[1] The meaning of "public official" under Article 129 of the Criminal Code and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] Whether a "office clerk of an execution officer office" constitutes a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (negative)

[1] In Article 129 of the Criminal Code and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the term "public official" refers to a person engaged in the affairs of the State, local government, and public corporations equivalent thereto, who are not limited to mere mechanical or physical, based on the legal basis, and in order to be recognized as a "person engaged in affairs of the State, etc. based on the legal basis," the authority to perform official duties must be based on the law, and in principle, appointment under public law should be required even if a certain form is not required.

[2] The office clerical staff of the enforcement officer's office is merely to assist the enforcement officer's affairs and is not granted its own authority based on the legal basis [Article 21 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2068 of Feb. 15, 2007)], unlike the enforcement officer appointed by the chief of the district court, the representative enforcement officer is employed as an individual qualification (Article 21 (2) of the above Rule), and its remuneration is paid by the enforcement officer and the disciplinary authority is also vested in the enforcement officer (Article 24 (1) of the above Rule). It also regulates the same as a public official as the subject of bribery under the Criminal Act (Article 111 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is at issue as to whether a public official is a public official (Article 111 (2) of the same Act). In light of the fact that the crime of bribery and giving evidence of breach of trust is different from the protected legal interest and the protection object of protection, and the establishment of the office.

[1] Article 129 of the Criminal Code, Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [2] Articles 129 and 357 of the Criminal Code, Article 111 of the Attorney-at-law Act, Article 21(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Execution Act (amended by Supreme Court Regulation No. 2068 of Feb. 15, 2007) (see current Enforcement Rule 21(1) and (2)), and Article 24(1) of the former Enforcement Rule (see current Enforcement Rule 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1703 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2090) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4593 Delivered on November 22, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 264) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2036 Delivered on July 12, 2002

Defendant 1 and five others

Mackn-ray

Law Firm Seosan et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years, by imprisonment for five years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, and by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for defendant 5, by imprisonment for three years, and by imprisonment for six years, respectively.

72,00,000 won from Defendant 1, 180,000 won from Defendant 2, and 60,000,000 won from Defendant 5 shall be collected respectively.

Of the facts charged of this case, the delivery of the third party brain on December 13, 2005 to Defendant 6 shall be acquitted.

[2010Gohap 5]

1. The crime of taking property in breach of trust by the defendant 1 and 2;

Defendant 2 is a secretary of the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung branch's office, who deals with the affairs of the said court's execution office in the course of performing duties such as receiving bid bags in the real estate auction procedure and inserting bid bags.

At the end of April 2008, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 4 and 3 to receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible at the ○○ hotel (detailed address omitted) in a restaurant located in Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, 2006, where an auction is being conducted by Defendant 4 and 3 for red support. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2, as a clerical staff member of the execution officer office, received a bid bag in the auction procedure, and made it possible for Defendant 2 to verify the bid situation while carrying out the work, such as receiving a bid bag in the auction procedure, and inserting it in the bidding bag. Defendant 1 promised to receive a successful bid at a low price possible for Defendant 3 and 4 by using experience related to auction while working in the attorney-at-law office.

Defendant 1 and 2: (a) around May 2, 2008, at the restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, Defendant 3 and 4,000 won, and (b) around the 6th day of the same month, additionally received KRW 40 million from the restaurant located in Hongsung-gun, and (c) around May 7, 2008, Defendant 1 and 2 used the fact that the bidder of the above hotel auction at the auction conducted in red support on May 7, 2008 was not Defendant 3 and 4,520,000 won, which is the minimum sale price, for the bid of KRW 4.55 billion and KRW 6.3 million, which is the minimum sale price.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspiredd to acquire a total of KRW 100 million in exchange for an illegal solicitation from Defendant 3 and 4.

2. Defendants 1 and 2’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

No one, other than an attorney-at-law, shall handle or arrange legal affairs such as representation, legal counseling or preparation of legal documents with respect to legal cases, such as non-contentious cases, in return for receiving or promising to receive money or valuables.

A. On January 28, 2008, Defendant 1 and 2 requested auction from Nonindicted Co. 1, 2007, 3592, which were conducted in the Red Support, on the building and site of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2007, to be awarded a bid price at KRW 9670,00,000, by taking into account the situation of the auction case and whether there was a lien or a lease, etc., or by taking into account the circumstances of the auction case and the copy of the register, etc., the bid price is determined and the bid price is determined and accordingly the bid price is determined and accordingly the bid price is determined.

Then, around April 8, 2008, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received KRW 10 million from Nonindicted 2 to Defendant 1’s account under the pretext of payment for this.

