (private ships for defendant M)

Attorney AV

Attorney W W (private ships for defendant N)

AB Law Firm (private ships for defendant 0)

Attorney AX, AY

Law Firm AF (private ships for defendant P)

Attorney AZ, BA

Law Firm BB (SAS for Defendant Q)

Attorney BC, BD

Law Firm BE (private ships for defendant R)

Attorney BF

Law Firm BG (SP for Defendant T)

Attorney BH, BI

BJ Law Firm (a private ship for defendant U and V)

Attorney BK, BL

Attorney BM (Defendant W)

February 9, 2012

Defendant F shall be punished by imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for one year; fine of 17,00,000,000 won; imprisonment for one year and six months; imprisonment for Defendant F; imprisonment for one year and six months; imprisonment for Defendant L; imprisonment for one year and six months; imprisonment for one year and a fine of 2,00,000,000 won; imprisonment for Defendant T; imprisonment for one year and six months; imprisonment for one year and six months; and fine of 22,00,000,000 won; and imprisonment for Defendant W for six months.

When Defendant H, I, P, and T fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

From the day when this judgment became final and conclusive, the above imprisonment for two years with respect to Defendant F, and for two years, the above imprisonment for three years for Defendant H and P, the above imprisonment for three years for Defendant L, the above imprisonment for three years for Defendant L, and the above imprisonment for one year for Defendant Qu, Q, and R. The above sentence for one year is suspended. The above sentence shall be suspended for 617,260 won from Defendant A, the amount of 20,000 won from Defendant F, the amount of 23,000,000 won from Defendant H, the amount of 23,00,000,000 won from Defendant H, and the amount of 26,00,000 won from Defendant M, and the amount of 26,000,000 won from Defendant P, and the amount of KRW 1,50,000 from Defendant Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, and R, each of the above sentence shall be collected.

Defendant B, C, D, E, G, J, K, K, N, U, and V are not guilty. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, F, H, I, M,O, P, Q, R, T, and W, the facts charged against the bribery related to G are not guilty.

Of the facts charged against Defendant L, the offering of N or K-related bribe is acquitted.

Criminal History (Status of the defendant)

Defendant 1, from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, worked as the principal of the BO elementary school located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the principal of the BO elementary school, and from March 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010, Defendant 1 took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of students and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

From September 1, 2006, to August 20, 2010, Defendant H served as the principal of the BS elementary school located in Seoul Jung-gu BR, and took overall charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

From September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2008, the Defendant worked as the principal of the BU elementary school located in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu) and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of the teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of the students.

Defendant P worked as the principal of the BW elementary school located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BV from September 1, 2006 to August 19, 2010, and entered into a contract for student guidance and student group events with the teachers.

The task was comprehensively controlled.

From March 1, 2006 to August 20, 2010, Defendant A worked as the principal of the BY elementary school located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

From March 1, 2007 to August 31, 2010, Defendant F worked as the principal of the CA elementary school located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant Q worked as the principal ofCC Elementary School in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul from September 1, 2004 to February 28, 2008, and took overall charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

From March 1, 2006 to August 31, 2008, Defendant R worked as the principal of the CE Elementary School in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) and took overall charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

Defendant T worked as the principal of the CG elementary school located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from March 1, 2005 to August 20, 2010, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of a contract for collective events of students.

From March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, Defendant M worked as the principal of the CI Elementary School in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant W worked as the principal of CK elementary school located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CJ from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant L is the operator of the accommodation chain CLS Hostel. 【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant 1

A. On January 2007, the Defendant received 2 million won in cash from L, the representative of the CL youth hostel, in a restaurant where it is difficult to know the trade name near BO elementary school located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the Defendant received honorariums for the students to conclude the contract for the school travel accommodation business and for the solicitation of the future company to conclude the contract.

In addition, the Defendant received 8 million won in total under the name of honorariums for concluding the contract for a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding the future contract, as shown in the attached Table (2) from around that time to early June 2009, as well as from around that time, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. On January 2, 2010 through February 2, 2010, the Defendant selected (ju) CNN as a company subject to contract for the dissemination and operation of private school computers at B QN’s private school in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the Defendant’s dwelling at the end of the same year, and received KRW 15 million in cash provided by the above CO for various convenience related to the operation of private school computers at B QN’s (ju) QN’s private school, and received KRW 25 million in total at the same place as at the end of the end of February of the same year or on March of the same year. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

2. Defendant H

A. On January 2007, the Defendant received a reward of KRW 2 million in cash from L, which is a student’s representative, for concluding a contract for a school travel accommodation business in the BS elementary school room located in Seoul Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, on the pretext of a student’s solicitation for concluding the contract and for concluding the future business.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 8 million from around that time to around January 2010, as indicated in the List of Crimes (4), in total four times, for the conclusion of the contract for a school travel accommodation business, and for solicitation for the future conclusion of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

B. On February 2, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 15,000,00 in cash from Q Q, the representative director of the CP corporation, the CP corporation, the Plaintiff, at the school principal of the above BS elementary school, for the purchase of 38 air disinfectant (supply price of KRW 62,70,000).

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

3. Defendant’s objection

On February 2, 2007, the Defendant received 300,000 won in cash from L, a representative of the BU Elementary School TT in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as shown in attached Table No. 1 (8) on the pretext of a student’s acceptance of the contract for a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

4. Defendant P

A. On December 2007, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from L, the representative of the CL youth hostel in the BW elementary school principal in Songpa-gu, Seoul, on the pretext of a student’s compensation for concluding a contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding future contracts.

In addition, from around that time to around July 2009, the Defendant received a total of 6 million won as a reward for concluding a contract for a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (10) from around that time, as well as from around that time, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Around September 2008, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the above CT on the pretext that (a) in the vehicle of the business director in charge of CTS established in the 204 neighboring parking lot of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CCR apartment 204, the Defendant selected (ju) CTS as a private school computer class operator of BW elementary school after school; and (b) in the future, the Defendant received instructions from CU, which is the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Headquarters of CS, for offering the bribe from the above CT under the pretext that he would be able to easily see the convenience of the operation of the computer class in the above BW elementary school; and (c) around October 2008, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the above CT under the above pretext as above in the BW elementary school principal. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 20 million as a bribe in relation to his duties.

5. Defendant A

A. On February 2, 2009, the Defendant received 600,000 won as a reward for the students’ conclusion of a contract related to Jeju-do school travel from WW, the representative director of CV, a corporation, which is a travel and training business, in the BY elementary school school school principal located in Songpa-gu Seoul, from November 3, 2008 to May 5 of the same month. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties in cash.

B. Around November 10, 2009, the Defendant received cash of KRW 3 million from CV representative director of CV representative director of CY Elementary School without interest and due date agreement in favor of future companies related to the event of organization such as student training activities. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe equivalent to KRW 3 million from CW in relation to his duties.

6. Defendant F

On January 2 to December 2, 2008, the Defendant received cash of KRW 20 million for various convenience related to the operation of the CA, CA, elementary school, private participation computer class in the future (ju), together with a request to the effect that (ju) CN will be selected as a target company in relation to the supply/operation contract of private school in the CA, which is scheduled to be selected from the head of Gangnam Department of the CA, Gangnam Department of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

7. Defendant Q.

On December 2, 2007, the Defendant received honorariums for the students’ conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business at the CB’s school principal in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, from L, the representative of the CB, in cash, 1.5 million won in terms of honorariums for the students’ conclusion of the contract and solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

8. Defendant R

On December 2, 2007, the Defendant received 150,000 won in cash from L, a representative of CE Elementary School in Seoul, Seoul, as shown in the [Attachment Table 22] No. 1, on the pretext of a student’s compensation for concluding a contract for a school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation for concluding a future contract.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

9. Defendant T

A. On July 2008, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in cash from L, who is the representative of CG elementary school in Gangnam-gu Seoul, on the pretext of a student’s conclusion of the contract for a school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 5 million from around that time to around January 2010 as indicated in the [Attachment Table 24] Nos. 2 and 3 from around that time, as well as from around that time to around December 2010, under the pretext of a solicitation for concluding a contract for a school travel hotel and for concluding a future contract. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. On March 2009, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in total four times from March 2009 to September 2009, as follows: (a) in the Defendant’s vehicle parked in front of the CZ high school located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, as a private participation computer class operator of the CG elementary school; and (b) in the future, the Defendant received KRW 8 million from CT, a director in charge of business operation of the DA’s school headquarters, a subsidiary of the CS, under the name that he well-being the convenience of operating the computer class in the future; and (c) received KRW 20 million in total from around September 2009 to around September 2009.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of 20 million won in relation to his duties.

10. Defendant M

On December 2, 2007, the Defendant received a reward of KRW 2 million in cash from L, a representative of CLS Hos Hostel, for the students’ conclusion of the contract for a school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation of the future company’s conclusion of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

11. Defendant W

On October 2007, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from L, a representative of CK elementary school in Gangdong-gu Seoul, for a student’s school travel accommodation business contract, a honorarium for the student’s conclusion of the contract, and a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

In addition, from around that time to December 2008, the Defendant received a total of 6 million won as a reward for concluding a contract for a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as shown in the attached Table (28) from around that time to around December 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

12. Defendant L.

A. On January 2007, the Defendant granted KRW 2 million in cash to the principal of the BO elementary school, who is a student’s school principal, in a restaurant where it is difficult to know the trade name near the BO elementary school, as a reward for the students’ conclusion of the contract, and as a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

In addition, from around that time to early June 2009, the Defendant granted 8 million won in total under the name of honorariums for concluding contracts for school travel accommodation businesses and solicitation for concluding future contracts, as shown in the attached Table (2) from around 2009 to early 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

B. On January 2007, the Defendant issued 200,000 won in cash to H, who is the principal of the BS elementary school school, in the above BS elementary school school school room, as a reward for the students’ conclusion of the contract for the school travel accommodation business, and as a solicitation for the future business contracts.

In addition, from around that time to around January 2010, the Defendant granted 300,000 won in cash to the principal of BU elementary school in the BU elementary school room on February 1, 2007, as indicated in the list of crimes (4), in total, at least four times, for honorariums for concluding the contract for a school travel accommodation business, and for soliciting the conclusion of the future contract. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe to public officials in relation to the public official’s duties. On February 2, 2007, the Defendant issued a honorarium for concluding the contract for a school travel accommodation business to the principal of BU elementary school in the BU elementary school room as indicated in the table of crimes (8) No. 1 as shown in the table of crimes (8). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe to public official in relation to his duties.

D. On December 2, 2007, the Defendant issued 200,000 won in cash to P, who is the principal of BW elementary school, in the school room of BW elementary school, for a student’s recompense for concluding the contract for school travel accommodation business, and for a solicitation for concluding the future business contract.

In addition, from around that time to around July 2009, the Defendant granted KRW 6 million in total on the pretext of the conclusion of the contract for the school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for the conclusion of the future contract, as indicated in the attached Table 10 (10). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

E. Around December 2007, the Defendant, at the school principal of theCC Elementary School, delivered a student’s educational tour accommodation contract to Q, the principal of theCC Elementary School, Q, a student’s school principal, KRW 1,500,000,000, in cash, in consideration of the student’s honorarium for the conclusion of the contract and a solicitation for the future company’s contract.

F. On December 2, 2007, the Defendant issued 1.5 million won in cash to R, who is the principal of CE elementary school, in the CE elementary school school room, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 22] No. 1 on the pretext of a student’s honorarium for concluding the contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding the future business contract.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

G. On July 2008, the Defendant issued KRW 3 million in cash to T, who is the principal of CG elementary school in the above CG elementary school school room, in terms of the student’s recompense for concluding the contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding the future business contract.

In addition, from around that time to around January 2010, the Defendant issued twice a total of KRW 5 million as indicated in [Attachment Table 24] Nos. 2 and 3 for the conclusion of the contract for an accommodation business at school, as well as for solicitation of future contracts for a business entity. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

H. On December 2, 2007, the Defendant issued 200,000 won in cash to the principal of CI elementary school M, who was the principal of CI elementary school, in a school room of CI elementary school, in consideration of the student’s recompense for concluding a contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding future business contracts. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public official’s duties

I. On October 2007, the Defendant issued 200,000 won in cash to W, who is the principal of CK elementary school, in the school room of CK elementary school, in consideration of the student’s recompense for concluding the contract for school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation for concluding the future business contract.

In addition, from around that time to December 2008, the Defendant issued a total of 6 million won as a reward for concluding a contract of a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (28) on three occasions, from around that time to around that time. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

j. On December 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 1,00,000 in cash as a reward for the students’ conclusion of the contract for the accommodation business at the DC elementary school school school principal room located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, to DB, who is the principal of DC elementary school principal, DC elementary school principal, and as a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

In addition, from around that time to around June 2008, the Defendant issued a total of 3 million won as a reward for concluding a contract of a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as shown in the attached Table (36) on a total of two occasions, from around that time, the Defendant provided a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

C. On August 1, 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 2 million in cash to DG, the principal of DF elementary school in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the pretext of a student’s compensation for concluding the DF elementary school contract, and a solicitation for concluding the future contract.

In addition, from around that time to around July 2009, the Defendant granted KRW 5 million in total under the name of honorariums for concluding contracts for school travel accommodation business and solicitation for concluding future contracts, as indicated in the attached Table (38) from around that time to around the police officer. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Other. On March 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 2 million in cash to the DI elementary school principal, who is the principal of DI elementary school, in the DI elementary school principal in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, on the pretext of a student’s solicitation for concluding the contract for the accommodation business.

In addition, from around that time to June 2008, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 6 million in total under the name of honorariums for concluding contracts for school travel accommodation business and solicitation for concluding future contracts, as indicated in the attached Table (39) from around that time to around that time. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(m) On January 2007, the Defendant issued 100,000 won in cash to DM, the principal of DL elementary school, the principal of DL elementary school, DL elementary school, the principal of DL elementary school, to DL, the principal of DL elementary school, in order to provide students with rewards for concluding the DL elementary school contract, and a solicitation for concluding the future enterprise contract.

In addition, from around that time to early December 2008, the Defendant granted a total of 6 million won as a reward for concluding a contract of a school travel accommodation business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract at least three times, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (40). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

n. On June 2008, the Defendant issued 200,000 won in cash to DP, the principal of DO elementary school in DO elementary school located in DO, Seoul, Seoul, on the pretext of a student’s compensation for concluding the contract for DO elementary school accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding the future business.

In addition, from around that time to after the beginning of June 2009, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 5 million as a reward for concluding a contract of a school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (41) on a total of two occasions. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(o) On June 2008, the Defendant granted KRW 3 million in cash to DS, the principal of DR middle school in the DR middle school located in the Donsan-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, to the principal of DDR, who is the principal of DR middle school, in terms of the student’s compensation for concluding the DR middle school contract and solicitation for concluding the future enterprise contract.

In addition, from around that time to after the beginning of June 2009, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 5 million in total under the name of honorariums for concluding contracts for school travel accommodation business and solicitation for concluding future contracts, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (42). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(p) On March 2007, the Defendant granted KRW 2 million in cash to DoV, the principal of DU middle school, in the DU middle school, DU middle school, which is located in DT, for the purpose of a student’s conclusion of the contract for the accommodation business, and for the solicitation of the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

Around that time, the Defendant, along with this, delivered KRW 5 million in total on the pretext of the conclusion of the contract for the school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for the conclusion of the future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (43) from around that time to around the lower day of June 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

0 2010Gohap1605

1. Part of the legal statement of Defendant A, M, P, the legal statement of Defendant H, I, L, Q, Q, R, T, and W 1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on the witness L, CW, and DW's legal statement 1.D, DG, DJ, DM, DP, DP, DS, and DV

1. The principal business pocketbook;

1. Each existing situation of seized 2007 Mez fire Daz fire (No. 3), 2008 DoX-type color pocketbooks (No. 4);

0 201Gohap647, 1060 (Joint),1 (Separation)

1. Part of Defendant H’s legal statement

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents);

0 2011 Highest 1061

1. Defendant I’s legal statement

1. Copy of the written statement of the prosecution against the CO;

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents);

0 2011 Highest 1062

1. The defendant T’s partial legal statement 1. The witness CT and CU’s respective legal statements 1. Each investigation report (including attached documents)

0 2011 Highest 1075

1. The legal statement of Defendant F in part;

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents);

0 2011 Highest 1079

1. Defendant P’s legal statement

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (with regard to each of the paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the applicable provision of the Criminal Act and the choice of sentence; and

Defendant H: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively referred to as “Defendant A, F, Q, R, M, and W”): Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively referred to as “Defendant A” and “W”); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively referred to as “criminal choice”)

Defendant L: Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act (in case of each recipient, collectively, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Defendant I, H, P, A, and T: Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant I, H, T, and L: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code [Defendant I: Defendant H among the concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (b) of Article 1-2 of the holding that the criminal situation is more severe. B. Defendant C among the concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article: Defendant L among the concurrent crimes with the punishment stated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in the same paragraph: Defendant L among the concurrent crimes with the punishment stated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in the same paragraph of Article 9-2 of the holding that the criminal circumstance is more severe

Defendant P: The former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 38(1)3, and 50 of the Criminal Act (a) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for concurrent crimes with the concurrent crimes stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in Article 4-2(b) of the same Act and the fine specified in the crime of acceptance of bribe as stated in the above paragraph

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant I, H, P, A, and T: Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant I, H, P, A, and T: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant I, H, P, F, T, W, and L: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fine of 60,000 won (based on exchange rate of 50,000 won per day) for each of 6 months and 600,000 won (based on exchange rate of 1) for each of 6 months

1. Suspension of sentence;

Defendant 0, A, Q, R, and M: Article 59(1) of each Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant I, H,O, P, A3), F, Q, R, T, M, and W: Determination as to the allegations by the Defendants and defense counsel under the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant 1

A. While recognizing the receipt of a bribe of KRW 2 million from the Jeju L on December 5, 2008, the remainder is denied. In relation to No. 1 of the annexed crime list (2), L delivered the initial KRW 2 million. On January 25, 2007, the Defendant did not work after receiving annual leave, and on January 2, 2008, he stated that L delivered the initial KRW 2 million in relation to No. 2 of the annexed crime list (2). In relation to No. 4 related books, the facts charged are stated as KRW 2 million on June 5, 2009, and L stated as KRW 1.5 million on June 5, 2009, while the Defendant stated as KRW 1.5 million from this court, the Defendant did not have received any money around that time.