B. On September 8, 2008, Defendant 1 and 2, who was requested by Nonindicted 4 to take a successful bid with respect to an auction case on a building, site, etc. located in the Daejeon Sung-gu Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, 2007, which was conducted on September 8, 2008, ordered Nonindicted 4 to obtain a successful bid for the said building at KRW 1.166,50 million by taking into account the situation of the auction case and the copy of the register, etc., or considering the surrounding market price, lien and the existence of lease, etc., the bid price is determined and the bid price is determined and the bid price is determined accordingly.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 4 to Defendant 1’s account on or around September 2, 2008 as a consideration for this.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to receive compensation by acting as an agent or counseling on the auction procedure, which is a non-contentious case.

3. Defendant 2’s crime of taking property in breach of trust;

On April 209, Defendant 2 received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 5, who is an auction hub at the parking lot of the golf practice range located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, 2008Mo680, which was conducting an auction, and Nonindicted 5, who was in the process of the auction, to grasp the bidding conditions of the two farms and their land located in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seosung-si, and agreed to contact Defendant 5, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, who is the representative of Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7, in case of third bidders.

Defendant 2, around April 27, 2009, received bid bags at the auction procedure conducted in Hongsung Support, and confirmed that there was no third bidder except Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, and did not contact Defendant 5. Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Defendant 5 in the nearest to Hongsung Support on the same day.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 acquired KRW 20 million in return for illegal solicitation from Defendant 5 and 6.

4. The crime of giving property in breach of trust by the defendant 3 and 4;

around April 208, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price through Defendant 1, etc., who is known as an auction hub in a single unit, such as Red-gun, etc., and agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible, in a restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, the Daejeon District Court of Hongsung Branch of Daejeon, 2006, to jointly receive ○ hotel located in the (detailed address omitted) Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, where an auction is in progress. Accordingly, Defendant 4 paid KRW 600,000 to Defendant 1 and Red-gun, who is a business cause of the office of Red-gun, and paid the above hotel KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

As a result, Defendant 3 and 4 conspiredd to make an illegal solicitation to Defendant 1 and 2 and provided a total of KRW 100 million.

[2010 Highest 14]

5. Defendant 5’s crime of giving property in breach of trust;

Defendant 5 was asked by Defendant 6, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 6, the Daejeon District Court, for the bid at a low price on both a two farm and its land located in Bocheon-do, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, where auction was being conducted at the level of Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court 2008ta, 6680). Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder, who is the office of Hongsung support execution officer, known to the general public, and asked Defendant 5 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder. Defendant 7, who was known to the general public, had Nonindicted Co. 7, who was in the general public, bid at the above auction in order to prepare an external appearance as if he was a competitor, and eventually Defendant 6 attempted to receive the bid at the lower price

On April 209, Defendant 5 made an illegal solicitation to request Defendant 2 to look at Defendant 2 or to grasp the bidding conditions, etc. at the parking lot of the golf driving range in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun. Defendant 2, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, provided that Defendant 5 would contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7.

Defendant 5, at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, offered to Nonindicted 7 a bid of KRW 1.568 million as planned by Defendant 2, in accordance with a plan to have no particular contact with Defendant 2, and eventually Defendant 6 received a successful bid for the said farm in the amount of KRW 1.57 billion close to the minimum sale price, and in return, Defendant 5 delivered KRW 20 million to Defendant 2 at the Hongsung support center around the same day on the same day.

Accordingly, Defendant 5 made an illegal solicitation in collusion with Defendant 6 and offered KRW 20 million to Defendant 2.

[2010Gohap20]

6. The crime of taking property in breach of trust by the defendant 1 and 2;

Defendant 2 is a secretary of the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung Branch's Office, who assists the execution officer in the auction procedure and deals with the auction affairs of the said court execution officer's office.

around September 2007, Defendant 1 accessed Nonindicted 8, who lost by requesting a case of building name map of the △△ Hospital located in the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do to the attorney-at-law office working for himself, “whether it is to extend the execution date to one month because there is a person who knows in the court?”

Defendant 1 and 2 received an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 8 on October 1, 2007, “I may delay the enforcement of the △△ Hospital?” Defendant 1 and 2 received KRW 5 million from the head of the Tong in the name of Defendant 1 on the same day, stating that “I would be in charge of the enforcement of △△ Hospital, and the degree of one month would be possible to extend the enforcement?” and received KRW 15 million from the head of the Tong in the name of Defendant 1 on the same day.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspiredd with Nonindicted 8 to acquire a total of KRW 20 million in return for an illegal solicitation.

【2010Gohap22】

7. Defendant 6’s crime of giving property in breach of trust;

Defendant 6, the representative of Non-Indicted 6 Co. 6, Ltd., who was conducting an auction at the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Ma6680) and Non-Indicted 5, was to request Defendant 2 to inform Defendant 2, who was the office of Red Support Execution Officer, to be aware of whether there was a bidder or not, through an auction agent, in order to receive a successful bid on both of Non-Indicted 5’s school districts and their land located in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu. Accordingly, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2, who was aware of the general meeting, to submit the above request, and tried to invite Non-Indicted 7, who was aware of the general meeting, to bid at a lower price than Defendant 5.

On April 209, Defendant 5 made an illegal solicitation to request Defendant 2 to look at Defendant 2 or to grasp the bidding conditions, etc. at the parking lot of the golf driving range in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun. Defendant 2, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, provided that Defendant 5 would contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7.

Defendant 5, at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, demanded Nonindicted 7 to bid a bid price of KRW 1.568 billion, stating that there is no particular contact from Defendant 2, as planned by Defendant 2, according to a bid plan, Defendant 6 demanded that the farm be awarded a successful bid of KRW 1.57 billion, which is close to the minimum sale price. Defendant 6 confirmed that the farm was awarded a successful bid and, in return, delivered KRW 20 million to Defendant 2 at the Hongsung support wife around the same day through Defendant 5, through Defendant 5.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 5, Defendant 6 made an illegal solicitation and provided KRW 20 million to Defendant 2.

[2010Gohap24]

8. The crime of aiding and abetting evidence by the defendant 5 or 6.

From February 2010, Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 had been investigated by the Hongsung Branch Office of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on April 27, 2009 due to the suspicion of offering a bribe to Defendant 2. Defendant 6 was investigated by the Hongsung Branch Office on February 3, 2010, and was investigated by Defendant 6 on the place of use of the check issued in that name.

Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 asserted that Defendant 5’s sole delivery of a bribe to Defendant 2 was not related to Defendant 6, and that the check issued in Defendant 6’s name was not issued for the purpose of a bribe to Defendant 5.

Defendant 5 and 6, on February 2010, delivered KRW 7 million to Nonindicted 9 as the repayment of debt to Nonindicted 9, on the ground that Defendant 5 met Nonindicted 9, or 7 million won out of the above KRW 30 million, at the coffee shop located in Seocho-si, Yon-si, Yon-si, Defendant 5, who was aware of that Defendant 5 borrowed KRW 7 million from Nonindicted 9, which Defendant 6 knew, and Defendant 6 gave KRW 7 million as the repayment of debt to Nonindicted 9. In order to ensure that Defendant 6 purchased 200 pigs from Defendant 5 and paid the payment of swine, Defendant 5’s demand for attendance from Nonindicted 10, who was aware of that Defendant 5 had been paid 20 million, and Defendant 5 and 6 made a statement to the purport that Defendant 5’s demand for attendance from Defendant 6 to this effect, Defendant 5 and 6 made a public offering to the effect that Defendant 9 and 100 billion were forged and sold.

A. Teachers for Nonindicted 9

On February 2010, Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 asked Defendant 6 to “The head of Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, the head of Bocheon-si asked Defendant 5 to have lent KRW 7 million to Defendant 6 at the coffee shop located in Bocheon-si.”

After that, on February 7, 2010, Defendant 6 confirmed that, using a computer at the office of Nonindicted Co. 6, 201, the office of Hongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Defendant 6 received payment of the check amount of KRW 1 million (Won 7,00,000,000) that he lent to Defendant 6. On April 27, 2009, Defendant 6 stated “I: Nonindicted 9: (a) Nonparty 9’s office located in Jeoncheon-gu, Hongcheon-si, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, requested Nonindicted 9 to affix his seal on the said confirmation document, and Defendant 6 accepted this, and Defendant 6 submitted the confirmation document on February 8, 2010.

B. Teachers for Nonindicted 10

On February 2010, Defendant 6 called Nonindicted 10 to Defendant 10 and asked Defendant 5 to “on the face of the phone that confirmed whether he had sold his money to Defendant 5, Defendant 5, Defendant 5, 110,000 won in one mari with the 200 mari, so as to confirm as if he had been on the 22 million won,” and Defendant 5 told Defendant 10 to the same purport.

After Nonindicted 10 consented, Nonindicted 11, who is the employee of △△ farm that he operated, arranged the details of the sales of pigs on the computer, and additionally stated on April 27, 2009 that he sold 200 pigss to Defendant 5. Nonindicted 10 reported the details of the sales of pigs arranged by Nonindicted 11, and submitted a statement on the A4 paper, stating that “The sales of pigs: 5,200 kilograms among the total body of 5,200 kilograms of 5,20 kilograms: 4,212 kilograms: 22,00 Won” on March 18, 2010.

Nonindicted 10 decided to prepare and submit a set, after being asked about the preparation process of the sales log in the past, Nonindicted 10 made a statement that he was to prepare and submit a set, and on the same day, Nonindicted 10,000 won per 110,000 won per 5,000 square meters per 25 kilograms, 27 kilograms, 5,200 kilograms per 27,00 kilograms (per 27,00 kilograms) on March 19, 2010.

As a result, Defendant 5 and 6 conspiredd Nonindicted 9 and 10 to use forged evidence, which is evidence of a criminal case against them, such as a confirmation of fact, swine sales log, and oars.