(b) Markets:

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged as to whether the police officer of January 2007 and the first patrol officer of January 2008 received KRW 2 million.

① L made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that this part of the facts charged are consistent with the facts charged, and this court also maintains the same purport.

② L has arranged the particulars of the bribe granted in the manner of 100,000 won for a school name (1.00,000 won per one set). L with respect to the preparation process, L was carrying with him the phone number book of the floor size and indicating the corresponding date, school principal, and amount of money at ordinary times. In addition, it was not necessary to arrange the daily telephone number pocket book in order to write in the house again at home, and the multi-day telephone number book was not arranged, for each time to do so, 10 weeks, 20 days, 10 days, and 10 days, and 20 days, 10 days, and 20 days, 20 days, and 4 days, 20 days, and 7 days, 200 days, and 3 days, 3 days, and 4 days, 3 days, after which the actual money was actually paid.

③ As alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have not worked at school on January 25, 2007 and January 2, 2008, when L was initially designated as the date of original grant. However, this was premised on the date of payment of money, and it was not based on clear memory or specific data. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, etc., it is apparent that L’s statement itself was not the date indicated in the Mzz Fire Dai, but the amount was sound before and after that time. Since L’s statement itself, it appears that it was not clear that L’s first statement was made by specifying the date of first statement, and that it was difficult to give money to K’s captain at the time when he was under investigation at the police station’s first time and when he was aware of his body, it did not appear that it was more important to give money to K’s head on the first day, or to give money to K’s head on the first day, and thus, it is more important to have made a statement to the extent that he did not have made an accurate statement.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from the police officer on January 2007 and the first police officer on January 2008.

(2) Whether to accept KRW 2 million as a policeman on June 2009

L is an erroneous indication of 4 (4) in the B Q Q marks, which are written in Qz fire D, in this court. The students would be 180,000 won, and 4,000 won. In fact, I stated that the 1,500,000 won was 1,50,000 won, and around that time, I stated that the 1,50,000 won was 1,50,000 won, not 2,000 won but 1,50,000 won was 1,50,000 won. L was transferred to the highest person at around that time, and L was also put to investigation agency at the B Q elementary school in 2010.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that there is no reason to pay the amount of 4 million won or more, this part of the statement to the effect that the statement in this part is not correct, and that the Defendant recognized the receipt of approximately KRW 47 million out of the bribery amounting to KRW 53 million against himself/herself, but did not recognize only a certain suspicion related to the Poisonous L, it is true that there is suspicion that L’s statement in this part is not erroneous.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 검찰에서 '2009. 6.경 올해(2010년) 수학여행 계약을 부탁하면서 주었던 200만 원은 올해 3. 17. 자신의 통장(계좌번호 DY)으로 되돌려 받았다'라고 상당히 구체적으로 진술11)하였던 점, ② L는 이 법정에서 다소 일관되지 않은 진술을 하기는 하였으나 제6회 공판기일에 다시 증인으로 출석하여서는 '2009, 6.경 200만 원을 주었다고 한 검찰 진술이 맞을 것 같다'고 진술12) 하면서 '2009. 6.경 건넨 200만 원을 피고인으로부터 돌려받았는데, 언제 돌려받았는지 잘 기억이 나지 않는다'고 진술13)한 점, ③ L의 이 부분 공여 진술이 400만 원을 교부하였다는 듯한 메리츠화재 다이어리의 기재 14)와 모순되는 것은 사실이나 위와 같은 기재에도 불구하고 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 200만 원을 건넸다고 진술하고 있는 것은 특별히 기억에 의한 것으로 보여 상당히 신빙성이 있다고 보이는 점, ④ L는 이 법정에서 마치 150만 원일 가능성도 있는 것처럼 진술하였으나, 피고인이 150만 원을 수수하였음에도 2010. 3. 17. L에게 200만 원을 송금하지는 않았을 것으로 보이고, L의 메리츠화재 다이어리 기재방식 상 다른 경우에는 150만 원을 표기하기 위하여 바를 정자 옆에 추가로 '15'15)와 같은 방식으로 기재한 적이 없는 점16) 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 2009. 6. 초순경 200만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

2. Defendant H

(a) A captain;

(1) The fact that L was received KRW 2 million as a policeman on January 2007, and KRW 2 million as a policeman on December 2007 is recognized. However, on December 2008, 2 million as a policeman on December 2, 2008, the situation where the exercise was revoked due to a new fluencing.

For this reason, the receipt was refused and immediately returned to L. In addition, on January 2010, 201, 200 million won was confirmed as having been received without knowing the fact that there was money between bread bags, and it was made to L, but L did not return it because L was located in the local area, and approximately 2 million won was returned to L. (2) A money was received from Q. However, there was a fact that there was an intention to return money from Q Q, but only KRW 5 million was not KRW 5 million but only KRW 5 million.

(b) Markets:

(1) L-related

(A) Police Officers of December 2008 2 million won

It is true that the defendant argued that the above money was refused to receive and immediately returned to L, and L also stated that L is a "dys" in this court or is not well memoryed, but has been returned on that job once). Therefore, it is true that L is in need of doubt as to whether the defendant was unable to memory even though he received money immediately and returned money.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 검찰에서 '2007년부터 2010년까지 수학여행을 부탁하면서 돈을 4번 주었고, 그 중 2009년도, 2010년도에는 다시 돈을 돌려받았다'라고 진술18)하여 돈을 건넨 횟수와 그 중 반환받은 횟수에 관하여 명확히 진술하면서, 그 중 2009년도 수학여행에 대한 사전 청탁의 의미로 건넨 2008. 12. 중순경 200만 원의 반환 경위에 대하여는 '2009년도에 신종 플루 때문에 수학여행을 못 올 것 같아서 피고인에게 전화했더니 돈을 가지고 가라고해서 직접 학교로 찾아가 교장실에서 현찰로 받았다'라고 상당히 구체적으로 진술19)하고 있는 점, ② 피고인이 위 돈을 즉시 거부하였다면, L는 이를 명확히 기억하였을 것이므로 그 당시 메리츠화재 다이어리를 작성함에 있어 이를 고려하여 작성하였을 것으로 보이는데, 메리츠화재 다이어리 기재 내역에서 돈이 반환된 흔적은 발견되지 않는 점, ③ 다만, L도 학교장이 그 자리에서 수령을 거절하였음에도 깜빡하고 그대로 기재한 경우가 있을 수 있다는 점은 인정하고 있으나, 이는 매우 드문 경우였던 것으로 보이고, 만약 피고인이 깜빡하고 그대로 기재된 경우에 해당한다면 이를 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 밝힐 수 있었을 것임에도 L는 이를 밝힌 바 없고, 오히려 위에서 본 바와 같이 돈의 반환경위를 상세히 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 2008. 12. 중순경 200만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

(B) Police Officers 2 million won on January 2010

In relation to this, the Defendant, without knowing the fact that the said money was contained between the bread bags, confirmed it later, made a phone call to L, but failed to return L, and argued that L was returned to L, which was accepted as an intention of return, and argued that L was merely a part of accepting the intention of return. During the examination process, the Defendant’s defense counsel sent L’s phone to L, but the Defendant did not immediately go to the local area, and stated to the effect that L was consistent with the Defendant’s argument.

The acceptance of a bribe refers to the acceptance of money and valuables with the intention of acquiring it, and thus, the bribe is a bribe.

If it is recognized that there was no intention to obtain a bribe, such as accepting it after knowing that it is a bribe, returning it immediately after being aware that it is a bribe, or because the mineer unilaterally takes a bribe, and thus it is recognized that there was no intention to obtain the bribe by taking the opportunity to return it later into consideration and return it, it cannot be said that the bribe was received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9182, Mar. 29, 2007)

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., L received the return of KRW 2 million from this court, i.e., the following circumstances, i., the fact that L was returned from this court, i.e., the fact that he received the return of KRW 2 million from the court room, i.e., the fact that he was unable to know that he was unable to do so at that time, but, at that time, he was unable to come back, and that he was bringing about the phone at that time and returned money due to a change in the post-post circumstances, i.e., the fact that L was returned from the court room, i., that he was returned from the school room to the lower court on the end of February, 2010, it is reasonable to view that L had the intention to return KRW 20,000 to the Defendant at the time of receiving the return of KRW 22,000 from the school room.

(2) While the Defendant consistently stated that Q Q-related C&T provided KRW 15 million to the Defendant in an investigative agency and this court, the Defendant recognized that money was received from Q in this court, but claimed that the amount of money received is KRW 15 million, not KRW 15 million, and the amount of money received by the Defendant is the issue of this part.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the first line, namely, Q 1 C, consistently stated that the investigative agency and this court delivered KRW 15 million to the defendant. ② Q Q, as to the situation at the time of the opening of the panel, stated the three short term bags in which there was no locking device on the right side between different types of accidents. The defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was sent to the school at the time of ‘the fact that the defendant was sent a telephone', â……………………………………… has been sent to the defendant.â………………………………………………………â…………………………â…………â…………………………â…………………………â………………………âââ…………â………………………………………………………ââ…………………………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââ…ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ................

As to the criteria for calculating the amount of DI elementary school, it is the case that HI elementary school is the case that RI elementary school is the case that RI would know what I would know, it is the same as the calculation per unit of 50,000 won, and DH elementary school is the same as the calculation per custom by refusing to receive the money continuously, and 30,000 won per unit of 30,000 won, and BS elementary school statement 25 that "the interim amount is calculated by 40,000 won per unit" is not likely to cause confusion for each school, it is reasonable to view the defendant as the amount of money received from Q Q in connection with the conclusion of the contract for purchasing air smoke.

3. Defendant’s objection

A. There is no receipt of money from LL. The statement of L on 300,000 won in early February 207, 2007, which was made before the exercise of the rebates, is inconsistent with L’s statement that was made after the exercise of the rebates, and there is no indication that the offer of rebates was 30,000 won in merz fire.

나. 판 단. 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 이 법정에서 '한번에 130만 원을 주었는지 두 차례에 걸쳐 나누어 주었는지 기억나지 않지만 액수는 130만 원이 맞다. 돈을 더 달라고 하여 갖다 준 것이 맞는 것 같다. 100만 원을 주고 추가로 30만 원을 주었다'라고 진술26)하여 이 부분 30만 원에 대하여는 비교적 명확히 진술하고 있는 점, ② L는 이 법원 제6회 공판기일에서도 장부를 제시받지 않은 채 '피고인에게 준 돈이 얼마인가요'라는 변호인의 질문에 '30만 원이다'라고 답변 27) 하였던 점, ③ 메리츠화재 다이어리에 2007. 2. 12. 무렵 피고인에게 30만 원을 건넸다는 취지로 'BU30'이라고 기재28)되어 있는 점, ④ 별지 범죄일람표(8) 순번 1번 행사내역에는 '2007. 수학여행 관련'이라고 기재되어 있기는 하나, 그 수수명목 기재나 L의 진술에 비추어 보면 위 30만 원은 종전 사례비에 대한 추가 지급의 성격이 강하였던 것으로서 다음 번 행사인 2007. 수학여행과 관련한 사전 청탁의 성격만을 띠고 있다고 볼 수는 없고, 그렇다면 위 30만 원은 그 무렵 L의 리베이트 제공 관행과 모순되지 않는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 2007. 2. 초순경 30만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

4. Defendant F.

A. Summary of the assertion

Although it is recognized that money is received from the CN, the amount of money received is not KRW 20 million, but KRW 10 million, and the money is received from the EA, which is not received from the CX, but with the CX.

B. Determination

CX consistently stated that investigative agencies and this court consistently delivered 20 million won to the defendant. On the other hand, although the defendant accepted money from CN in this court, the defendant asserts that the amount of money received is not 20 million won but 10 million won. Thus, the amount of money received by the defendant is the issue of this part.

살피건대, 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① CX는 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 민간참여 학교컴퓨터교실 운영 계약 체결에 대한 부탁의 의미로 피고인에게 돈을 건넸다고 일관되게 진술하면서, 그 액수에 관하여도 2,000만 원이라고 분명하게 진술하고 있는 점, ② CX는 금액을 2,000만 원으로 정한 기준에 관하여 '저희들이 학교마다 수익계산을 하는데, 그때 예상수익을 보고 금액을 정한다. 학교 학생 수나 학교 환경에 따라 예상수익이 달라진다', "제가 사전에 EB 팀장에게 설명하면서 'CA초등학교의 경우 인사비용을 포함하여 투자비가 1억 원 이상이 들더라도 수익률 이 15% 이상이 될 것이다. CA초등학교의 경우 2,000만 원 정도 인사를 하면 계약이 가능할 것 같다'라고 말하였다"라고 구체적으로 진술29)한 점, ③ 당시 주식회사 CN 학교교육본부 강남지부장이었던 CX는 2,000만 원을 마련하기 위하여 CN 측에 이야기하였고 CN 측의 하청업체인 EC이 2,000만 원을 마련하여 CX에게 전달하였는바, CN 측으로부터 하청을 받는 입장에 있었던 EC에서 CN 측의 요청과 달리 1,000만 원만 준비하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ CX는 수사기관에서 진술하면서는 돈을 건넬 당시 EA과 동행하였던 사실을 진술하지 않았으나 이 법정에서는 변호인이 '돈을 건넬 당시 피고인과 단 둘이만 있었는지'에 관하여 묻자 'EA과 함께 찾아갔던 것 같다'고 진술30) 하였는바, CX는 이 법정에서 당시 상황을 비교적 명확히 기억하여 진술하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ CX는 검찰 제1회 조사시 업체 선정 후에 돈을 건넸다고 진술하였다가, 제2회 조사시 및 이 법정에서는 업체 선정 전에 돈을 건넸다고 진술하고 있는바, 이러한 진술의 변경은 공여 진술의 신빙성을 본질적으로 훼손할 정도라고 보이지는 않고, CX는 이 법정에서 '선정 전에 준 것이 맞다. 제가 확실히 기억하는 이유도 민간참여 학교컴퓨터교실 운영 계약 체결 공고 전부터 미리 작업을 하느라 굉장히 애를 썼던 기억이 있다'라고 분명하게 진술31)하고 있어 신빙성이 있는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 검찰에서 전혀 돈을 받은 사실이 없다고 주장하다가 이 법정에 이르러서야 1,000만 원을 수수하였다고 인정하기 시작하여 피고인의 변소에 일관성이 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 민간참여 학교컴퓨터교실 운영 계약 체결과 관련하여 CX로부터 수수한 돈의 액수는 2,000만 원으로 봄이 상당하다.

5. Defendant Qua

가. 주 장L로부터 돈을 받은 사실이 없다. 피고인은 2007. 말경 퇴임을 앞두고 있었는데 그 무렵 L가 피고인을 찾아온 적이 없다. 다만, L가 2006, 4.~5.경 및 2007. 4.~5.경 수학여행 후 피고인에게 회식비로 쓰라고 하면서 돈을 주려고 한 적은 있었는데, 피고인은 두 번 모두 거절하였다. 수첩에는 2007. 말경 돈을 건넸다고 기재되어 있으나, L는 이 법정에서 퇴임 후 학교 행정실에 있는 누군지 모르는 사람에게 주었다고 하다가 CC인지 ED초인지 헷갈린다고 하다가 또 경주빵 가방에 돈을 넣어서 직접 준 것은 맞다고 진술하기도 하여 신빙성이 없다.

B. Determination

L in this court, "the defendant was unsatisfyed after his resignation." Since he dysat for several years, he received it to the administrative office without being dynasty or n't directly dynasty, and dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty d. 33).

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 검찰에서 '퇴직 무렵 찾아가 150만 원을 전달하였다. 피고인이 불우이웃돕기 하라고 계좌번호를 주었으나 주고 나왔다'는 취지로 진술35)하여 피고인에게 직접 전달하였다고 분명히 진술하였고, 직접 찾아가 피고인을 만나지 않았다면 피고인이 퇴직을 앞두고 있다는 사정을 쉽게 알기 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ② L는 이 법정에서 피고인이 퇴임한 후에 피고인에게 전달해 달라는 취지로 150만 원을 학교 행정실에 맡겼다고 주장하나, 학교 행정실에서 위와 같은 성격의 돈을 받는다는 것은 상식에 부합하지 않는점, ③ 또한 돈의 전달시기 및 대상 학교와 관련하여 L는 이 법정에서 '수첩에는 2007년도로 되어 있지만 2008년일 수도 있다'라고 진술하거나 '2008. 12.이면 퇴임 후 1년이 지난 뒤인데 그때 주었다는 것이냐'고 묻자 '예'라고 답변36)하거나 메리츠화재 다이어리의 2007. 12. 13. 무렵 작성된 내역에 명시적으로 'ED 1.5'라고 기재 37)되어 있음에도 CC초등학교일 수도 있다고 진술38) 하는 등 상식에 반하는 답변을 하고 있어 법정 진술을 그대로 신빙하기는 어려운 점, ④ 기억이 명확하지 않다면 비록 메리츠화재 다이어리에 기재되어 있었다 하더라도 검찰에서는 굳이 진술할 이유가 없었을 것임에도 위에서 본 바와 같이 구체적으로 진술하였던 점, ⑤ L는 이 법정에서 '돈을 건넨 시점이 퇴임하는 날인지, 퇴임 후인지 확실하게 기억나지 않고, 돈을 드린 장소가 서무과인지 바로 교장선생님에게 드렸는지도 기억나지 않는다'는 취지로 거듭 진술39)하면서도 직접 피고인에게 준 것은 맞는지에 대하여 재차 확인하는 질문에 대하여 직접적인 대답을 회피하면서 '현금으로 드린 것은 아니고 상자 속에 넣어서 드렸다'라고 진술40)하는 등 피고인에게 건넸다는 듯한 취지로 진술을 일부 하기도 한 점 등에 비추어 보면, L의 검찰에서의 진술이 보다 신빙성이 높다고 보이므로, 피고인이 2007.12.경 150만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

6. Defendant R

A. There is no money received from L. L’s statement is not reliable.

(b) Markets:

L made a statement to the effect that the investigative agency delivered KRW 1.5 million to the defendant, and in this court, "the meaning of "CE 1.5 E" was the same as the chief of the school year. L was deleted from the bribe list items prepared by the investigating police officer on December 13, 2007 from among the bribe list items prepared based on the pocket book. 42) The investigating police officer's appearance in this court as a witness and the investigator's appearance in this court to reduce the amount of "DW", but it is true that the defendant did not receive KRW 1.5 million among the policemen on December 12, 2007.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prior evidence, i.e., 12, 13 Maz Fire, 44 stated "CE 1.5 .................." as to the reasons that L's 2nd c.5 c.5 c........., it appears that the defendant's 6th c.i.e., 3th 6th c., the defendant's 4th c.i., the defendant's 3th c.m.'s 3th c., the defendant's 4th c.m.'s 3th c., the defendant's 3th c.m.'s 3th c., the defendant's 4th c.m.'s 3th c., the defendant's 3th c.m.'s c., the defendant's 3th c.m.'s c.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'.'.'...................................................

7. Defendant T

(a) A captain;

(1) No person has received a bribe from L.

(A) On July 3, 2008, with regard to KRW 3 million in early 2008, L was found to have started to a school after a school trip at CG elementary school around 2008, but only went back to the EE, which is an assistant principal, and did not reach the Defendant. Moreover, L alleged that L had mistakenly stated KRW 1,300,00 in the appeal submitted to this court on January 3, 201, unlike the investigation agency, it was alleged that L had mistakenly stated 1,300,000 in the appeal submitted to this court, and there is no credibility in this court’s statement because it was possible to be delivered to the student principal of CG elementary school. In addition, in accordance with L’s calculation method, L’s reward for the number of students to KRW 204-225 is too large.

(B) With respect to KRW 2 million in the middle of January 2010, L appears to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant would retire around February 2010 at the time, and it is contradictory in itself to the facts charged on the grounds that there is no reason to pay the Defendant a honorarium for school travel scheduled to go around A, 2010. Furthermore, according to L’s statement, L, without the Defendant’s consent, posted a plastic bag between the books on the CG Elementary School’s book and the books on the CG Elementary School’s book without the Defendant’s consent, was withdrawn before the Defendant discovered it, it does not constitute the element of the crime of acceptance of bribe. This part of the fact of grant is written in the school principal’s liaison, but the facts charged cannot be acknowledged solely with such written statement.

(2) There is no fact that a bribe was received from the CT or CU. The statement made by CT or CU is not reliable.

(b) Markets:

(1) L-related

(A) On July 2008, 2000 Won L, 3 million won in early 2008, stated in this court “3 million won in early 2008” as a mistake in the actual number. It is true that the statement that the number of students should not be outside 150 is erroneous and written differently from the statement made in an investigative agency.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the first line evidence are as follows: ① verify the Defendant’s crime list 50,000 won on the basis of merz fire at the prosecution; ② provide money and valuables to the Defendant as stated; ② provide cGraz fire to the items deemed to have been prepared on July 7, 2008; ② provide 3 million won according to L’s usual statement method; ③ provide 30,000 won in this court’s normal consideration on January 3, 201. 3, 2008, 300 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 30.

(B) On January 2010, 2010, 200 million Won L, which was the first day of this court, included 2 million won in the Defendant’s general affairs room in the amount of money between the Defendant and the Defendant’s office of the first day of January 2010, 2010, stated that the Defendant was retired from the retirement age, 54). Also, 'the witness collected money in the state of being a witness in which the witness was placed in the presence of the witness', 'the answer 55', 'the answer that the witness paid money in the presence of the witness' to the investigation agency.

At the end of January 28, 2010, the proposal was returned from the end of February 2010 to the beginning of February 2010, and was recovered. This part was presented for the purpose similar to the Defendant’s lawsuit because it was sticked between the book, unlike the book, and was made for the purpose similar to that of the Defendant’s lawsuit. In light of the above, it is true that the Defendant was in a state where he did not recognize the receipt of KRW 2 million per se, and there is a need for doubt that the said money was not returned to L.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the prior evidence, i.e., L, the prosecutor's office, confirmed the Defendant's crime list 57 on the basis of merts fire, and stated that there was no mentioning the above fact of return, ii) stated "CGT" on the items deemed to have been made around January 19, 2010 among the contents of L's work pocket book, which means 2 million won according to L's usual statement, iii) the Defendant did not mention the Defendant, but did not know that he did not receive money and valuables from the prosecutor's office, but did not know that he did not receive money and valuables, i.e., the Defendant did not know that he did not receive money and valuables from the prosecutor's office, and ii) did not know that he did not receive money and valuables from the prosecutor's office.

(2) CT, CU 관련 CT이 2009. 3.경 피고인에게 건넨 800만 원의 자금 출처에 관한 진술을 이 법정에서 변경한 점, CT은 2009. 5.경 200만 원의 전달 방법과 관련하여 100만 원이 든 봉투 1개, 50만 원이 든 봉투 2개를 만들어 총 3개의 봉투를 피고인에게 건넸다고 진술59) 하였는데 그 방법이 다소 이례적인 점, CU은 2009. 9.경 300만 원의 공여장소에 관하여 수사기관에서는 '교장실에 가서 직접 주었다'고 진술60)하였다가 이 법정에서는 '학교 근처 차 속에서 주었다'고 달리 진술61) 하였고, 이후 신문시 다시 '교장실에서 주었다'는 취지로 번복62) 하였던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 CT, CU으로부터 합계 2,000만 원을 수수하지 않은 것이 아닌지 의심이 드는 것은 사실이다.

However, according to the above evidence, CT, which was a director in charge of DA's business at the time, was 60 million won in total at the investigative agency and this court, and was 20 million won in total at the time of providing 17 million won in the above 300,000 won in the above 200,000 won in the defendant's account transfer around March 209, 2009 and 7 million won in the above 300,000 won in the above 60,000 won in the above 60,000 won in the above 60,000 won in the statement of 30,000 won in the above 60,000 won in the above 60,000 won in the 306,000,000 won in the above 20,000 won in the 306,000 won in the above 306,000,000 won in the above 203.

출금 내역을 잘못 특정하기는 하였으나 결국 수사기관에서의 진술 취지도 피고인에게 제공한 자금의 원천은 위 2009. 3. 17.자 1,200만 원의 인출 내역이라는 것이어서 수사기관에서의 진술과 이 법정에서의 진술이 본질적으로 다르다고 보기 어려운 점, ④ CT이 수사기관에서 1,200만 원의 인출 내역을 확인하고서도 피고인에 대한 2009. 3.경 공여한 돈의 액수를 800만 원이라고 진술하였고 이 법정에서도 자금의 출처가 된 인출 내역을 변경하면서도 같은 취지를 유지하고 있는 것으로 보아 어느 정도 기억에 근거하여 진술하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤) 2009. 5.경 돈을 건넨 방법이 다소 이례적인 것은 사실이나 CT은 그 이유에 관하여 '봉투 2개보다 봉투 3개가 낫다고 생각하였고 좀더 많아 보이게 하려는 생각이었다'라고 진술69)하고 있는 점, ⑥ 2009. 5. 14.자 200만 원 인출 거래의 취급점이 일원역점인바, 이는 CG초등학교를 찾아가 교장인 피고인에게 건네기 위하여 인출한 내역으로 보이는 점, ① 2009. 5.경 건넨 200만 원의 출처에 관하여 CT은 피고인에게 전달할 목적으로 자신의 처 EK으로부터 200만 원을 차용하였다고 명확하게 진술70) 하였고, 위 국민은행 계좌의 거래내역에도 2009. 5. 12. EK으로부터 200만 원을 송금받은 것으로 나타나는 점, ⑧ 2009. 7.경 건넨 700만 원에 관하여 CT은 그 무렵 피고인에게 700만 원을 건넸다는 취지로 일관되게 진술하면서 그 돈의 출처에 대하여도 위 기업은행 계좌의 2009. 7. 17.자 746만 원의 인출내역이라고 분명하게 진술하였고, 746만 원 중 피고인에게 건넨 700만 원을 제외한 나머지는 지부 운영비로 사용하였다고 진술하였는바,71) 달리 허위 진술을 한다고 볼 정황이 없는 점, ⑨ 2009. 9.경 건넨 300만 원과 관련하여 CU은 이 법정에서 12,000만 원 중 1,700만 원은 CT 이사가 전달하였고, 300만 원은 제가 전달하였다'라는 취지로 진술하면서 자금의 출처, 300만 원을 추가로 준 이유 등에 관하여 구체적으로 진술72) 한 점, 0 CT 역시 '피고인에게 합계 1,700만 원을 건넨 상황에서 돈을 더 주어야겠다고 생각하여 CU에게 추가 지급을 요청하였으나 CU이 이를 지체하였다'는 취지로 진술73)하여 2009. 9.경 당시의 상황에 관하여 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ① CU이 공여 장소에 관하여 수사기관에서 '교장실에 가서 직접 주었다'고 진술74)하였다가 이 법정에서는 '학교 근처 차 속에서 주었다'고 달리 진술75)하였고, 이후 신문시 다시 '교장실에서 주었다'는 취지로 진술76)하는 등 전달 장소에 관하여 진술이 일관되지 못한 것은 사실이나, 봉투에 든 300만 원은 전달 장소에 있어 특별히 제한이 있을 정도의 금품은 아니어서 특별한 사건이 있었던 것이 아닌 이상 금품을 전달할 목적으로 많은 학교들을 방문하였던 CU으로서는 전달 장소에 관하여 잠시 착오를 일으킬 가능성이 충분하고 이러한 착오가 공여 진술의 신빙성을 본질적으로 해할 정도에 이르지 않았다고 보이는 점, 1② CT은 피고인의 EL초등학교 교감 시절부터 피고인과 알고 지내오면서 피고인에 대하여 좋은 감정을 유지해 오고 있었던 것으로 보여77) 굳이 피고인을 허위로 모해하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ CU 역시 자신의 뇌물공여죄의 죄책을 무겁게 하면서까지 피고인에 관한 허위의 진술을 할 이유가 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, CT, CU의 진술은 합리적 의심을 배제할 정도의 신빙성이 있다고 보이므로, 피고인이 CT, CU으로부터 합계 2,000만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

8. Defendant W

A. There is no fact that the amount is received from a StateL. L also prepared and issued a written confirmation to confirm it. It cannot be deemed that the facts charged are proven solely with L without credibility.

b) the board;

L was written to the effect that “the defendant did not pay any money to the defendant, even if it was written as if he did not pay any money to the defendant, it was written as if he had paid the money to the defendant, and it was notarized. L was not a 6 million won in this court, and there was no fact that L was returned to the defendant. L was written to the defendant’s wife without receiving any money, and there was no fact that L was returned. L was written to the defendant’s wife without receiving any money, and asked whether the police officer did not receive the money, and asked that L was merely a flick, and argued that L was a misunderstanding of the part concerning L’s document submitted to this court on January 3, 2011.” In light of the above fact-finding, it is true that L was merely a mistake and that there was no fact that the defendant received all the money from L.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 위 사실확인서,의 작성 경위에 관하여 L는 '돈 준 사실이 없다는 취지의 공증은 W 교장 아는 분이 가지고 와 이름 쓰고 서명하고 도장만 찍어준 것이다'라고 진술80) 한 바 있어 사실확인서의 내용을 그대로 믿기는 어려운 점, ② 메리츠화재 다이어리에 '2007. 11. 4.자 EM ㅜ'81), '2007. 12. 24.자 EM T'82), '2008. 12. 15.자 EM T83)이라고 기재되어 있고, 특히 2008. 12. 15.자 옆에는 '3월 옮김'이라고 부기되어 있는데 실제 피고인은 2009. 3.경 EN초등학교로 전근을 간 점, ③ 앞서 본 바와 같이 L가 뇌물을 거부한 교장들에 대하여는 수사 초기부터 분명하게 진술하였는데, 피고인에 대하여는 뇌물을 거부한 교장으로 진술하지 않았던 점, ④ L는 수사기관에서 피고인에게 3회에 걸쳐 금품을 제공하였다고 진술하였고 메리츠화재 다이어리에도 3회의 공여 내역이 기재되어 있는데, 3회에 걸쳐 피고인이 수령을 거절하였음에도 L가 반복하여 착오를 일으켜 메리츠화재 다이어리에 기재하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 3회에 걸쳐 합계 600만 원을 수수하였다고 인정할 수 있다.

9. Business relationship with the money received by the Defendants;

The Defendants did not directly participate in the selection procedures of school travel enterprises or private school computer classrooms, and the Defendants were given the highest points by summing up the marks of school operation committee members in the process, and they did not have any authority to the principal, and they do not dispute to the effect that they do not have any authority to the principal.

In the context of bribery, the issue of whether a public official’s benefit constitutes an unjust benefit in relation to a public official’s performance of duties shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the public official’s duty, the relationship between the provider of the benefit, whether there exists a special private-friendly relationship between each other, the degree of profit, and the circumstances and timing of giving and receiving the benefit. In light of the public official’s benefit as the protected legal interest in the process of performing his duties and the trust in society, the issue of whether the bribe is suspected of being fair in performing duties from the general public should also be the basis for determining whether the bribe is the public official’s benefit (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697, Jun. 15, 200). 200; 10. 20. 20. 201. 3. 201. 20. 3. 201. 201. 3. 201. 3. 20. 3. 3. 2010. Me or Me did not need to have an act of bribe or duty.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant I, H, P, T, L: Imprisonment for one month to seven years from one month: Defendant O, A, F, Q, R, M, M: Imprisonment for one month to five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

Defendant

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 of Acceptance of Bribery

[Special Aggravationd Persons] - No Aggravationds: None - Mitigations: None

[General Convicted Persons] - Heavy Elements: Acceptance of bribe for a long period of not less than two years

-Devaluation factors: serious reflectivity or criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years (if a type is higher than a single crime most severe as a result of aggregation), or 5 years; Defendant H, P, F, and T

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 of Acceptance of Bribery

[Special Aggravationd Persons] - No aggravated factors: None of the factors to be mitigated:

[General Aggravations] - Aggravations: Long-term Acceptance of Bribes (Defendant H, P) - Mitigations: Serious reflectives (Defendant P) and no record of criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, one year to three years

Defendant 0, A, Q, R, M, and W

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 of Acceptance of Bribery

[Special Aggravationd Persons] - No aggravated factors: None of the factors to be mitigated:

[General Aggravations] - None of the aggravated elements: - None of the applicable factors of mitigations: No record of criminal punishment [Scope of Recommendation]; the basic area; 4 months to 1 year;

Defendant L

[Determination of Type] Class 3 of the Bribery

- None of the factors for mitigation: - None of the factors for mitigation

[General Aggravations] - None of the elements: - Mitigations: Serious reflect;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area, from June to June 2

[Scope of the revised recommended sentence] September (where a type is higher than that of the most serious single crime as a result of the sum calculation, the minimum 1/2 of the sentence scope shall be mitigated) to 2 years and 6 months

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant I, H,O, P, A, F, Q, R, T, M, W

In light of the fact that the Defendants, as the principals of elementary school, are in a position to set a good example to young students, taking advantage of the principal’s position, and the Defendants’ status appears to require more integrity than other public officials in light of the Defendants’ status, the Defendants’ burden of the companies incurred by the receipt of money and valuables may eventually lead to the increase in the expenses to be borne by students or the waste of the educational budget, and Defendant I’s total amount of the received money and valuables reaches KRW 33 million, etc., the Defendants should be punished strictly.

However, in the case of some defendants, it is divided while making a confession of all of the crimes in this case, the defendants appear to have failed to recognize the illegality of the defendants due to existing practices of accepting money and valuables, and the fact that the amount of bribery crimes related to L is not significant in the case of bribery crimes shall be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendants. Other factors such as the amount of bribe received by the defendants, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, consequence, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all sentencing factors indicated in the arguments in this case, such as the amount of bribe received by the defendants

B. Defendant L

Considering the fact that the integrity related to the duties of the principal of an elementary school is damaged due to the Defendant’s instant crime, and that the amount of the bribe offered by the Defendant exceeds 70 million won, there is a need to punish the Defendant strictly.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has recognized the whole crime and is divided, there is no special criminal record other than the second fine, and the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case by taking advantage of the existing practices on the provision of money and valuables, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, result, and circumstances after the crime.

Parts of innocence

T. Acceptance of bribe and offering of bribe related to G

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, worked as the principal of the BO elementary school located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the principal of the BO elementary school, and from March 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010, Defendant 1 took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of students and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

From September 1, 2006 to August 20, 2010, Defendant H served as the principal of the BS elementary school located in Seoul Jung-gu BR, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the student instruction of teachers and the conclusion of the student’s collective event contract.

Defendant J, from March 1, 2004, to February 28, 2009, worked as the principal of the EP elementary school located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, taking charge of the tasks such as the student instruction of teachers and the conclusion of students' collective events contracts.

Defendant K worked as the principal of the ER Elementary School in Songpa-gu, Seoul from September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2008, and the principal of the EET elementary school in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2010, and took overall control of the affairs of the teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of the student’s collective event contract.

From September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2008, the Defendant worked as the principal of the BU elementary school located in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu) and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of the teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of the students.

Defendant P worked as the principal of the BW elementary school located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BV from September 1, 2006 to August 19, 2010, and the teachers’ guidance and the conclusion of a contract for collective events of students, etc.

The task was comprehensively controlled.

From March 1, 2006 to August 20, 2010, Defendant A worked as the principal of the BY elementary school located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

From September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2010, Defendant B worked as the principal of the EV elementary school located in Seocho-gu Seoul EU, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the student guidance of teachers and the conclusion of a contract for collective events of students.

Defendant C, from September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2007, worked as the principal of EX elementary school in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and entered into a contract for student guidance and student group events with the teachers.