[2010Gohap25]

9. Defendant 2’s crime of taking property in breach of trust

Defendant 2 is a secretary of the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung branch's office, who deals with the affairs of the said court's execution office in the course of performing duties such as receiving bid bags in the real estate auction procedure and inserting bid bags.

On December 8, 2005, Defendant 2, as a secretary of the office of Hongsung Support Execution Officer, notified Defendant 6 of the bid status to obtain a successful bid of the Daejeon District Court's red support support 2005 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

On December 19, 2005, Defendant 2, along with the office members of the same court execution officer office, received bid bags at the above auction procedure conducted by Hongsung support on December 19, 2005, and notified Defendant 6, the bidder, not the bidder, thereby allowing Defendant 6 to receive the bid amounting to KRW 1,94,00,000,00 which is close to the minimum sale price. Thereafter, Defendant 2 received KRW 20,000 from Nonindicted 12 upon request by Defendant 6 and Defendant 5 who introduced Nonindicted 12.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 acquired a total of KRW 20 million in receipt of an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 12 and Defendant 6.

10. Defendant 5’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant 5 knew that Defendant 6, who was known to the general public, was awarded a successful bid for the said ▽▽△ farm owned by Nonindicted 13 and wanted to purchase the land and building that is not included in the said auction and to arrange for the operation of the farm.

Defendant 5 introduced Defendant 6, around December 2005, Nonindicted 12, who is well aware of Defendant 2, who is the office of the Red Support Execution Officer, to Defendant 6, and concluded an agreement between Defendant 13 and Defendant 6 with respect to the buildings, etc. not included in the auction in the auction in the event of the auction of the ▽▽△ farm, and received KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 on January 25, 2006.

After that, on May 25, 2006, Defendant 5 prepared a real estate sales contract with Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 13, stating that “Nonindicted 13 sells the building outside of the building, other than the legally proposed building, in Bosong-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Seocheon-si, a legally proposed farm, to Defendant 6,80 million won,” and that “ Nonindicted 13, in selling and buying the above real estate, shall be treated as an auction for inside the real estate, and the seller, in the future, shall not take the person in charge of the facility.” On the same day, Defendant 5 received KRW 15 million, including KRW 5 million, from Defendant 13, in return for arranging the agreement with Defendant 6.

As a result, Defendant 5 was delivered KRW 50 million from Defendant 6, and KRW 10 million from Nonindicted 13, respectively, under the pretext of arranging reconciliation in general legal cases.

[Each fact of paragraphs 1 and 4 at the Time of Sales]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 2, and 4;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 (2010Gohap5, No. 51, the investigation records of the case), each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 2 (51, No. 516, No. 618, No. 1016, and No. 1064, the investigation records of the case), each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 4 against Defendant 4 (786, No. 1901, the investigation records of the case)

1. Investigation reports (report on criminal intelligence, such as acceptance of bribe, and report on the results of search and seizure or execution of warrants);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 4 and 2

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of the number, etc. of the successful bid for the auction of Nonindicted 4, the report on the result of execution of the search and seizure warrant (the factory of Nonindicted Company 1), and the report on the result of execution of the search and seizure warrant (the uniform

【Each of the facts listed in paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 at the market】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 5;

1. The defendant 6's partial statement

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 (2010Gohap5, No. 1041, No. 1064), prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 7, prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 (2010Gohap22, No. 964) and prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 6 (980 pages of investigation record)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 5

1. Investigation report (report on the details of currency, and the result of tracking KRW 15.7 million deposited into Defendant 2’s account on April 27, 2009);

【Fact 6 at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 8

1. A criminal investigation report (in addition to the statement of transactions by agricultural cooperatives non-indicted 8 passbooks);

【Fact 8 at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 5 and 6;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 9 and 10

1. A copy of each fact-finding certificate, receipt, and ○○ farm daybook;

1. Each copy of the investigation report (the attachment of Nonindicted 10’s statement hearing and sales data, and the report on the settlement of accounts and the result of data analysis on April 2009);

[Fact 9]

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Defendant 6’s statement or record in the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (2010Gohap25, No. 450, the investigation records of the case No. 2010)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 14

1. A criminal investigation report (the report on the identification of Defendant 6’s capital flow with respect to Defendant 2, 2005, 2005, 15294, and the attachment of the details of transactions with Defendant 6’s account for the Nongbuk National Agricultural Cooperative

[Fact 10]

1. The defendant 5's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 15 and Defendant 6

1. Some of the witness Nonindicted 13’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 5 (2010Gohap25 of the case's investigation records No. 240, 359, 541, 552 pages)

1. Defendant 6’s statement or record in each prosecutor’s interrogation protocol (246 pages, 372 pages, and 450 pages of the investigation record) as to Defendant 6, and the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol as to Defendant 6 (the above investigation record No. 450 pages)