The task was comprehensively controlled.

From March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2010, Defendant D worked as the principal of the EZ elementary school in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the student instruction of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant E serves as the principal of the FB Elementary School in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from June 18, 2005 to August 31, 2009, and the instruction of teachers and the conclusion of a contract for collective events of students, etc.

The task was comprehensively controlled.

From March 1, 2007 to August 31, 2010, Defendant F worked as the principal of the CA elementary school located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant U worked as the principal of the FD elementary school located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul from March 1, 2004 to August 31, 2009, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the student guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant V, from March 1, 2005 to February 27, 2009, worked as the head of the FF Elementary School in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FE, and took charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

Defendant Q worked as the principal ofCC elementary school located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul from September 1, 2004 to February 28, 2008, and overall control over the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

Defendant S worked as the principal of FH elementary school in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2010, and took overall charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

From March 1, 2006 to August 31, 2008, Defendant R worked as the principal of the CE Elementary School in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) and took overall charge of the tasks such as teachers’ instruction and the conclusion of students’ collective events contracts.

Defendant T worked as the principal of the CG elementary school located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from March 1, 2005 to August 20, 2010, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of a contract for collective events of students.

Defendant M worked as the principal of the CI elementary school located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant N worked as the principal of the FJ elementary school located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FI from September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2010, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant W worked as the principal of CK elementary school located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CJ from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009, and took overall charge of the tasks such as the guidance of teachers and the conclusion of the contract for collective events of students.

Defendant G, as the representative director of FK corporation for the purpose of chartered bus transport business, is specialized in vehicle transport related to the exercise of organizations such as school trips, and as well as in arranging the conclusion of a contract for group events by introducing nationwide training enterprises, accommodation enterprises, experiential learning enterprises, etc. to the elementary school principal, or concluding a contract for group events with the principal of an elementary school on behalf of the above company.

Defendant L is the operator of the CLS Hostel.

A. Defendant 1

The Defendant received KRW 140,00,00 from G, the representative director of the FK, on April 14, 2006, from G on July 2006, in the BO elementary school guard located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul, for the students’ active children’s park experience experience, on April 17, 2006, the Ethical children’s park experience experience experience, on April 27, 2006, the FL Agriculture’s experience experience, on May 9, 2006, the learning on May 19, 2006, the FM arboretum experience experience, on May 19, 2006, the Seoul Ireland Experience, on June 28, 2006, on the road transport enterprises related to the FNN training source experience, and on the pretext of solicitation for future companies to conclude contracts.

From around that time to May 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 2,018,00,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (1) from around that time, from around that time, the Defendant received a reward for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity and a rebates for entering into the contract of a training business entity on nine occasions in total, including a solicitation for entering into the future contract

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Defendant H

On December 2, 2006, the Defendant received 420,000 won in cash from G, which is the representative director of FK, the representative director of FK, from G in the Jung-gu Seoul BR on December 2, 2006, 2006, 5 December 13, 2006, 420,00 won in cash, in relation to the conclusion of the vehicle transport business contract related to the field learning, etc. to the university, under the pretext of honorarium for the conclusion of the future contract, and in the name of solicitation

In addition, from around that time to early September 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 190,000,000,000 as a reward and training for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into the contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into the contract in the future. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. Defendant J received a bribe.

The Defendant received KRW 3470,00 in cash from G, the representative director of FK, on April 4, 2006, for the 63 building experience studies of students from April 24, 2006 to April 26, 2006, for the FSS-related learning for May 18, 2006, for the FO training activities from June 18, 2006 to June 20 of the same month, for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport enterprises related to the eP elementary school training in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, for the compensation and accommodation, for entering into contracts by training enterprises, for rebates for entering into contracts by training enterprises, and for solicitation for entering into contracts by future contracts.

From around that time to December 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 15,60,000,000,000, in total, as indicated in the [Attachment Table] (5] from around that time, for the conclusion of a contract by a vehicle transport business entity on six occasions, in the name of honorariums and lodging for the conclusion of a contract by a training business entity, and in the name of a solicitation for the future contract execution.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

D. Defendant K

On June 1, 2006, the Defendant received 630,000 won in cash from G, the representative director of the FK elementary school in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, for the students’ experience in Seoul, for the FL Farm Academy’s experience on May 1, 2006, for the FL Farm Academy’s experience on May 16, 2006, for the vehicle transport company’s conclusion of the contract related to the vehicle transport company’s experience on light of light branch arboretum, etc. on June 1, 2006, for the reward and for the solicitation of future companies to conclude the contract.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 5,740,00,000 from around that time to around June 2009, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (6) from around that time, in total, an honorarium for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a training business entity, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (6).

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

E. Defendant 0

The Defendant received KRW 2,340,00 in cash from G on March 30, 206, the representative director of FK, the representative director of the BU elementary school located in BT in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, from G during May 2006, 63 building experience studies on students on March 30, 2006, Seoul PPS program training from April 17, 2006, from May 10 to December 12, 2006, the FPS program conducted from the FPS City Mayor on May 12, 2006, the FPS farming experience experience learning at the FPS City on May 12, 2006, the offer of honorarium for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport businesses on the pretext of honorarium and training businesses, and the solicitation for future contracts.

In addition, the Defendant received 2,5270,000 won in total from around 10 times to Haman on June 2008, including the following: (a) as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (7) from around 2008, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities; (b) rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities; and (c) solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to its duties.

F. Defendant P

On November 14, 2006, the Defendant received 600,000 won in cash from G, the representative director of FK, in the BW elementary school principal in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, from G on November 14, 2006, for the conclusion of the contract for a vehicle transport business entity related to FR training activities, etc. from December 14, 2006 to December 16, 2006, under the pretext of a honorarium for the conclusion of the contract and a solicitation for the future conclusion of the contract.

From around that time to June 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,732,00,000,000 from around 12 times in total, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (9] from around that time to around 2009, the Defendant received honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to its duties.

G. Defendant A

On December 2, 2006, the Defendant received from G, the representative director of the FK, for the students’ daily training activities from March 18, 2006 to October 19 of the same month, from 2006, for the students’ daily training activities, from G, which is a fK-based representative director of the Songpa-gu Seoul High School, from September 25, 2006, for the folklore village experience learning on October 23, 2006, for the folklore village experience learning on October 63, 206, for the reinforcement of the building experience on October 25, 2006, for the night experience learning on October 25, 2006, for the conclusion of a contract related to the sale of vehicles, for the distance learning on October 25, 2006, for the distance learning from October 25, 2006 to October 16, 200 to 30, for the first time, from October 16, 2006.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 2,159,00,000 from around that time to Haman on June 2009, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (11) from the Defendant, in total at least six occasions, rebates for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, as a reward and training business entity, and as a solicitation for entering into the contract in the future.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

H. Defendant B

On December 2, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 2,130,000 in cash from G, the representative director of the FK corporation, from G, the Defendant, on November 6, 2006, to August 8, 2006, for the conclusion of the contract for vehicle transport business operators related to the experience study at the KV elementary school school, located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. On December 11, 2006, under the name of honorarium and accommodation for the conclusion of the contract for the vehicle transport business operators related to the experience study at the KV, the name of rebates for the conclusion of the contract for the experiential business,

From around that time to December 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,158,00,000,00 from around five times in total, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (12] from around that time, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties as a total of KRW 1,158,00,00, such as honorariums and lodging, training, and rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, and solicitation for entering into a future contract of a future business entity.

I. Defendant C.

The Defendant received KRW 2160,00 in cash from G, the representative director of the FK, on April 18, 2006, from the EX elementary school in Seoul, Haman on June 2006, from G, the EX elementary school in the EXW room located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, the representative director of the FK, on April 20, 2006, the students’ experience experience learning on April 20, 2006, the Manju Pung branch financial resources learning learning on April 21, 2006, the daily training activities from April 24, 2006 to the 26th of the same month, the Man branch financial experience learning on April 27, 2006, the recompense for entering into the contract of the transportation business entity related to the Masan elementary school, and the solicitation for entering into the future contract.

In addition, from around that time to early July 2007, the Defendant received KRW 1,318,00,000 as a total of five occasions as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (13) from around that time, in total, a bribe and training for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into a contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a future business entity. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

(j) Defendant D

The Defendant received KRW 2560,00 from G on May 22, 2007, which is the representative director of FK, the EZ elementary school in Jung-gu, Seoul on July 2, 2007, from G on May 22, 2007, for the students’ experience on the EZland, May 5, 2007, for the experience on the folk village on May 31, 2007, for the experience on the folk village on May 31, 2007, for the Seoul FT training from June 25, 2007, for the FT training activities from June 27, 2007 to June 29, 2007, for the recompense for the conclusion of the contract of the transportation company, for the rebates training activities from June 27, 2007 to June 29, 207, for solicitation for future companies to conclude the contract.

In addition, from around that time to around December 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 8,970,000,000 as a reward and training for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into a contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a future business entity, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (14) from around four times in total. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. The Defendant Ka Defendant E

On April 20, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from G, the representative director of the FB elementary school located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, from G, on April 20, 2006, with respect to the experience study for students’ FLF farmers on April 20, 2006, from May 24, 2006 to June 26, the racing trip, from May 29, 2006, from May 29, 2006 to June 1, 2006, with respect to the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport companies related to the FNN training activities, etc. of the FN Training Institute, under the pretext of reward for entering into contracts by the FN Training Institute, and under the pretext of solicitation for entering into future contracts

From around that time, the Defendant received 8,50,000 won in total, as indicated in the [Attachment 15] List of Crimes (15] from around 2009, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to its duties.

(l) Defendant F

On June 2008, the Defendant received from G, the representative director of the CA elementary school located in Seocho-gu Seoul Z from April 23, 2008 to May 25, 2008, from G during the period from April 23, 2008 to April 25, 2008, training activities calculated from April 23, 2008 to April 25, 2008, in light of the background experience study at G, in the light of the light-based experience study on April 24, 2008, in the blue-gu Seoul Z, in order to conclude a cash offer offer offer to transport enterprises, in the future, in relation to the conclusion of a contract related to vehicle experience, etc. on June 24, 2008, in the name of a transport enterprise, in the name of rebates.

In addition, from around that time to early May 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 8,130,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (16) from around that time, in total three times, rewards and experience for concluding contracts by vehicle transport companies, in the form of rebates for concluding contracts by training companies, and in the form of solicitation for concluding contracts by future companies.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

(m) Defendant U

On July 2006, the Defendant: (a) from G on April 7, 2006, the representative director of the FD elementary school in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, FD elementary school; (b) received a discount from G on April 7, 2006, the students’ side experience learning; (c) the FL Farm Academy Experience learning on April 18, 2006; (d) the Overcheon Park Experience Experience Experience Experience Experience Experience Experience on April 19, 2006; (c) the conclusion of the contract on the purchase of cash from G on April 28, 2006; (d) the FD elementary school principals in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul; and (e) the Defendant received a discount from G on May 10, 2006 to June 26, 2006, from June 14, 2006 to June 21, 2006 to June 206, 2006, from June 2006 to June 26, 2006.

In addition, from around that time to October 2008, the Defendant received 2,1850,000 won in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (17) from around that time, in the name of honorarium and experience for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, in the form of rebates for entering into the contract of a training business entity, and in the form of solicitation for entering into the contract of a future business entity.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

n. Defendant V

The Defendant received KRW 26,00,00 from G, the representative director of FF elementary school in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, from G during May 2006, for the students’ usual creative training activities from March 27, 2006 to May 29 of the same month, from G during the period from March 27, 2006, from March 27, 2006, to March 29, 2006, for the ordinary creative training activities from March 27, 2006 to April 29 of the same month, for the contribution-based and practical experience learning from April 5, 206 to April 7, 206, for the Seoul Dae Park-gu, for the FLF farming practice, for the conclusion of contracts for vehicle transport enterprises related to the experiential learning, etc., and for the conclusion of rewards and for the conclusion of future contracts for the nominal business entities, etc.

From around that time to early December 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,2370,000,00,000, from around six occasions, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (18) from around that time, in total, a bribe and accommodation for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, training, and rebates for entering into a contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a future contract of a business entity. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

On April 11, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 1950,00,00 from G, the representative director of the CC elementary school in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, from G, the Defendant, the Defendant, on March 28, 2006 to April 30 of the same month, for the students’ Kimpo training activities, from March 10, 2006 to April 12, 2006, for racing travel, for racing learning from April 11, 2006, for the FL Agriculture Experience, for the experience of mining hills on April 11, 2006, for the experience of mining hills on April 12, 2006, for the recompense for entering into the contract of the transportation company related to the experience study of home botanical gardenss on April 12, 2006, and for solicitation of future companies on the conclusion of the contract.

From around that time to December 2007, the Defendant received a total of KRW 17,40,000,000 from around 11 times in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (19) from around 2007, a bribe and accommodation for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into a contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a future business entity. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

(p) Defendant S

The Defendant received KRW 870,00 in cash from G on October 24, 2006, the representative director of FH elementary school located in the FG in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, on November 1, 2006, from G on October 24, 2006, on the part of the representative director of FK, on the part of the FK branch branch office of FK branch office of the FK branch office of the company, on November 7, 2006, on the part of the Kimpo Airport study from November 13, 2006 to November 15, 2006, on the part of the reward for the conclusion of the contract by the vehicle transport company related to the experience study, etc. on November 17, 2006 and on the pretext

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,489,00,000 from around that time to around June 2009, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (20), from around 10 times in total, in the name of honorariums and lodging for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by training business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (20). Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties.

On June 2006, the Defendant received KRW 780,00 in cash from G, the representative director of FK, the CE elementary school, in the CE elementary school room located in the CD in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, from G, the Defendant: (a) received honorarium for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport company related to the training activities, etc. from Jun. 9, 2006; (b) received honorarium for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport company related to the training activities, etc. from Jun. 17, 2006 to Jun. 18, 2006; and (c) received rewards for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport company, as a solicitation

From around that time to July 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,190,000,00 as a reward for concluding a contract by a vehicle transport business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (21) from around seven times in total. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

R. Defendant T

On June 12, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 480,000 in cash from G, the representative director of the FK corporation, at the CG elementary school school school room located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, from G, the Defendant, in relation to the conclusion of the contract for a vehicle transport business entity related to Incheon training activities from June 12, 2006 to June 14, 2006, under the pretext of honorariums for the conclusion of the contract

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 2,370,00,000 from around that time to around May 2, 2007, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (23) from the Defendant, in total at least twice, a rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, such as an honorarium and a training business entity’s solicitation for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity.

As a result, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. money, Defendant M

On October 2006, the Defendant received 410,000 won in cash from G, the representative director of the FK Co., Ltd., for the conclusion of the contract for a vehicle transport business entity related to the experience study of FL Farm Board, from G, in the CI elementary school teaching room located in Gangnam-gu Seoul CH on October 2006, in the name of rebates for the conclusion of the contract, and in the name of rebates for the conclusion of the contract for a vehicle transport business entity, and in the name of solicitation

In addition, from around that time to December 2008, the Defendant received a total of 7,240,000 won (7,250,000 won, as indicated in the [Attachment Table] (25] from around that time, in total, for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport business entities, as a reward for entering into contracts by vehicle transport business entities, and for solicitation for entering into contracts by future business entities.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Defendant N.

On May 14, 2008, the Defendant received 420,000 won in cash from G, the representative director of the FJ Elementary School in Seongdong-gu Seoul, FI, on April 14, 2008, from G, the Defendant, on April 16, 2008, with respect to the conclusion of a contract for a vehicle transport business entity related to the Seoul MMR Experience, etc. on April 16, 2008, on April 21, 2008, on the pretext of recompense for the conclusion of the contract, and on the pretext of solicitation for future contracts for companies.

In addition, from around that time to early July 2009, the Defendant received 6 million won in total as a reward and training for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into a contract of a field learning business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a future business entity, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (26) from around seven times in total. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties. Defendant W received a bribe.

On April 5, 2007, the Defendant received KRW 520,000 in cash from G, the representative director of the FK, the representative director of the CK, from G, on April 5, 2007, on April 12, 2007, on the pretext of rebates for entering into contracts by vehicle transport companies related to the Seoul PK, Experience, etc., and on April 12, 2007, on the pretext of rebates for entering into contracts by vehicle transport companies, and on the pretext of solicitation for entering into contracts by future companies.

In addition, from around that time to early November 2008, the Defendant received a total of KRW 4,570,000,000, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (27] from around that time, in total, for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport business entities, a rebates for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport business entities, and a solicitation for future contracts.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

(v) Defendant G.

(1) On July 14, 2006, the Defendant issued to the principal of BO elementary school in the school room of BO elementary school on April 14, 2006, to students’ fluoral children’s experience learning, experience experience learning on April 17, 2006, FL Farm Village Experience Experience on April 27, 2006, May 9, 2006, FM arboretum Experience Experience Experience Experience on May 19, 2006, Seoul Ireland Experience on May 19, 2006, FNF Arboretums Experience on June 28, 2006, FNN trees experience related to the conclusion of contracts, rewards for transportation enterprises, and solicitation of cash for future contracts, etc. from June 28, 2006 to 30 of the same month.

From around that time to May 2009, the Defendant provided a total of KRW 2,018,00,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (1), for the purpose of rebates for entering into contracts by vehicle transport business entities, and for solicitation for entering into contracts by training business entities, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1).

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(2) On December 2006, the Defendant issued KRW 420,000 in cash to H, who is the principal of BS elementary school, in the school room of BS elementary school on December 5, 2006, with respect to the experience study of students on December 5, 2006, to the university on December 13, 2006, with respect to the conclusion of a contract by a vehicle transport business entity related to the field learning, etc., a honorarium, and a solicitation for the future contract execution.