1. The second written statement by the prosecution against Nonindicted 13

1. Red Support 2005 Maz. 15294

1. A criminal investigation report (attached to the details of transactions in the accounts of the Nonghyup Northern Bank, attached to the transactions in the accounts in the name of the △△△ Farming Corporation, and hearing of Nonindicted 13 telephone statements from the witness;

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

A. Defendant 1 and 2: Articles 357(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 109 subparag. 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008); and (c) Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act No. 2 of the date of sale); and (d) Articles 30 (a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of the date of sale);

B. Defendant 2: each of the Criminal Code Article 357(1) (the violation of trust No. 3 and No. 9 at the time of sale) and each of the imprisonment options

C. Defendant 3 and 4: Articles 357(2) and 357(1) of the Criminal Code, and 30(the occupation of giving rise to breach of trust at the time of sale) of the Criminal Code, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.

D. Defendant 5: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30(1), 30(5) of the Criminal Act; Articles 155(1), 31(1), and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; 8 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008); 109(1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008); 10 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 10 of March 28, 2008)

E. Defendant 6: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30(7)(7) of the Criminal Act; Articles 155(1), 31(1), and 30(8) of the Criminal Act; Articles 357(2) and (3) of the same Act; Articles 155(1), 31(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act’s penal provision’s choice

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants 1, 2, 5, 6);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (as to Defendants 1 and 2, the punishment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Non-Indicted 4 with the largest punishment and circumstances; as to Defendant 5, the punishment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law against Non-Indicted 6 with the largest punishment and circumstances; as to Defendant 6, the punishment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Non-Indicted 10 with the largest punishment and circumstances; as to Defendant 6, the punishment for the violation of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2;

1. Collection (defendant 1, 2, and 5);

(a) Defendant 1 and 2: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act, the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

[A statement by each investigation agency of the above defendants can be acknowledged that the above defendants acquired 130 million won (the amount acquired for 100 million won (the amount acquired for 10 million won) + 30 million won (the amount acquired for 20 million won on the market)] as stated in the judgment in the first and second crimes committed in the joint crimes committed by the above defendants are distributed 7 million won and 13 million won for 65 million won (the amount acquired for 130 million won) + 30 million won (the amount acquired for 20 million won on the market) as stated in the judgment of the court below)

(b) Defendant 5: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

[Amount of collection 60 million won (the amount acquired by the crime of subparagraph 10 at the time of sale)]

Determination on Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6’s assertion

1. Defendant 1, 2

A. The assertion

The defense counsel of the above defendants asserts that the above defendants' defense counsel does not constitute an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust by making the subject matter of auction successful bid at a low price (the crime No. 1 in the market), or that the situation of bidding (the crime No. 3 and 9 in the market), etc. (the crime No. 6 in the market), or that the late execution of delivery (the crime No. 6 in the market) does not constitute an illegal solicitation in relation to the crime of taking property in breach of trust by itself, and that the above solicitation in relation to the delayed execution

B. Determination

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties. The term "illegal solicitation" in this context does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient if it is against social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining this, the contents of the solicitation and the amount of the consideration related thereto, forms, and the integrity of transactions, which are legal interests protected, should be comprehensively considered, and such solicitation does not necessarily require that it be explicitly made (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6987, Dec. 11, 2008).

With respect to this case, in light of the following facts: (a) the content of each of the above solicitation violates the duty of the office of execution officers; (b) the amount of the property acquired in return for the above solicitation is large; and (c) the fairness and integrity required in handling the auction affairs; and (d) the degree of integrity and integrity required, it is clear that each of the above solicitation constitutes an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust. In addition, the authority to delay the delivery execution of the object of auction in relation to the solicitation that delayed the execution of delivery is limited to the execution officer, and the said solicitation does not constitute an illegal solicitation in relation to the duties of the office of execution officers who assist the execution officer’

Therefore, we cannot accept the above Defendants’ assertion.

2. Defendant 3

A. The assertion

Defendant 3 and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of giving evidence in breach of trust of this case was only committed by Defendant 4 alone, and Defendant 3 did not conspired with Defendant 4 to commit the crime of giving evidence in breach of trust of this case.

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence as mentioned above, i.e., ① Defendant 4 consistently with the investigative agency to the extent that the crime of giving property in breach of trust was committed. ② Defendant 4 promised Defendant 1 and 2 to pay a large amount of KRW 200 million in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with the auction of the tourist hotel of this case to be awarded a successful bid with Defendant 3 without any specific reason, and Defendant 4 did not have to have agreed with Defendant 3 in advance on the settlement of accounts. If Defendant 4 was jointly borne with Defendant 3, the above statement made by Defendant 4 is deemed to have high credibility. ③ Defendant 3 did not accept the above statement made by Defendant 4 prior to the bid of the tourist hotel of this case, Defendant 1, 20 million won, or 40 million won, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 also promised to pay money to Defendant 40 million in consideration of the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 agreed to offer money in breach of trust.

3. Defendant 5

A. As to the crime of forging evidence

Defendant 5’s defense counsel argues that the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting evidence is not established because the evidence of his criminal case is not punishable as a principal offender for the reason that it does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting another person for the reason that it does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting evidence, as well as that it cannot be said that the extension of self-defense does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting evidence. However, Defendant 5 asserted that the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting another person for the purpose of forging evidence of his criminal case is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Do826, Dec. 10, 1965; 9Do5275, Mar. 24, 200). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected in a different opinion.

B. As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1) The assertion

Defendant 5 and his defense counsel recognized that Defendant 5 received money from Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 13, as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, Defendant 6 received the advance payment from Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 13 received the unpaid advance payment, and Defendant 5 did not receive the advance payment for the building, etc. other than the presentation that was not included in the auction in connection with the auction auction case.

2) Determination

A) As to the money received from Defendant 6

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) Defendant 6 partially changed the prosecutor’s office’s statement on the grounds that Defendant 5 paid KRW 50 million to Defendant 5, but the prosecutor’s office has consistently made a statement on the fact that Defendant 5 did not have received the guidance while engaging in a swine transaction, from the prosecutor’s office to this court, the prosecutor’s office has consistently made a statement on the fact that there was no guidance money. Since the changed statement that corresponds to the facts charged is difficult to be deemed as favorable to Defendant 6, the credibility of the statement is high, and there is no objective evidence consistent with the fact that Defendant 5 paid the guidance money to Defendant 6, and (ii) there was no objective evidence that Defendant 5 made a payment to Defendant 6 for a swine transaction in relation to the building other than the presented building that was not included in the auction regarding the auction case, Defendant 5 shall be deemed to have received KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 in return for mediating the agreement between Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 13.

B) As to the money received from Nonindicted 13

The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① Nonindicted 13, at the prosecutor’s investigation on May 3, 2010, demanded and paid the amount of KRW 15 million under the name of Defendant 6, which led to the agreement with the above non-indicted 5 on the non-indicted 5’s building, and it was unclear whether the amount should be paid in advance, but it was leading to the agreement. On May 13, 2010, the prosecutor’s investigator stated that the amount of the non-indicted 13, which was paid in advance, is about KRW 500 to 6 million. Meanwhile, in calculating interest on the non-indicted 13’s payment amount, the prosecutor’s statement that the non-indicted 5 stated that the non-indicted 13, who was paid in advance from the telephone call with the prosecutor’s investigator, was not able to reach an agreement with the defendant 1,500,0000 won, and that the non-indicted 13 stated that it was able to reach an agreement with the defendant 1’s defense.

4. Defendant 6

A. The assertion

Defendant 6’s defense counsel argues that Defendant 6 did not invite Defendant 5 and Defendant 2 to receive a successful bid for a school-based farm with illegal solicitation, and that the payment of money was given to Defendant 5 after receiving the successful bid for a school-based farm; however, Defendant 6 merely delivered money to Defendant 5, who is an auction hub, to Defendant 5, and did not deliver money to Defendant 2 for a real purpose.

B. Determination

In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is achieved by such combination in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the act of the execution, even if there was no direct participation in the act of the conspiracy, it is criminal liability as a co-principal against the act of the other co-principal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006, etc.).

On April 6, 2010, the day following the day when Defendant 5, an accomplice, refused this part of the facts charged, and Defendant 6 asked KRW 100 million in return for Defendant 5 to receive a successful bid of a school sexual farm on April 26, 2009, which is the day before the auction date, and to draw an agreement on the out-of-production building, and KRW 100 million includes money to be reduced to the court employees who come well. Defendant 6 knew that some of the money that Defendant 5 would have to pay to Defendant 5 is to the court employees. Defendant 5, even if Defendant 5 knew that some of the money that Defendant 5 would have to pay to Defendant 5, was put to the auction employees, it should be viewed that Defendant 5’s agreement was made with Defendant 5, who was in charge of auction affairs, and that Defendant 5’s agreement was made with Defendant 5, who was aware of the above fact, even if this part of the crime was established, it should not be seen that Defendant 6 had an implied relation with this part of the crime.

Therefore, Defendant 6’s defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected.

1. Defendant 1, 2

The above Defendants did not have any specific criminal history except for the previous offense of fine, and are in violation of depth, and the instant crime is partially induced by other accomplices, and it is difficult to view that the general control system and the structure of consciousness and consciousness of the administration of the affairs at the time of the instant crime was established at a certain level in advanced countries because it was somewhat scarke of the general control system and the structure of consciousness and consciousness of the administration of the affairs at the time of the instant crime, and thus, it is difficult to view

However, the crime of taking advantage of trust and violation of the Attorney-at-Law, which are found guilty of the above Defendants, committed a serious amount of money and valuables that are close to 200 million won in aggregate in return for a concurrent act of which fair bidding should be conducted, and the possibility of criticism is not high, and the status and degree of crimes committed by the above Defendants, the degree of interpretation of penal provisions under the principle of no punishment without law, and there is no separate legal fiction to regard the officer as a public official, as a public official, the above Defendants cannot be punished for bribery. However, in light of the nature and content of the affairs in charge, Defendant 2 was in the position of requesting high level of integrity and fair correspondence that are not public official, and even though all the above Defendants were well aware of what corresponding administrative affairs are, the crime of taking advantage of the basis of the auction procedure where fair bidding should be conducted, and thus, the crime should be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than 100 million won, and the crime should be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than 200 million won.