In addition, from around that time to early September 2009, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 19,80,000,000 as rewards and training for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, the name of rebates for entering into the contract of a field study business entity, and a solicitation for entering into the contract in the future. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(3) On June 2006, the Defendant issued 3,470,000 won in cash to J, the principal of the EP elementary school, the EP elementary school, on April 4, 2006, the students’ 63 building experience trips, the FS Condo trip from April 24, 2006 to April 26, 2006, the FS-based guidance experience learning from May 18, 2006, the FO training activities from June 18, 2006 to June 20, the FO training activities from June 18, 2006, the vehicle transport companies related to the eP elementary school, such as recompense and lodging, the name of rebates for entering into the contract of the training company, and a solicitation for entering into the contract of the training company, etc.

From around that time to December 2008, the Defendant provided KRW 1,5060,000,000,000, in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (5) from around that time, in total, for the conclusion of the contract by a vehicle transport business entity, in the name of honorariums and lodging for the conclusion of the contract by a training business entity, in the name of rebates for the conclusion of the contract by a training business entity, and

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(4) On June 2006, the Defendant issued 6,30,000 won in cash to K, who is the principal of the ER elementary school, in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 25, 2006, the FLF experience experience of students on May 1, 2006, the FLFF experience experience experience of Han Han-gu on May 16, 2006, the FLFK experience experience experience experience, June 1, 2006, the vehicle transport company's contract related to the luminous arboretum arboretum arboretum experience, etc., under the pretext of honorarium and a solicitation for future companies to conclude the contract.

In addition, from around that time to June 2009, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 5,740,000,000, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (6] from around that time, under the pretext of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of a training business entity, at least six times in total.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(5) On May 16, 2006, the Defendant issued 2340,000 won in cash to 0, the principal of BU elementary school, the BU elementary school, 2006, on March 30, 2006, to 0, the principal of BU elementary school, 63 buildings experience study by students on April 17, 2006, the Seoul PPPS program training from May 10 to 12, 2006, the FPS program from May 10 to May 12, 2006, the FPPF farmers’ experience program on May 12, 2006, the offer of reward for entering into contracts by vehicle transport companies related to BU elementary school, the rebates for entering into contracts by training companies, and the invitation for entering into future contracts.

In addition, from around that time to June 2008, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 2,527,00,000 as indicated in the [Attachment Table] (7] from around that time, in total, a reward and training for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, a rebates for entering into the contract of a field study business entity, and a solicitation for entering into the contract of a future business entity. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(6) On December 14, 2006, the Defendant granted KRW 600,000 in cash to BW elementary school principal P on November 14, 2006, a student’s experience experience learning, from December 14, 2006 to December 16, 2006, a honorarium for entering into a vehicle transport business entity’s contract related to FR training activities, etc. and a solicitation for entering into future contracts, etc. from December 14, 2006.

In addition, from around that time to June 2009, the Defendant granted KRW 1,732,00,000, in total, as indicated in the list of crimes (9) from around 12 times to around 2009, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(7) On Dec. 2, 2006, the Defendant issued Party BY elementary school principals A, the BY elementary school principal from Mar. 18, 2006 to Oct. 19, 2006, the Defendant issued Party BY elementary school principal (“BY elementary school principal”) a student’s family daily training activity, Sept. 25, 2006, the difficult village experience learning on Oct. 23, 2006, the folk village experience learning on Oct. 23, 2006, the 63 building experience learning on Oct. 25, 2006, the reinforcement experience learning on Oct. 25, 2006, the Defendant concluded a contract related to the transport of vehicles from Oct. 25, 2006 to Oct. 25, 2006, 2006, 3rd female arboretum experience training, 206, 10.25, 2006, 10th of Oct. 16, 2006.

In addition, the Defendant granted 2,1590,000 won in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (11) from around 2009, and from around 2009 to Haman, in total, on the pretext of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, and on the pretext of solicitation for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity in the future.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(8) On December 6, 2006, the Defendant granted KRW 2.130,00 in cash to B, who is the principal of EV elementary school, from November 6, 2006 to the same month, from November 8, 2006, to the students’ racing learning travel, the vehicle transport business operator’s conclusion of a contract related to a vehicle transport business operator’s on-the-job learning, which was permissible on November 1, 2006, under the name of honorarium and lodging, the nominal rebates for entering into a contract of an experiential business, and a solicitation for entering into a contract of an enterprise in the future.

From around that time to December 2008, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 1,158,00,000,00 in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (12) from around that time, for five times in total, for the conclusion of the contract by a vehicle transport business entity, such as honorariums and lodging, training, and rebates for the conclusion of the contract by a field learning business entity, and for solicitation for the future conclusion of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant provided a bribe in relation to public official’s duties.

(9) On June 18, 2006, the Defendant issued KRW 2160,000 in cash to the principal of the EX elementary school C on April 18, 2006, to the principal of the EX elementary school, on April 20, 2006, on the part of students, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on April 20, 2006, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on April 21, 2006, on the part of women, on the part of women, from April 24, 2006 to April 26, 2006, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, on the part of women, and on the part of solicitation for entering into future contracts.

In addition, from around that time to early July 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 1,318,00,000,000, in total, five times as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (13) to a police officer, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(10) On July 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 250,00,00 to D, the principal of the EZ elementary school, the EZ elementary school, on May 22, 2007, with respect to the students’ EZ elementary school: (a) experience experience learning on May 31, 2007; (b) the folklore experience learning on May 31, 2007; (c) the Seoul FT training from May 31, 2007 to June 27, 2007; (d) the FT training activities from June 25, 2007 to June 27, 2007; (e) the reward for entering into contracts by vehicle transport enterprises related to the EZ elementary school principals; (e) rebates for entering into contracts by training enterprises; and (e) a solicitation for entering into contracts by future companies, etc.

In addition, from around that time to December 2008, the Defendant granted 8.97 billion won in total, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (14] from around that time, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(11) On June 2006, the Defendant issued KRW 2 million in cash to E, who is the principal of FB elementary school at the above FB elementary school school school school principal, on April 20, 2006, with the experience study for students’ FLF farmers, from May 24, 2006 to May 26, 2006, with respect to vehicle transport business operators’ travel at school, from May 29, 2006 to June 1, 2006, with a reward for entering into a contract with the FN Training Institute’s training activities, etc., under the pretext of rebates for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport business entity, and a solicitation for entering into a future contract.

In addition, from around that time to June 2009, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 8,850,000,000 as the reward and training for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, the rebates for entering into the contract of a field study business entity, and a solicitation for entering into the contract of a future business entity, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (15). Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(12) On June 208, the Defendant concluded a cash offer offer contract to the principal of the CA elementary school from April 23, 2008 to May 25, 2008, to the principal of the CA elementary school, from April 23, 2008 to April 25, 2008, from April 23, 2008 to April 25, 2008, from March 24, 2008, from the aftermath of the CA elementary school, to the aftermath of the CA elementary school, from April 24, 2008 to the aftermath of the CA elementary school, from April 24, 2008 to the aftermath of the CA elementary school, from April 24, 2008 to the aftermath of the CA elementary school, from the aftermath of the CA elementary school, from the contract for vehicle transport enterprises, and from the name of rebates.

In addition, from around that time to early May 2009, the Defendant provided KRW 8,130,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (16), in total, three times, including honorariums and experience for entering into the contract of a vehicle transport business entity, rebates for entering into the contract of a training business entity, and solicitation for entering into the contract of a future business entity.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(13) On July 2006, the Defendant issued to U as the principal of FD elementary school on April 7, 2006, an experience study by students on April 13, 2006, an experience study by FL Farm Board on April 18, 2006, an experience study by FLFF Park on April 19, 2006, an experience study by Jcheon Park on April 21, 2006, an experience study by FLF Park on May 28, 2006, an experience study by FD Children Park on April 21, 2006, an experiential learning on May 10, 2006, from June 14, 2006 to June 26, 2006, the Defendant entered into a contract with FD elementary school teachers on the purchase of cash at FD elementary school, and rebates from 5,000,0000 won to 6.36,06,0000 won of transportation activities from 26.

From around that time to October 2008, the Defendant provided KRW 2,1850,000,000 in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (17) from around that time, in total, eight times, including honorariums and experience for entering into contracts by vehicle transport companies, in the name of rebates for entering into contracts by training companies, and in the name of solicitation for entering into contracts by future companies.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(14) On May 2006, the Defendant granted V, the principal of F elementary school, the FF elementary school from March 27, 2006 to the principal of FF elementary school from March 29 to March 29, 2006, the students’ ordinary creative training activities from March 27, 2006 to March 29 of the same month, the ordinary vocational training activities from March 27, 2006 to April 5, 206 to April 7, 2006, the Seoul Large Park Experience, the Seoul Large-gu Park Experience, the FL Farming Experience on April 27, 2006, the reward and the conclusion of a contract for a transportation company related to the leisure experience, etc., and 260,000 won, in cash, etc.

From around that time to early December 2008, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 1,2370,000,00 in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (18) from around that time, to early police officers, for a total of six occasions, a bribe and accommodation, training, and rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (18). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(15) On April 11, 2006, the Defendant granted Q, the principal of theCC Elementary School, Q, Q, from March 28, 2006 to April 30, 2006, KRW 1950,00,00,000,00,000,00 for students’ Kimpo-soo travel from April 10, 2006 to April 12, 2006, FL Agriculture Experience on April 11, 2006, FLF Experience on April 11, 2006, on the reward for entering into the contract with the transportation company related to the On-the-job ZFK, and on April 12, 2006, on the pretext of recompense for entering into the contract with the transportation company related to the On-the-job ZGK, and on the pretext of solicitation for entering into the future contract.

From around that time to December 2007, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 17,40,000,000 as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (19] from around that time, for a total of 11 times, rewards and accommodation for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, rebates for entering into contracts by field learning business entities, and solicitation for entering into future contracts. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(16) On November 1, 2006, the Defendant issued 870,000 won in cash to S, who is the principal of FH elementary school, at the above FH elementary school school school school school school principal on October 24, 2006, with the force learning of luminous arboretums on November 7, 2006, the field learning on November 7, 2006, the Kimpo Airport study travel from November 13, 2006 to November 15, 2006, the honorarium for the conclusion of the vehicle transport business contract related to the Seoul PH elementary school principal, and the solicitation for the conclusion of the future business contract.

From around that time, the Defendant, along with this, delivered a total of KRW 1,489,00,00 as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (20), for a total of 10 times as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (20), in the name of honorariums and lodging for concluding contracts by vehicle transport companies, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by training companies, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future companies. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(17) On June 8, 2006, the Defendant issued 780,000 won in cash to R, who is the principal of CE Elementary School, on May 8, 2006, with a reward for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport company related to the training activities, etc. from Jun. 17, 2006 to Jun. 18, 2006, such as a reward for entering into a contract with a vehicle transport company, a solicitation for entering into a future contract.

In addition, from around that time to around July 2008, the Defendant granted KRW 1,190,000,00 as a reward for concluding a contract by a vehicle transport business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract at a total of seven times, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (21). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(18) On June 12, 2006, the Defendant granted 480,000 won in cash to T, who is the principal of CG elementary school, in the school room of CG elementary school, from June 12, 2006 to June 14, 2006, for honorariums for concluding the contract for a vehicle transport company related to Incheon training activities, and for solicitation of future companies to conclude the contract.

From around that time to May 2007, the Defendant provided a total of KRW 2,370,00,000, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 23] from around that time, in total, for the execution of contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of honorariums and training business entities, and for solicitation of future contracts, as indicated in the list of crimes (23).

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(19) On October 2006, the Defendant issued 4.10,000 won in cash to M, who is the principal of CI elementary school at the CI elementary school school school school room on October 10, 2006, in the name of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity related to a field study of FLFwon on October 10, 2006, under the pretext of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity, and as a solicitation for entering into future contracts

In addition, from around that time to December 2008, the Defendant granted KRW 7,240,000,000, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (25] from around that time, in total, for the conclusion of contracts by vehicle transport business entities, a total of six times, such as a rebates, and a solicitation for future contracts by vehicle transport business entities.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(20) On May 14, 2008, the Defendant issued 420,000 won in cash to N who is the principal of the FJ Elementary School on April 14, 2008, an experience study on the FJ Elementary School curriculum, April 16, 2008, an experience study on the FM arboretum, April 21, 2008, and on April 21, 2008, an honorarium for concluding a contract for a vehicle transport business entity related to the Seoul PJ Elementary School EM Experience, etc., and a solicitation for future companies to conclude the contract.

In addition, from around that time to early July 2009, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 6 million (6 million in total, such as honorariums and training for entering into contracts by vehicle transport business entities, rebates for entering into contracts by field learning business entities, and solicitation for entering into contracts by future business entities, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (26). Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(21) On April 5, 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 520,000 in cash to W, who is the principal of CK Elementary School CK, in the principal room of CK Elementary School on April 5, 2007, in the name of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity related to CK Elementary School Experience, etc., and on April 12, 2007, in the name of rebates for entering into a contract of a vehicle transport business entity related to the Seoul Investment Experience Experience, etc., and in the name of a solicitation for entering into a future contract of a business entity, 570,000 won in total, as shown in the list of crimes (27), from around that time to November 208.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(22) On May 3, 2007, the Defendant granted 1.140,00 won in cash to FV, the principal of ET Elementary School, the ET Elementary School, the principal of ET Elementary School, from March 28, 2007 to the 30th of the same month, from March 28, 2007, on April 30, 2007, on the pretext of a honorarium for concluding a contract for a vehicle transport business related to the ET Elementary School, the ET Elementary School, and on May 3, 2007, on the pretext of solicitation for concluding future contracts.

In addition, from around that time to early July 2008, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 6,780,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (29), in total, five times, for the conclusion of the contract by a vehicle transport business entity, in the name of a honorarium and training business entity, and a solicitation for the future conclusion of the contract.

As a result, the defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(23) On December 2006, the Defendant issued KRW 2360,00,00 to FY, the principal of FX elementary school in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, on September 14, 2006, FY, the principal of FX elementary school, on September 15, 2006, folklore experience learning, folk village experience learning on September 15, 2006, on September 25, 2006, on October 9, 2006, Seoul Ireland Experience Experience, on December 18, 2006, on the reward for entering into contracts with vehicle transport enterprises related to FX elementary school, under the pretext of rebates for entering into contracts with the company, and on the pretext of solicitation for entering into contracts with the future company, etc.

In addition, from around that time to around November 2007, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 6,80,000,000 in total, as indicated in the [Attachment List of Crimes (30] from around that time to around December 2007, in the name of honorariums and lodging for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe to

(24) On June 1, 2008, the Defendant concluded a contract to GB, the principal of GA elementary school, on April 14, 2008, to GB, the principal of GA elementary school, on April 17, 2008, on April 22, 2008, on the basis of Seoul Urban Park Experience, May 2, 2008, on May 2, 2008, on the basis of the Seoul Urban Park Experience, on May 2, 2008, on May 2, 2008, on May 2, 2008, on May 9, 2008, from May 10, 2008 to May 23, 2008, on the condition that the Defendant entered into a contract related to vehicle training activities, etc., 300 U.S. dollars, on the pretext of a transportation business entity and 31.

From around that time to December 2008, the Defendant issued a total of KRW 6,480,000,000 in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (31) from around that time, including the following: (a) rewards and training for entering into contracts by vehicle transport companies; (b) rebates for entering into contracts by field learning businesses; and (c) solicitation for entering into contracts by future companies. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(25) On July 18, 2007, the Defendant issued GF, the principal of GE elementary school, GE elementary school, to GF, the principal of GE elementary school, on April 18, 2007, on April 25, 2007, on the experience learning on folk villages, on May 10, 2007, on the Independence Hall of Korea, on May 11, 2007, on the experience learning on Seoul Park, on the transmission training activities from May 21, 2007 to the 23th of the same month, on May 22, 2007, on June 12, 2007, on June 18, 2007, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract with the GE elementary school principal, and delivered KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 from June 20, 207.

In addition, from around that time to November 2007, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 6 million (6 million in total, such as a honorarium for concluding a contract by a vehicle transport business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (32) from around 2007. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(26) On October 2006, the Defendant granted 40,000 won in cash, on April 20, 2006, to GI, the principal of GH elementary school, who is the principal of GH elementary school, in GG located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, for the experience studies on Apr. 20, 2006, the FLFFFFE experience learning on Apr. 28, 2006, the Seoul Dae Park on Oct. 17, 2006, the Seoul Grand Park Experience learning on Oct. 18, 2006, the honorarium for the conclusion of the contract by vehicle transport companies related to the Seoul Ireland Experience, etc., and for solicitation of future companies to conclude the contract.

In addition, from around that time to June 2009, the Defendant granted KRW 5,930,000,00 in total, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (33) from around that time, in the name of honorariums and training for concluding contracts by vehicle transport business entities, in the name of rebates for concluding contracts by field learning business entities, and in the name of solicitation for concluding contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

(27) On June 8, 2007, the Defendant issued 810,000 won in cash to GL, the principal of GK elementary school, the principal of GK elementary school, at GK elementary school in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, on April 19, 2007, GL, the principal of GK elementary school, with the experience learning on April 19, 2007, on Apr. 20, 2007, on May 8, 2007, on a vehicle transport business entity’s conclusion of the contract related to GK’s experience learning, etc. on June 8, 2007, as well as on a solicitation

In addition, from around that time to early May 2009, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 5,10,000,000 as a reward for concluding a contract by a vehicle transport business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract at least four times, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (34). Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(28) On Apr. 2, 2007, the Defendant, at the principals of DC elementary schools located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DB, granted DD, on Apr. 2, 2007, KRW 1,590,00 in cash, such as a reward for the conclusion of a contract by a vehicle transport business entity related to DC elementary schools, and a solicitation for future contract conclusion, etc.

In addition, from around that time to early June 2009, the Defendant granted a total of KRW 2,370,000,000 as a reward for concluding a contract by a vehicle transport business entity and a solicitation for concluding a future contract, as indicated in the attached Table (35), on a total of two occasions. Accordingly, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(29) On June 6, 2009, the Defendant granted KRW 1.290,000 in cash to GN elementary school principals, the principal of GN elementary school, from April 6, 2009 to April 8 of the same month, from April 6, 2009 to April 8 of the same month, from April 6, 2009, the public official training activities, from April 6, 2009 to May of the same month, the honorarium for the conclusion of the contract for vehicle transport companies related to the Seoul MM, and a solicitation for future contract conclusion.