2. Defendant 3, 4

The above Defendants have no specific criminal power other than the recent fines, and the statutory penalty for the crime of giving property in breach of trust is lower than the statutory penalty for the crime of giving property in breach of trust.

However, in order to gain an individual's economic benefits by unlawful means, the above Defendants committed a serious crime that leads to the foundation of the auction procedure as above. The amount promised to be provided to Defendant 2, etc. is KRW 200 million, the amount actually provided is large to KRW 100 million, and the nature of the crime is not good. The above Defendants need considerable doubt as to whether they seriously reflect their mistakes by reducing their criminal facts from the investigative agency to the court, or putting up their responsibility to the other party. Other factors such as the degree of the crime committed by the above Defendants, age, character and behavior, character and environment, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered, and the above Defendants are punished by imprisonment for one year without any distinction.

3. Defendant 5

In order to obtain private interests in connection with auction without being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of causing bodily injury by confinement, special robbery, violence, or larceny, the above defendant was in collusion with the defendant 2 who had been punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor for a limited period of time and actively led the crime of giving rise to the crime of giving up property in breach of trust and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The profits acquired from the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act are the larger amount than 60 million won in total. Furthermore, in order to avoid arrest, the above defendant's punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years by comprehensively taking into account the above defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

4. Defendant 6

In addition to the fine prior to punishment, there are extenuating circumstances to consider the above defendant, such as there is no specific criminal power, and there is a conflict between the defendant and the defendant.

However, the crime of this case, however, has been awarded a bid at a price lower than the minimum sale price by making illegal solicitation to the office members of the execution office after the above defendant conspireds with the defendant 5, and the nature of the crime of this case is bad. The profit from the crime of this case is ultimately attributable to the above defendant. In addition, in order to avoid the crime of forging evidence of this case, the crime of this case has resulted in a serious obstacle to the national judicial function of the country by preventing the crime of forging evidence of this case, and the above defendant has been punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, comprehensively taking into account the above defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the primary facts charged (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant 1 and 2 and the bribery charges against Defendant 2, each of the illegal ex post facto bribery against Defendant 2, each of the bribery charges against Defendant 3 and 4, each of the bribery charges against Defendant 5, the third party bribery against Defendant 5, the delivery of the third party bribery to Defendant 6 on April 27, 2009, and the delivery to Defendant 6 on December 13, 2005, and each of the facts charged as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law due to the receipt of the bribe against Defendant 5.

[2010Gohap 5]

Defendant 1 is a person who works as an office in the attorney's office in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and actually works as an auction hub. Defendant 2 is a person who assists in civil execution affairs such as the progress of the real estate auction procedure while working as an office for the Daejeon District Court's Hong-gun's office.

○ Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1 and 2

On April 208, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 requested that Defendant 4 be awarded a successful bid at a high price as much as possible at the ○○ hotel (detailed address omitted) located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, where an auction is being conducted by Defendant 4 at Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, 2006, 12940. Accordingly, Defendant 2 can confirm the status of bidding while participating in the auction procedure in relation to his duties, and Defendant 1 promised that Defendant 4 and 3, a joint bidder, who is a joint bidder, receive a successful bid at a high price as much as possible, using the fact that Defendant 4 and 3 are working in the attorney office, and receive KRW 200 million in return.

Defendant 1 and 2, around May 2, 2008, purchased KRW 60 million from Defendant 4 and 3,000 from Defendant 4 and 2, and received additional KRW 40,000 from Defendant 6 on or around the 6th day of the same month. The following facts were used by Defendant 1 and 2 at the auction procedure conducted in red support on or around May 7, 2008 that the above hotel bidder was not Defendant 4 and 3, using the fact that there is no other than Defendant 4 and 3, the bid price is more than KRW 4.55,522,00,000,000, which is the minimum sale price, and the bid was made by Defendant 4 and 3 to receive the successful bid.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspireded to accept KRW 50 million for each auction case in which Defendant 2, who is the office of execution, is responsible for the duties, and committed an unlawful act.

○ The acceptance of the bribery after the acceptance of the bribery by Defendant 2 (the alteration of indictment on April 23, 2010 during the third trial)

On April 209, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 5, who is an auction hub at the parking lot of the golf driving range located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, to ascertain the bid conditions of Non-Party 5, who was conducting an auction at the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Ma6680). Defendant 2 asked Defendant 5 to contact with Defendant 6, the representative of Non-Party 6 and Non-Party 7, in addition to Defendant 6 and Non-Party 7, if there are third bidders.