In addition, from around that time to around September 2009, the Defendant issued KRW 5,290,000,000, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (37), in total, three times, including honorariums and training for entering into contracts by vehicle transport business entities, rebates for entering into contracts by field learning business entities, and solicitation for entering into contracts by future business entities. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties.

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. Recognizing the receipt of a bribe from Defendant 1G (However, the facts charged are stated in KRW 20,180,000, but according to the disbursement resolution, 531,000 should be reduced, so only the fact of acceptance of bribe amounting to KRW 19,649,00 is recognized).84)

B. From December 2006 to September 2009, Defendant HG received an envelope from the principal of the BS elementary school room of the BS elementary school for five to six occasions before and after the end of the semester. However, in an envelope, cash of KRW 10,000 to KRW 2,00,000 was stored in a fixed amount of KRW 50,000 to KRW 50,000,000, and the amount of money received shall not be memory. All the fact that Defendant JG received money. However, although the money actually received by the Defendant is considered to be less than KRW 15,06,00 as stated in the indictment, it is recognized as not capable of memorying the accurate amount, as stated in the facts charged.85)

D. There is no receipt of money from Defendant KG. In particular, on October 2008, a public prosecution was instituted for the receipt of KRW 4.20,000 won, and on September 19, 2006, from September 19, 2008, a public prosecution was instituted for the receipt of money from Defendant KG, and from September 19, 2008 to ten days after the death of his father and wife.

E. Defendant’s objection

There is no receipt of money from G. The G’s statement is not reliable.

F. The fact that Defendant PG received money as a bribe is recognized. However, even if the amount is not accurately memoryed, it is thought that the amount will be less than the money recorded in the facts charged, the crime is committed in order to recognize a mistake and seek a preference rather than contesting the amount.

G. Although there is a fact that part of the amount is received from Defendant AG, the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven solely with the statement of G without credibility. Although the police led to the confession that 2,1590,000 won was given and received at the time of two investigations by the police, it is recognized as a condition without examining the remaining specific contents of the crime committed in bad faith.

H. It is recognized that Defendant BG received money from the Defendant BG. However, the number of money received is less than that stated in the facts charged and the amount of money received does not exceed three million won. However, the police led to confession from the police, but it was recognized that the amount was received from the police in self-fashion.

I. Defendant C. G’s receipt of KRW 8,47,00,00 from Jun. 6, 2006 to May 1, 2007 from the first patrol officer, but the receipt of KRW 4,71,00,00 from the first patrol officer on July 2007 does not recognize the fact that the receipt of KRW 8,477,00 from the first patrol officer is not recognized (in fact, the amount received from GO was not memory accurately, but it is evident that the amount received from G is KRW 70,8,00,000,000).87)

(j) Although Defendant DG received money from around 2007 to around 2008 several occasions, it did not confirm the amount of money at that time. In relation to the investigation of the instant case, the said envelope, which was kept together with other documents, was found to include a total of KRW 3.9 million ( KRW 1.1 million, KRW 8 million, KRW 1 million, and KRW 1 million) in four bags. The fact that the said envelope was received as a bribe from Defendant EG. However, as an educator teaching students, it is too difficult to view the amount of money based on one’s conscience, and thus, it does not mean that the time is correct because the amount of money was received as a bribe from other Defendant FG. The Defendant’s artificially accepted a bribe from the Defendant FG, and the Defendant’s statement that there was no credibility from the Defendant’s husband. In particular, the Defendant’s oral testimony cannot be deemed to have been made in the investigation agency, including the Defendant’s husband’s oral testimony, despite having not been verified.

n. There is no fact that Defendant VG received a bribe from Defendant VG. The facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven solely on the G’s statement without credibility.

There is no receipt of money from Defendant QG. Although G around the end of 2004, there was little amount of money to find the Defendant with money, the Defendant only stated that G is used on the next good day while putting the land for a free restaurant for love restaurant.

(p) There is no fact of accepting a bribe from Defendant SG. The facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven solely on the statement by G with no credibility.

Furthermore, there is no money from Defendant RG. G’s statement is not reliable.

(r) There is no fact of receiving a bribe from Defendant TG. The facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven solely on the statement by G with no credibility.

The fact that money was received as a bribe from Defendant MG is recognized. However, even though the amount is not accurately memoryed, it is thought that the money recorded in the facts charged is less than the money recorded in the facts charged, the crime is committed in order to recognize and seek a preference rather than contesting the amount. However, there is no fact that Defendant NG received a bribe from Defendant NG.

(u) Although Defendant WG received a total of KRW 1.4 million or KRW 1.7 million from Defendant WG via three to four occasions, the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven solely on the G’s statement without credibility. Around May 2008, FK used three bus buses with the FK’s marriage awareness of children. Around May 2008, the said FK transferred KRW 1.5 million to G under the name of the usage fee ( KRW 100,000 for each Dong-dong 1) and the refund of the received money.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendants who are the acceptance of bribe

(1) Defendant K, 0, U, V, Q, S, R, T, and N consistently denies a crime by asserting that they did not receive money from G, while there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the acceptance of bribe by the said Defendants, and Defendant I, H, J, P, P, C, C, D, E, M, M, and W recognized the crime of bribery in a sense that they either take place the fact of receiving money or acknowledge their mistake, but they also claim to the effect that it is not true that the date, place, and amount of receiving money are identical to those stated in the facts charged. Therefore, the issue is whether G’s statement, who is a bribe payer, is highly reliable enough to deny the Defendants’ defense or support the Defendants’ confession statement.

(2) 이 법원에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① G은 '현재 GP초등학교 교장선생님, 퇴임한 BQ초교 GQ 교장, 현재 FX 초교 교장선생님 등은 제가 몇 번 돈을 줄려고 했는데, 하도 완강하게 거절을 해서 전달을 못 한 경우도 있었다. 그렇지만, 대부분의 교장들은 그냥 돈을 받거나 거절하는 척하면서 받거나 하고 강하게 거절하는 교장들은 거의 없었다. 그런데 앞에서 얘기했던 교장 선생님들은 저에게 하도 완강히 거절할 뿐만 아니라 또 돈을 줄려고 하면 아예 거래를 끊겠다고 해서 돈을 줄 수가 없었다'라고 진술89) 하였는바, 적어도 자신이 돈을 건네려고 하였다가 거절당하여 건네지 못한 상대방들에 대하여는 명확히 기억을 하고 있는 것으로, 보이는 점, ② G이 수사기관에서 진술할 당시 학교별 위치, 교장실 위치, 돈 전달 방법, 피고인들의 당시 반응 등에 대하여 비교적 구체적으로 진술하였던 점90), ③ G은 학교의 단체행사를 주된 영업의 대상으로 하여 왔는데, 자신에게 학교 단체행사의 기회를 제공하여 준 주요 고객들인 피고인들에게 허위의 진술을 통해 누명을 씌웠을 경우 이후 자신의 사업을 영위하는 것 자체가 불가능해질 수도 있어 G이 아무런 근거도 없이 허위의 진술을 하지는 않으리라고 보이는 점91) 등을 고려할 때, 위 피고인들이 공소사실 기재와 같이 G으로부터 뇌물을 수수한 것이 아닌지 의심이 드는 것은 사실이다.

(3) However, the recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial shall be made by a judge for a reasonable doubt.

Inasmuch as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the prosecutor’s proof should be based on strict evidence.

Even if the defendant's assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, the interest of the defendant should be determined. The above strict proof includes all specific criminal facts as stated in the indictment. In particular, since the date and time of a crime specified in the indictment is the main object of the defendant's defense right, the specific criminal facts should be acknowledged through strict proof, and even if such proof is insufficient, there should not be proof of criminal facts on the ground that there is a probable probability that the crime was committed at another time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

In addition, in a case where the issue is whether or not to accept money or valuables, the defendant's statement made by the person who provided money or valuables is denied the fact of receiving money or valuables, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, in order to be convicted of the defendant, there should be credibility that the statement made by the person is admissible as well as reasonable doubt. In determining whether there is credibility, it should also be examined whether the contents of the statement itself are rational, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after, as well as their human beings, and in particular, whether there is a concern about a crime committed against him and there is a possibility that the investigation may be initiated on the suspect, or there is a possibility that the suspect's suspicion of the crime may be conducted, or that there is a possibility that the admissibility of the statement would be denied, even if there is a suspicion that the statement might affect the defendant's efforts to escape from the imminent place due to such suspicion, such as intimidation, reply, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002).

In addition, when examining whether a person asserts that he/she provided money several times is able to trust the statement, and where the part on which he/she provided money is unable to be trusted as it is, the credibility of the statement that he/she provided money through several times should be deemed to have been considerably weak. Therefore, even if there were no objective circumstances that make it difficult to believe that the part on which he/she provided money was provided was directly revealed, recognizing the remaining part on the grounds of the statement made by the person claiming that he/she provided money several times is not permissible in principle. Unlike the part on which he/she rejected the credibility of the statement, there is no special circumstance to resolve reasonable doubts, such as where the statement is sufficiently presented to the extent that the grounds for reliance can be affirmed, or where it is sufficiently supported by other evidence that can reinforce the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009).

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal doctrine as seen earlier, it is difficult to dismiss the Defendants’ defense counsel against the statements regarding the timing and amount of grant, etc. of G, or give high credibility to the extent that it can support the Defendants’ part of the confession statement. The remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the Defendants guilty of the facts charged against the said Defendants.

(A) GG’s statement on the specific date and time of the offering of bribe stated in the facts charged was received from the police, and the Defendants did not state the fact of the offering of bribe to the Defendants at the time of the interrogation of the suspect, or changed the time for the 3th time, and the fact of the offering of bribe was recognized at the time of the interrogation of the suspect. Based on this, G’s statement on the basis of the No. 5 date and time of the offering of bribe, which was written on the No. 3144, that the Defendants’ statement was made on the No. 4440, and that the No. 9444 was made on the No. 1466, and that the No. 3144 was made on the No. 146, No. 1464, Dec. 31, 2006.

G did not make an accurate date at this court, as stated in the facts charged, it made several statements to the effect that ‘the first, second, and second, and second, it was certain to be certain to have been given to the police officer during the time’. At the time, GR, a investigating police officer, denied her first to grant a bribe to the police officer at an elementary school, and started partial completion of her 2 and third investigations, it is difficult to know how she comes to be a temporary place, and it was possible to look at the data of withdrawal of money from the corporate passbook, each elementary school’s event contents, so it was possible to know that G did not have any specific method of withdrawing money from the event materials, the head of the Tong’s entry and exit of passbook, and the date and time, and how G did not make a specific statement to the police officer at the time and at the time to close the investigation at the intervals of G’s 2 and 3 times.

The net, the lower order was consistent with the first order and the second order, and the second and the second place were lush, so that they could have changed so from six times’s statements, 96).

(B) As G related to the details of the financial transaction stated that the details of the offering of bribe were based on the details of the financial transaction while preparing the details of the offering of bribe, this paper examines whether the financial transaction content can support the credibility of the statement at the time of grant of G.

G set the date on the basis of the brue ledger and the brue ledger in this Court. Since the head of the Tong and the brue were not well-compliant, G stated that it was replaced by the first brue and the second brue when being investigated by the police, the first brue and the second brue when being investigated by the police. After the examination of the presiding judge, it did not meet the first day, and did not clearly explain that it was replaced by the first brue and the first brue when it did not fit the details of the financial transaction.98), G was likely to not be a specific one if it is inconsistent with the first brue and the first brue and the financial transaction. However, G did not seem to have tried to clarify the date corresponding to the details of the financial transaction, and it does not seem to be a reliable attitude because it tried to prevent the conflict by expanding the scope of the above period.

G 스스로도 '당시 경찰에서 수사를 받을 때 담당 경찰관이 저에게 교장들에게 돈을 준 내역을 표로 만들어 오도록 하되, 가능한 날짜와 시간을 정확히 특정을 해서 기재하라고 하여 제가 주로 사용하는 끝번호 GS인 법인 통장, 제 명의 GT, GU 통장에서 현금을 뽑은 내역, 배차지시 대장의 행사 일정 등을 참고하여 대략 제가 임의대로 날짜와 시간을 기재한 것일 뿐 실제 기억을 해서 작성한 것은 아니다. 다만 날짜와 시간을 기억할 수 없지만 행사가 끝난 후 보름에서 한 달 사이에 돈을 전달한 것은 틀림없는 사실이다 199), '금융거래내역을 보면 언제, 어떠한 통장에서 인출한 현금 얼마를 언제, 어떤 교장에게 얼마를 전달했는지 알 수 있는 것은 아니다. 제가 하루 이틀 전이라면 기억을 하겠지만 몇 년씩이나 지난 일을 어떻게 기억하겠습니까. 그렇다고 따로 돈을 주었던 장부가 있는 것도 아니고, 사실 요즘은 차라리 비밀장부라도 만들어 놨었더라면 조사받기가 훨씬 편하고 서로 불편한 대질조사도 안 해도 되었을 텐데 라는 생각까지 한다. 그리고 행사가 끝나고 운송료나 리베이트 금액을 받아 즉시 그 돈에서 일부를 준 것이 아니라 영업을 하러 다니다가 근처에 돈을 주어야 할 학교가 있고, 몇 개 행사가 끝나서 돈을 좀 갖다 주어야 되겠다 싶으면 당시에는 제가 얼마를 주어야 하는지 기억을 하고 있었기 때문에 근처 CD기로 가서 이 통장, 저 통장에서 돈을 빼서 주었기 때문에 지금은 어떤 통장에서 나온 돈이 누구에게 얼마가 갔는지 도저히 기억할 수 없다'100)라고 진술하여 금융거래내역이 공여시점과 직접 연결되는 것은 아니라는 취지로 진술하였다.

Specifically, as to Defendant S, with respect to the portion of Defendant S’s defense counsel’s KRW 1690,00 as to the crime sight table (20) No. 3 No. 3, Nov. 1, 2007, when following the bank withdrawal statement, G was deposited on Nov. 6, 2007. The period from November 6 to 7, 2007 was FH elementary school’s academic travel. The Defendant was going to work at GV elementary school on Nov. 7, 2007 and went to work on Nov. 8 through 9, 2007, and the Defendant did not appear to work on Nov. 1, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007 on Oct. 1, 2007 without any specific grounds. 2017).

(C) Since G related to the dispatch instruction ledger stated that the details of the offering of a bribe were based on the dispatch instruction ledger while preparing the details of the offering of a bribe, the fact that the dispatch instruction ledger can support the credibility of the statement in relation to the timing of the offering of a bribe by G is merely FK, the number of buses used, the period of use, the bus price, etc., and there is no information that can identify the timing of the offering of a bribe to the Defendants, and even if examining the details of the financial transaction together with the details of the offering, it is difficult to deem that the dispatch instruction ledger provides information that contains more than 160 times in relation to the exercise exceeding 80 times in four years, and it is not adequate to support the credibility of the statement in relation to the timing of the offering of a bribe by G.

(D) On the basis of the FK’s financial transaction details, close to the date when G offered a bribe, the source investigation agency confirmed the Defendant’s source of the funds. 102) However, even based on the written statement itself, there is an amount indicated as unclear sources, and most of the immediately withdrawn amount was deposited into G’s personal account even though it was withdrawn from the corporate account (in the case of Defendant R, the investigation agency deposited KRW 12,90,000 from the corporate account at around 15:15 on June 22, 2006, and the said amount was deposited from the corporate account at the time of June 26, 2006 or June 2006, it is difficult to view that the said amount was deposited from the said corporate account to be directly withdrawn from the said corporate account, based on the premise that it was difficult to view that the said amount was the source of funds transferred to Defendant R and 780,000 won and that it was directly withdrawn from the said corporate account at the time of June 222, 2006).

(E) The general sales account G does not separately refer to the general sales account book in an investigative agency. (A) At this time, the first time at this court made a statement to the effect that: (a) there was an accurate memory due to the entry in the account book or book; and (b) there was a delivery of money to the school by the date of each month; (c) the entry of the account book or book in the general sales account book, not the account book, but the statement to the effect that (d) there was a bribe calculated based on the general sales account book at the time of the actual bribe, while making a statement to the effect that (e) there was a bribe calculated based on the general sales account book at the time of the actual bribe.

However, the original of the general sales account, which was submitted to this court, does not at all find the same indication as G, and if G entered in the general sales account book at school, it would be impossible to ascertain which previous events were held when calculating the bribe to be paid to the next school, and G made an indication in a way that only a single person can be known, and it also made an indication in the general sales account book at the same time. In light of the fact that G made a statement contrary to a somewhat detailed formula, such as the fact that it was written in the general sales account book at school, and that it was stated in the prosecutor's office that it was based on the dispatch order book, unlike the court, it is difficult to see that the general sales account is also a ground for supporting the statement of G sales.

(f)the amount of the bribe given;

G with respect to the method of calculating the number of bribe amount, G stated that "10,000 won to KRW 20,000 or KRW 30,000 as of the first day of a commercial bus," first of all, there are vehicle number, departure place, destination and transit place, starting time, charges, contractor, contact information, etc., and the dispatch order ledger was entered. The dispatch order ledger was reported by the school, and the case amount was calculated by calculating the number of bus use, the number of days of use, the amount of use, and the amount of use, etc. by the school, and the case amount was calculated by regarding the approximate payment date of reward. If the amount was paid in full according to the above calculation method, the total amount of the bribe paid to each of the defendants can be similar to any degree.

그러나 G이 '버스 1대에 거의 3만 원이고 2만 원 줄 때도 있었다. 예를 들어 차량대금으로 40만 원을 받아야 하는데 업체들끼리 덤핑경쟁을 하여 35만 원을 받았을 경우에는 버스 1대에 2만 원으로 계산한 뇌물을 지급하였다' 112), '배차대장의 차량요금을 보면 시세에 비하여 가격이 낮게 책정되었는지를 알 수 있는데, 가격이 낮았다고 해서 100% 2만 원으로 계산해서 드린 것은 아니고 상황에 따라서는 싸게 받았지만 정상적으로 3만 원을 계산해서 드린 적도 있다' 113)라고 진술하기도 하여 실제 뇌물을 제공할 때 버스 1대당 얼마의 사례비를 지급하였는지 객관적으로 확인할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, G이 피고인들에게 지급하였다고 진술한 뇌물의 총액 역시 그 정확성이 담보되지 않는다. 아울러 G이 행사별 사례금액을 빠짐없이 지급하였음을 입증할 객관적 자료가 부족한 이상114) G이 피고인들에게 지급하였다는 뇌물액수의 정확성은 더더욱 담보하기 어렵다. 설령 피고인들에게 지급한 뇌물의 총액을 정확하게 산출할 수 있다고 하더라도 앞서 본 바와 같이 뇌물공여 시점에 관한 진술이 신빙성이 없는 이상 공소사실이 입증되었다고 볼 수는 없다. 또한 G은 버스이용대금뿐만 아니라 자신이 소개한 숙박업소나 수련원 측으로부터 받는 리베이트를 피고인들에게 전달하였다고 진술하였고, 115) 숙박업체 등으로부터 소개료를 받아 교장들에게 전달한 사례금 내역은 배차지시대장과 주로 이용하는 3개 금융계좌의 입출금 내역을 보고 대략적인 사례금 지급날짜와 액수를 산출하였다고 진술하였다. 116) 그런데 피고인 U의 경우 별지 범죄일람표(17) 순번 1번에는 G이 2006. 6. 21.부터 2006. 6. 23.까지의 FD초등학교 FO수련원 수련활동과 관련하여 115만 원의 리베이트를 FD초등학교 교장 피고인 U에게 지급한 것으로 기재되어 있고, 별지 범죄일람표(5) 순번 1번에는 G이 그 무렵인 2006. 6. 18.부터 2006. 6. 20.까지의 EP초등학교 FO수련원 수련활동과 관련하여 68만 원의 리베이트를 EP초등학교 교장 피고인 J에게 지급한 것으로 기재되어 있는 반면, 같은 범죄일람표 순번 2번에는 불과 4개월 후인 2006. 10. 18.부터 2006. 10. 20.까지의 EP초등학교 FO수련원 수련활동에 대하여 리베이트를 지급하지 않은 것처럼 기재되어 있다. 이에 대하여 G은 '돈을 준 경우는 제가 예약을 한 것이고, 돈을 주지 않은 경우는 제가 예약을 하지 않은 것인데, 이는 배차대장을 보면 알 수 있다'라고 진술117)하면서 한편으로는 '배차대장에 누가 알선하 였는지는 나오지 않지만, 배차대장을 보고 저만 알 수 있는 것이다'라고 진술118)하거나 "제가 소개한 경우는 기억을 하고 있다. 장부를 보면 제가 한 것인지, 아니면 학교에서 직접 한 것인지 알 수 있다. 제가 한 것은 '한'이라고 표시를 해놨고 아닌 것은 써 놓지 않았다. 그런데 그것은 지급하고 나면 바로 지운다" 라고 진술119) 하여 합리적으로 해명하지 못하고 있다.

In addition, according to the table of crime Nos. 17) 4 at the same time, G was indicated as the payment of rebates of KRW 1.4 million from June 20, 2007 to June 22, 2007 to U.S. with regard to the FD elementary school training activities by the FD elementary school FD elementary school, but there is no financial data indicating that rebates was received from the FO training center around that time. Of course, there is no possibility of receiving rebates in cash. However, unlike the FO training center's rebates payment in 2006, GW appears to have been stated as the 190,000 won on July 9, 2006 and the 1.6th anniversary of the fact that the 20th anniversary of the 2006 list was stated as the 7th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 206 list, it appears that there was no possibility that the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of its payment.

(G) The standard for combining the exercise of bribe was stated to the effect that each time when the exercise was held, the payment was not made, but the payment was made at several times, and that the payment was made at one time after collecting the price for the exercise.

그런데 G은 그 기준에 관하여 '몇 번의 행사를 치른 후에 이에 대한 사례금을 모아서 지급하였는지에 관하여 정확하게 기억을 한다. 장부 내지 수첩에 기재했기 때문에 정확하게 기억하며, 그때그때 돈을 주고 나면 장부 내지 수첩을 버린다' 라고 진술123)하고, 또한 '돈이 얼마 안 될 때는 바로 찾아뵙지 못하고 묶어서 두 달이나 석달에 한 번 찾아뵙기도 하고, 일이 많을 때는 한 달에 한 번, 15일에 한 번 찾아뵙기도한다. 특별한 기준은 없고 제가 그냥 맞춰서 드리는 것이다'라고 진술124) 하였는바, 별다른 기준도 없이 임의로 행사별로 묶어서 제공된 뇌물을 아무런 장부의 기재도 없이 수사과정에서 기억을 복원하여 진술하였다는 것은 쉽게 납득이 되지 않는다.

가령 별지 범죄일람표(6) 순번 1, 2, 4, 5, 6번은 각 1개월 내지 2개월 정도의 사례금을 모아서 지급하였다고 기재되어 있는데 반해 순번 3번은 유독 8개월 정도의 사례금을 모아서 지급하였는데, 이에 대해 G은 '그 학교는 행사가 그렇게 많지 않고, 다른 업체들도 많이 쓰고 있기 때문에 교장선생님이 자주 오는 것을 싫어한다. 그래서 1년에 한 번 찾아 뵙고 그 행사 사례금을 드린 것이다. 무엇 때문인지 모르지만 당시 오지 말라고 해서 가지 않은 것으로 알고 있다'라고 진술125) 하나, 이는 4, 5, 6번에 대한 설명으로 부족하고 무엇 때문인지 기억하지도 못하면서 공여 내역 작성 당시 이를 반영하였다는 것은 합리적이라고 보이지 않는다.

(h) In light of the statement of other circumstances, only if the first specified day has an objective basis to a certain extent, the accuracy at the time of granting the instant facts charged can be ensured on the basis of the specific date. However, as seen below, there is no particular reason for the specific day that G initially stated in the investigation agency, and there is a high possibility that the actual bribe was not delivered at the time indicated in the facts charged on the basis thereof.

별지 범죄일람표(23) 순번 1번과 관련하여, G은 처음에 2006. 6. 22.경 CG초등학교 교장실에서 피고인 T에게 돈을 건넸다고 진술하다가 2006. 6. 하순경 건넸다고 진술을 변경하였는데, 실제로 G은 2006. 6, 20. 중국으로 출국하였다가 2006. 6. 24. 귀국하였다. 126) 별지 범죄일람표(21) 순번 2번과 관련하여, G은 처음에 2006. 12. 27. 11:00경 교장실에서 피고인 R에게 돈을 건넸다고 진술하다가 2006. 12. 하순경 건넸다.고 진술을 변경하였는데, 실제로 G은 2006. 12. 26. 중국으로 출국하였다가 2006. 12. 28. 귀국하였다. 127) 순번 4번과 관련하여, G은 처음에 2007. 7. 25. 11:10경 교장실에서 피고인 R에게 돈을 건넸다고 진술하다가 2007. 7. 하순경 건넸다고 진술을 변경하였는데, 실제로 피고인 R은 2007. 7. 25, 07:00경부터 2007. 7. 27.까지 광주 일원에서 개최된 초등학교장 협의회 하계연수회에 참가하였다. 128) 순번 7번과 관련하여, G은 처음에 2008. 7. 22. 14:40경 교장실에서 피고인 R에게 돈을 건넸다고 진술하다가 2008. 7. 하순경 건넸다고 진술을 변경하였는데, 실제로 피고인 R은 2008. 7. 21.부터 2008. 7. 23.까지 걸스카우트 여름캠프 참석차 GX 리조트에 있었고, 2008. 7. 24.부터 7. 26.까지 수원 전국초등학교장 연수회, 2008. 7. 28.부터 7. 29.까지 창원 여교장 연수에 참가하고, 2008. 7. 30. 오전 GY병원 신경외과 진료 후 귀가하였으며, 2008. 7. 31.부터 2008. 8. 1.까지 고흥 항공우주센터 아람단 교장연수에 참석하였는바 129), 2008. 7. 22. 뿐만 아니라 2008. 7. 하순경에 CE초등학교 교장실에서 피고인 R에게 돈이 건네졌을 가능성이 희박하다.

B. Determination as to Defendant G

As seen above, G’s facts charged based on the Defendant’s testimony cannot be deemed as having been proven, and there is no evidence supporting this in addition to the confession of the Defendant.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

II. Acceptance of bribe and Bribery related to L.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant K

On January 208, 2008, the Defendant received 1.5 million won in cash from L, a student’s representative, for the conclusion of the contract for the school travel accommodation business, in favor of the students, in a honorarium for the conclusion of the contract, and in favor of the future company’s conclusion of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Defendant’s objection

On December 2, 2007, the Defendant received 1 million won in cash as indicated in the [Attachment 2] List of Crimes (8) No. 2 as a reward for the students’ conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business at the above BU elementary school school school school school school principal, from L, a student’s representative of the BU elementary school principal, and a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties. Defendant R

On August 2008, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from L, a student’s representative in the CE Elementary School principal room, as indicated in the attached Table No. 2 of Crimes List (22) on the pretext of a honorarium for the students’ conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation for the future company’s conclusion of the contract.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

D. Defendant N

On July 2008, the Defendant received 100,000 won in cash from L, a student’s representative, for the conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business in the above FI Elementary School (hereinafter “FI Elementary School”) under the name of recompense for students and for solicitation for future business contracts. Accordingly, the Defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

E. Defendant T

On February 2, 2007, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash, as described in attached Form No. 24) Nos. 1, 200, from L, the principal of the CG Elementary School, a student’s representative of CG elementary school, for honorariums for concluding a contract for school travel accommodation business, and for soliciting future business contracts.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

F. Defendant L

(1) On January 1, 2008, the Defendant issued 1.5 million won in cash to K, the principal of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of the University of

(2) On December 2007, the Defendant issued one million won in cash to the principal of BU elementary school, as indicated in the [Attachment Table (8) No. 2] No. 100,000 won in cash, on the pretext of a student’s recompense for concluding a contract for school travel accommodation business, and a solicitation for concluding future business contracts, to the principal of BU elementary school.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(3) On August 2008, the Defendant issued KRW 2 million in cash to R, who is the principal of CE elementary school, in the CE elementary school school room, as shown in the attached Table No. 2 of Crimes List (22) on the pretext of a student’s recompense for concluding a contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation for concluding future business contracts.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

(4) On July 2008, the Defendant issued a reward of KRW 1 million in cash on the pretext of the student’s conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business and a solicitation of the future contract conclusion of the business in the FJ elementary school room at the school principal of the FJ elementary school. Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

(5) On February 2, 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 2 million in cash, as indicated in [Attachment 24] No. 1], to T, the principal of CG elementary school, in the school room of CG elementary school, with a recompense for students’ conclusion of the contract for school travel accommodation business, and with a solicitation for future business contracts.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. Although Defendant KL visited the Defendant’s office in order to have a bread bag containing KRW 1,50,000,000,000, it was the fact that the Defendant visited Defendant’s office, the Defendant, who found it, immediately called the Defendant’s racing. Since then, L visited the school to enter into this contract on March 2008, and sought the said envelope.

B. Defendant’s objection

The Defendant received KRW 1 million from L in December 2007. Defendant R has no record of receiving KRW 1 million from L in December 2007.

The Defendant did not receive KRW 2 million from L on August 2008.

D. Defendant N

The defendant has no money from L, and there is no memory about L.

E. On February 7, 2007, the date of accurate grant of KRW 2 million to Defendant TWnman on February 7, 2007 is Mez fire Daz. On the same day, the Defendant did not attend the CG elementary school as a business trip of Gangnam-gu Office of Education. In addition, since the 1st floor including the principal room from January 31, 2007 to February 21, 2007 was an internal repair work, it was impossible for L to call the Defendant at the principal room of the CG elementary school on February 2007. There was no fact of receiving a bribe from L. There was no fact of receiving L from L.

F. Defendant L201. The statement in the process of examination of witness conducted on March 30, 201 and June 30, 201 is consistent with Defendant’s memory, and part of the facts charged is different from the facts charged. 130)

3. Determination

A. The defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office, i.e., he received money from the prosecutor's office, i.e., one time, from the prosecutor's office, and the time 1.5 million won was returned from the prosecutor's office in 2007. However, the money corresponding to January 2008 was not returned at the time of conclusion of a fixed-term contract, but at the time of us's transfer of money to another school in 3 months, the defendant's statement 131 that he did not refuse to return money as he did not return money. The defendant's transfer of money to her own school in 131) stated that the situation at the time of receiving money was stated as 'Fu-5' as of Jan. 2, 2008, and that it was true that the defendant was forced to return money to 1.5 billion won as of Sep. 1, 2004.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 검찰에서 피고인의 주장과 달리 진술하였다가, 이 법정에서는 "수사기관에서 진술한 바와 달리피고인의 경우 피고인에게 돈을 줄 때 돈이라는 말을 안 하고 두고 나왔는데, 제가 고속도로를 한참 달리고 있을 때 그제야 피고인이 돈인 것을 알고 전화가 와서는 '빨리 가져가라. 앞으로 이런 식으로 하면 부장님들이 답사 가서 찬성해도 나는 반대하겠다'라고 화를 내셔서 다음에 받아온 적이 있다"고 진술133)한 점, ② L는 검찰에서 2008. 3.경 피고인이 다른 학교로 전근을 가게 되어 돈을 돌려준 것이라고 진술하여 ER초등 학교의 2008년 행사가 CL유스호스텔에서 예정되어 있다가 취소되었기 때문에 피고인이 돈을 반환한 것이라는 취지로 진술하였으나, 피고인이 ET초등학교로 전근을 간 것은 2008. 9.경으로서, 피고인이 전근을 가기 전인 2008. 3. 26.부터 2008. 3. 28.까지 이미 L가 운영하는 CL유스호스텔에서 ER초등학교 6학년 고적답사가 실시되었기 때문에 134) L의 진술에 따르더라도 피고인이 돈을 반환할 이유는 없는 점, ③ 메리츠화재 다이어리에 'ER-5'라고 기재되어 있으나, 위에서 본 바와 같이 L는 2008. 1.경 일단 돈을 건넸고 반환 여부를 예상할 수 없었기 때문에 메리츠화재 다이어리에 기재하여 두었다가 2008. 3.경 피고인으로부터 돈을 반환받았음에도 이를 삭제하지 못하였을 가능성이 있는 점, ④ L가 검찰에서도 인정한 바와 같이 피고인이 2007년(피고인의 주장에 따르면 2004년) 무렵 돈의 수령을 거부한 사실이 있는데, 2007년도, 2008년도, 2009년도 135) 세 차례에 걸쳐 L와 계약을 체결하면서 2008년에만 사례금을 거절하지 않고 수수하였다는 것은 상식에 반하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, L의 수사기관에서의 진술은 착오에 의한 것으로 보이므로, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

B. Defendant’s objection

However, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence of the front line, i.e., L, in relation to the part on which “GZA” or “GHB” was stated in the pocketbook, i.e., “GZB” or “GZB” were stated in the book, 136. On the 6th trial day of this court, the meaning of “HA” or “HB” among “GHA” or “HB” was stated in the book, and the prosecutor stated that “HA” or “HB” is included in the name of the recipient of the bribe or in the name of “HD” or “HB” and stated that the name of the principal of the GZ is “HD” or “HB” or “the Internet homepage of the GZB” or “the Internet homepage of the actual GZB” was written in the book, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the provision of “30 GHz” or “the name of the principal of the school is written in the investigation agency.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant did not have any proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as the defendant was found guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe for part of KRW 300,000,00,000, which is a single comprehensive crime, he does not separately sentence the defendant. Defendant RL provided the defendant with money before his retirement from the prosecutor's office. Of December 2, 2007, 2007, 1.50,000,000,000,000 won was a reward for the school trip in 2007, and even if the defendant was prior to his retirement on August 208, 208, 200, it is true that the defendant provided a written statement that 139,000,000,000 won was already prepared with a written plan for study travel as a low-income business establishment.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 부분 공소사실인 2008. 8. 하순 200만 원 수수의 점과 관련하여 L는 이 법정에서 변호인이 피고인의 퇴임일이 2008. 8. 27.임을 들어 돈을 준 것이 확실한지에 대하여 추궁하자 '새로 온 교장님에게 드린 것을 착각한 것 같다'라고 진술140)하여 수사기관에서의 진술을 번복한 점, ② 당시 조사경찰관이었던 DW는 메리츠화재 다이어리 등을 토대로 뇌물공여 리스트를 작성한 후 그 중 2008. 8. 29.자 CE초 200만 원 항목에 대하여 'X'자 표시를 한 후 '현직'이라고 수기로 기재하였는데 141), DW는 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 '제가 X자 표시를 하고 현직이라고 기재를 한 것은 맞지만 L의 진술에 따른 것으로 정확한 이유는 기억나지 않는다'라고 진술한 점 142), ③ 메리츠화재 다이어리에 2008. 8. 29. 자로 'CET'라고 기재 143)되어 있으나 144), 한편 'CET'라고 기재된 열 상단 부근에 '2009년도 영업지출'이라고 기재되어 있는바, 2008. 8. 27. 퇴임을 하였다는 피고인과 관련이 없어 보이는 2009년도 수학여행에 대한 사례금을 피고인에게 지급할 이유는 없어 보이는 점 등을 고려하면, L의 수사기관에서의 진술은 착오에 의한 것으로서 피고인의 퇴임 후 현직 교장에게 위 돈을 건넸을 가능성을 배제하기 어려워 보이므로, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as the court found the defendant guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe with 1.5 million won related to the comprehensive crime,

D. It is obvious that Defendant NL, not only the police but also the prosecution, gave 1 million won to Defendant N in the FJ Elementary School principal of the early July 2008, when it comes to the police, it is evident that Defendant NL, as seen earlier, stated that Defendant NL was constantly given a different opportunity to make a statement to L, on the ground that: (a) Defendant was aware that she was aware of the police investigation; and (b) Defendant was aware that she was aware of L during the investigation process; (c) Defendant asserted that she was not aware of L in cash; and (d) Defendant was not in the process of investigation; and (d) there was an examination on whether she was not giving or receiving money to L; and (e) Defendant still stated that L was constantly given a different opportunity to make a statement to the principal who refused a bribe, as seen earlier, from the initial date of investigation; and (e) Defendant did not make a statement to the principal who refused a bribe. In light of the fact that Defendant did not give or receive KRW 1 million from L.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the above-mentioned, i.e., L, without receiving money from the defendant N in this court, 147, stating that L is unable to delete from the books, 'breck', 'brecking in the crecing corridor,' 'brecking in the crecing corridor, but failed to take money from the university', 'brecing in the crecing corridor, 148', stated that the defendant did not receive money from the investigative agency; ii) in this court, 'police' stated that L was returned from the police without receiving money from the defendant N in this court because there is no more than 5 million won, it is difficult for the defendant to acknowledge that there was no possibility of giving and receiving money from 100,000 won, 'FJ', 300,000 won, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant did not have any possibility of giving and receiving money from the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

마. 피고인 TL는 수사기관에서 HG 사장 EF이 2010. 8. 9. 200만 원을 입금한 경위와 관련하여 'EF의 주선으로 2006년부터 CG초등학교가 저희 업소로 수학여행을 오게 되었다. 그래서 2006년도 행사가 끝난 후 제가 EF에게 200만 원인가 300만 원인가를 주었다. EF 이 2010. 8. 초순경 저를 위로한다면서 저희 업소로 찾아왔다가 그냥 갔는데 검찰조사를 받고 제 통장을 찍어봤더니 EF이 200만 원을 입금하였다. EF이 200만 원을 보낸 것은 2006년도에 CG초등학교 수학여행을 연결해 준 대가로 준 돈을 T 교장에게 안주고 자기가 먹었다는 근거로 200만 원을 저에게 보낸 것 같다'라고 진술152) 하였던 점, L는 또한 '저는 EF이 T 교장에게 돈을 주었다고 생각한다. 저희 업소 관행상 안 줄 수가 없다. 안 주면 그 뒤로는 저희 업소로 행사를 안 온다'라고 진술153)한 점, 메리츠화재 다이어리에 200만 원을 건넸다는 의미로 'CG'라고 기재된 내역의 좌측에 '2. 7.'이라고 기재 154)되어 있는데, L의 진술에 따르면 위 날짜가 반드시 돈을 건넨 날짜는 아니라는 것이므로 2007. 2. 7. 피고인의 출장 사실이 2007. 2. 초순경의 수수 사실과 반드시 양립불가능하다고 보이지 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 2007. 2. 초순경 200만 원을 수수한 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 드는 것은 사실이다.

그러나 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① L는 이 법정에서 "피고인의 경우 2007년도에 HG 사장이 인솔해 왔는데, 제가 그 사장에게 '교장선생님을 드리든지 당신이 알아서 접대를 하라'고 돈을 주었는데, 작년(2010년)에 돈을 다시 입금시켰다. 교장선생님을 드리라고 주었는데 그분이 직접 쓰고 전달하지 않은 것같다"라고 진술155)하고 있는 점, ② HG 사장인 EF은 수사기관에서 "2007년경 L로부터 '학교가서 교장하고 식사를 하던지 알아서 하라'는 말과 함께 200만 원을 받은 사실은 있지만 피고인에게 200만 원을 전달하지는 않았고, 교장들 사이에서 제가 L로부터 200만 원을 받아서 써버렸다는 소문이 나면 다른 교장들이 저한테 일을 주지 않을 것 같아서 기분이 찝찝하였다. 그래서 제가 L한테 200만 원을 입금시켰다"라고 진술156)하면서 'EF이 CG초등학교 2박 3일 수학여행과 관련하여 2007년 겨울경 고마움의 표시로 L로부터 200만 원을 받았다'는 취지의 사실확인서 157)를 수사기관에 제출하기도 한 점, ③ EF은 'L가 교장에게 가져다 주라고 했으면 당연히 가져다 주어야 하는데, L가 저에게 고생했다고 하면서 저한테 쓰라고 했다'라고 진술158) 한 점, ④ L의 수사기관에서 의 진술에 의하더라도 L가 직접 피고인에게 돈을 건넸다는 것은 아니므로 그 이후에도 피고인의 학교가 CL유스호스텔로 수학여행을 왔다는 사정만으로 피고인의 200만 원 수수사실을 추단할 수는 없는 점 등을 고려하면, EF의 진술과 같이 EFL로부터 200만 원을 수령한 후 이를 피고인에게 전달하지 않았을 가능성을 배제하기 어려워 보이므로, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로 이 부분 공소사실을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of the crime of acceptance of bribe in a single comprehensive crime, the judgment

F. As seen in this part of the facts charged, as examined in this part of the facts charged against Defendant LAA (B. D.) and D. E. As such, the fact of offering of a bribe related to NA and K is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and each of the offering of a bribe related to NA and K must be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but each of the offering of a bribe related to R and T should be acquitted

As long as the defendant is found guilty of a crime of grant, the judgment of the court shall not be pronounced separately.

II. CW Bribery (Defendant A)

1. Summary of the facts charged (main facts charged)

On November 159, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in cash from CW, a representative director of CV, who is a CV representative director of CY elementary school, for solicitation of future contracts related to the event of group such as student training activities.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

In the case of KRW 3 million received from CW, it is not received as a bribe, but borrowed from CW as a vehicle purchase fund, and repaid thereafter.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant and CW did not have a private friendly relationship; (b) the Defendant appears to have lent KRW 3 million in addition to CW around the Defendant; (c) the Defendant did not separately agree with the interest with CW; and (d) the receipt of CW on December 30, 2009 stating the purport of receiving the repayment of money, which appears to have been made ex post facto around March 2010, which was after the commencement of the investigation of the instant case; (c) there is a doubt that the Defendant did not borrow KRW 3 million from CW but rather could have been perceived as a bribe and returned it later.

B. We examine the following facts: (a) the fact that the Defendant received money from the borrower of the bribe at 10th anniversary of the receipt of the said money; (b) whether the borrower actually borrowed money from the borrower of the bribe at 10th anniversary of the receipt of the said money; (c) whether the borrower received money from the borrower of the bribe at 20th anniversary of the receipt of the loan; (d) the relationship between the borrower and the lender of the bribe; (e) the possibility of borrowing money from a person other than the borrower; (f) the amount of borrowed money and the address; and (f) the amount of the loan; and (f) whether the borrower’s economic conditions related to the trust; and (f) the possibility of repayment of principal and interest at 10th of the loan; and (f) there is no doubt that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s receipt of the money at 10th of the loan at 20th of the said time; and (f) there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged in the criminal trial.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the ancillary facts charged of bribery equivalent to financial interests, the judgment of

The presiding judge, senior senior judge;

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Gin-tae

1) The facts charged are written on November 17, 2009, but they are deemed to be written in writing on November 19, 2009, Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 73422 of 2010, which is deemed to be written in writing on November 19, 2009;

7342, 73461, 73480, 73481, 73499, and 97640 (hereinafter referred to as "investigation records") six right 2839 pages, 2841 pages, 2841 pages.

2) Since Defendant A recognizes the fact of borrowing itself, Defendant A also acknowledges the fact that he acquired a considerable amount of financial gains of KRW 3 million.

The duty relationship is also recognized in light of the relationship between Defendant A and CW, the situation at the time of lease, etc.

3) 600,000 + 17,260 won (interest on KRW 3 million from the borrowing date to the repayment date)

A person shall be appointed.

(iv) 21 1183 pages of investigation records.

5) 42,43 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

6) Some of the instant Defendants asserted that L’s statements are not reliable on the grounds of degradation of L’s memory, and L also asserts that L’s memory is not reliable.

Now, to overcome the limitations of this section, the Maz fire was prepared and the Maz fire was shown to have been recorded, and as such, the Mazo as it was unsatisfy.

It seems that we have tried to prepare accurately, and it seems that the credibility of the contents of the set forth in the above multilaterala seems to be high.

7) 24 2661, 2662 pages of investigation records

8) 21, 184 pages of investigation records

9) 17 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

10) 21° 1189 of investigation records

1) 21 Doz. 1188 pages of investigation records

12) 3, 4, 10 pages of the 6th trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605 concerning L

13) 4 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

14) 26,255 pages of investigation records

15) It is also unclear whether the letters themselves indicate "15".

16) If the L is based on the L method, it should have been stated as ‘5'.

17) 13 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

18) 21, 183 pages of investigation records

19) 21, 186 pages of investigation records

20) 13,14 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

21) 13 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

22) 21, 186 pages of investigation records

23) 5 pages, 14 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2011Gohap647, the examination of witness to Q Q

24) Protocol of the examination of the above witness 9,10 pages

25) Ten pages of the examination of the above witness

26) 25,26 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

27) 12 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

28) 21, 3270 pages of investigation records

29) Three pages of the second trial records of the case 201Gohap1075, 3 pages of the examination of witness to CX, 344 of the investigation records of 2011 type No. 74469 of 201.

30) Six pages of the examination of the above witness

31) 8 pages of the examination of the above witness

32) 28 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

33) 28 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

34) The 19 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

35) 21, 1203 pages of investigation records

36) 29 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

37) 24ter 2662 pages of investigation records

38) 18 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

39) 14,15 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

40) 14,15 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

41) 33 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

42) 24ter 2185 pages of investigation records

43) 22 pages of the fifth trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

4) 24ter 2662 pages of investigation records

45) 33 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

46) 33 pages of the third protocol of the trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

47) 8 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

48) 8 pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

49) Six pages of the protocol of examination of witness concerning L in the third trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

50) Attachments to a report on the place of the first abolition of 26 rights to the investigation records.

51) Investigation records 21, 1207 pages

52) Investigation records 26, 2554 pages

53) 43,44 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

54) Six pages of the protocol of examination of witness concerning L in the third trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

55) 52 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

56) Investigation records 24 2571 pages

57) Attachment to the first page of the investigation record 26th page report.

58) Investigation records 21, 1207 pages

59) Five pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2011Gohap1062 concerning CT

60) 201Gohap1062 Additional Evidence Record 847 pages

61) Four pages of the second protocol of trial of 201Gohap1062 case, 4 pages of the protocol of examination of witness against CU

62) 20,21 pages of the second trial record of the case No. 2015 Gohap1062 concerning CU

63) 2 to 5 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2011Gohap1062 concerning CT

64) 433,441 pages of the investigation records No. 74476 of 2011

65) Three, six,7 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2011 Highest 1062 concerning CT

66) 201Gohap1062 Additional Evidence Record 463 pages

67) Three, six,7 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2011 Highest 1062 concerning CT

68) 434 pages of the investigation records No. 74476 of 2011

69) 25,50 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2011 Highest 1062 concerning CT 25,50

70) 201Gohap1062 Additional Evidence Record 612 pages

71) Three pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2011Gohap1062 concerning CT

72) 2 to 5 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2011Gohap1062 concerning CU

73) 55 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2011Gohap1062 concerning CT

74) 201Gohap1062 Additional Evidence Record 847 pages

75) 4 pages of the second protocol of trial of 201Gohap1062 case, 4 pages of the protocol of examination of witness against CU

76) 20,21 pages of the second trial record of the case No. 2015 Gohap1062 concerning CU

77) Te in this Court “T has dysn’t dysn’t son in this Court. As such, Te was the mind that you want to have the son’s son more well than what kind of son’s son’s son.

The statement was made as follows (21 pages of the second trial record of the case No. 2015, 1062, which was the 21th trial record of the witness examination of CT).

78) 28 3116 pages of investigation records

79) Eight pages of the protocol of examination of witness concerning L in the third protocol of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

80) Investigation records 23 2207 pages

81) Investigation records 26, 2557 pages

82) Investigation records 26, 2556 pages

83) Investigation records 26, 2554 pages

84) Defendant 1’s written opinion by the defense counsel at the first 2011, February 11, 201, denying this part of the facts charged, and Defendant 1’s defense counsel at the third 201 trial date and March 30, 2011;

Since the amount of offer of offer by G was unreshed in his written opinion, he denies the crime, but led to the confession of the facts charged in an reflective manner.

The previous opinion was presented and the previous opinion was presented. Meanwhile, at the time of the examination of the defendant on the seventh trial date, the amount of KRW 19.6 million was expressed in the court, but it was so expressed.

The defendant is too excessive, and the defendant is considered to have received KRW 1,00-12 million.

85) Of the 8th trial records of the case No. 2010 Gohap1605, the part concerning Defendant 1’s examination 7 pages

86) The part concerning Defendant 1’s examination in the 8th trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

87) Defendant C stated that the police did not know accurate but he could not have received approximately 8 million won over four times (a investigative record 4).

The authority 1592 pages) The prosecution stated to the effect that it is identical to that of the five times, but it is not clear that the accurate amount is not known.

88) Part 3 of the 8th trial record of the case No. 2010 Gohap1605, the last statement of the defendant 2 in attached Form 2

89) Investigation records 23 2178 pages

90) 11ter 1134 to 1138 pages of investigation records

91) G testified on this point as follows.

“At the time of taking account of whether there was an influence of the principal and whether there was an influence when the exercise was made in preparation of the said schedule.”

at the time of the head of the Tong, the number and place of the vehicle recorded in the dispatch ledger, and all participating students, etc. entered in the contract;

Considering that, to the maximum extent possible, efforts have been made to make a well-beingd and accurately. From the standpoint of conducting a low-level project, the principal and the recipient have continued to do so.

If the head of the agency finds that the head of the agency has given more than the actual bribe than the actual bribe, the head of the agency, if so, would cause the head of the agency, and if so, the

In addition, efforts have been made to make the most accurate mark as much as possible due to a clerical error (23, 2241 pages of investigation records).

92) Four copies of investigation records 170 pages

93) 21, 110 pages of investigation records

94) 32 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

95) 5,6 pages of the fifth trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

96) 6 pages, 11 pages of the fifth trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

97) 13,14 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

98) 14 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

9) 21 1128 pages of investigation records

100) Investigation Records 21 1147 pages, 1148 pages

101) 19,20 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

102) 26, 624 to 652 pages of investigation records

103) Investigation records 26 631 pages

104) A copy of investigation records 209 pages

105) 47 pages, 65 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

106) 21 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

107) 21 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

108) 18 pages of the 7th trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

109) Although gold is old and cannot be memory, the number of vehicles and the contents of the event at the time shall be reported to the dispatch instruction ledger, and the vehicle user fee and the introduction fee shall be reported to the vehicle.

On the other hand, it was paid to the principal of the school.(21 pages 1121 of investigation records)

10) Investigation records 21, 1108 pages

11) 21, 110 pages of investigation records

12) 4 pages, 24 pages, 30 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

113) 15,16 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

14) There is a possibility that G has omitted the event in preparing the details of the grant, and even if the event was not omitted, a bus board actually used for the event.

It seems that there is a case where the number is calculated by mistake. At the same time, from September 18, 2006 to September 9, 20, 200, the crime sight table (6) Nos. 2

G is indicated as KRW 360,000,000 in respect of the experience study of the FN Training Center, and in relation to this, 6 buses are used for 2 days.

30,000 won per bus (25 pages of the second trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605), however, the statement was made as follows:

In contrast, according to the certificate No. 1 submitted by Defendant K’s defense counsel, the contract for five buses related to the above experience study is concluded.

I seem to be.

15) Investigation records 21, 1108 pages

16) Investigation records 21, 110 pages

17) 75 pages of the second protocol of trial of 2010Gohap1605 case in the second protocol of trial of G

18) 75 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

19) 26 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

120) 75 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

121) 76 pages of the second protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

122) 8 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

123) 47 pages, 65 pages of the second trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

124) 8,9 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

125) 34,35 pages of the third trial records of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

126) 13, 1242 pages of investigation records

127) 13, 1242 pages of investigation records

128) Evidence No. 1 of Defendant R’s defense counsel

129) Evidence No. 1, 10, 11 of Defendant R’s defense counsel

130) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he will be recognized as being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office in the written paper submitted on January 14, 2011.

131) Investigation records 21 1191 pages

132) Investigation records 26 2557 pages

133) 5 pages, 20, 21 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010 high-scale 1605

134) 13ter 2699, 2719 pages of investigation records

135) AT elementary school is a contract concluded after the transition.

136) 27 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

137) Six pages of the 6th trial record of examination of witness with respect to L in the sixth trial record of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

138) HF

139) Investigation records 21 1206 pages

140) 36 pages of the third protocol of examination of witnesses on L in the case of 2010 Gohap1605

141) Investigation records 24 2183 pages

142) 23 pages of the fifth protocol of the examination of witnesses on DW

143) Investigation records 26,254 pages

L 144) Since L had offered usual money and valuables, L was adjusted by merz fire, it appears that L was the date of preparation on August 29, 2008.

에게 금품을 건넸을 가능성도 있다.

145) Investigation records 21, 1210 pages

146) Investigation records 21 1211 pages

147) 22,23 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010 Gohap1605

148) Five pages of the 6th trial record of the case No. 2010 Gohap1605

149) 23 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010 Gohap1605

150) Investigation records 16, 2334 pages

151) 42,43 pages of the third protocol of trial of the case No. 2010Gohap1605

152) 21 1207, 1208 pages of investigation records

153) Investigation records 23 2202 pages

154) Investigation records 26 2556 pages

155) Five pages of the protocol of examination of witness in relation to L in the third protocol of trial of the case 2010 Gohap1605

156) Investigation Records 27 1910, 1911

157) Investigation records 27 1876 pages

158) Investigation records 27 1910 pages

159) The facts charged are written on November 17, 2009, but seem to be written in writing on November 19, 2009 (in case of investigation records, six right 2839 pages, 2841 pages).

160) Four books 1756 pages of investigation records

161) 2,3 pages of the fourth protocol of the examination of witnesses for CW

162) 9 pages of the fourth protocol of the examination of witness in CW

163) Six books of investigation records 2818 pages, 2839 pages