Defendant 2, around April 27, 2009, received bid bags at the auction procedure conducted in Hongsung Support, and confirmed that there was no third bidder except Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, and did not contact Defendant 5. Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Defendant 5 in the nearest to Hongsung Support on the same day.

As a result, Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million as a member of the office of execution officer by committing an unlawful act on an auction case in charge of his duties.

The offering of each bribe to Defendant 3 and 4

around April 208, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price through Defendant 1, etc., who is known as an auction hub in a single unit, such as Red-gun, etc., and agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible. Accordingly, around April 2008, Defendant 4 and Defendant 2, who are Defendant 1 and Red-gun, who are the office of execution officers, received a successful bid at the highest price as high as possible, and paid the price for the above hotel at the highest price as high as possible. The next Defendants 3 and 4 paid KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

Accordingly, the defendant 3 and 4 conspired to deliver a bribe to the defendant 2, who is the business of the execution office.

[2010 Highest 14]

The acceptance of a third party against Defendant 5 (the alteration of indictment on April 23, 2010)

Defendant 5 was asked by Defendant 6, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 6, the Daejeon District Court, for the bid at a low price on both a two farm and its land located in Bocheon-do, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, where auction was being conducted at the level of Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court 2008ta, 6680). Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder, who is the office of Hongsung support execution officer, known to the general public, and asked Defendant 5 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder. Defendant 7, who was known to the general public, had Nonindicted Co. 7, who was in the general public, bid at the above auction in order to prepare an external appearance as if he was a competitor, and eventually Defendant 6 attempted to receive the bid at the lower price

On April 209, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to interview Defendant 2 at the parking lot of the golf range in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, or to ascertain the status of bidding on the said two cash farms. Defendant 2, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, requested Defendant 5 to contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders.

Defendant 5, at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, demanded Nonindicted 7 to make a bid of KRW 1.568 million as planned by Defendant 2, in accordance with a plan to have no particular contact with Defendant 2, and eventually Defendant 6 received a successful bid for the said farm in the amount of KRW 1.57 billion near the minimum sale price. Defendant 5 confirmed that Defendant 6 was awarded the successful bid for the said farm, and received KRW 30 million from Defendant 6 at least 30 million in the same day for the purpose of delivering it to Defendant 2.

As a result, Defendant 5 was delivered KRW 30 million from Defendant 6 for the purpose of providing an auction case in which Defendant 2, who is the office of Red Support Execution Officer, is in charge of his duties.

[2010Gohap20]

○ Points of acceptance of bribe against Defendant 1 and 2

around September 2007, Defendant 1 accessed Nonindicted 8, who lost by requesting a case of building name map of the △△ Hospital located in the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do to the attorney-at-law office working for himself, “whether it is to extend the execution date to one month because there is a person who knows in the court?”

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received a request from Nonindicted 8 on October 1, 2007 to “I may delay the enforcement of the △△ Hospital?” Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received KRW 5 million on the same day from the head of the Tong in the name of Defendant 1, and received KRW 15 million on the same day from the same day to the head of the Tong in the name of Defendant 1.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspireded to accept the bribe of KRW 20 million in relation to the duties of Defendant 2 who is a public official.

【2010Gohap22】

on April 27, 2009, the delivery of third-party brain products to Defendant 6

Defendant 6, the representative of Non-Indicted 6 Co. 6, Ltd., who was conducting an auction at the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Ma6680) and Non-Indicted 5, was to request Defendant 2 to inform Defendant 2, who was the office of Red Support Execution Officer, to be aware of whether there was a bidder or not, through an auction agent, in order to receive a successful bid on both of Non-Indicted 5’s school districts and their land located in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu. Accordingly, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2, who was aware of the general meeting, to submit the above request, and tried to invite Non-Indicted 7, who was aware of the general meeting, to bid at a lower price than Defendant 5.

On April 209, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to interview Defendant 2 at the parking lot of the golf range in Hongsung-gun Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 5 to grasp the bid situation of the above two farms, etc. In addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 5 to contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders.

Defendant 5, at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, offered to Nonindicted 7 a bid for a bid of KRW 1.568 billion, stating that there is no particular contact from Defendant 2, according to a plan to have no specific contact, and eventually, Defendant 6 won the above farm to be awarded a bid of KRW 1.57 billion, which is close to the minimum sale price. Defendant 6 delivered KRW 30 million to Defendant 5 at around 3:00 p.m. on the same day for the purpose of confirming that the farm was awarded a successful bid and allowing Defendant 2 to deliver it to Defendant 2.

As a result, Defendant 6 delivered KRW 30 million to Defendant 5 for the purpose of providing an auction case in charge of duties by Defendant 2, who is the office of Red Support Execution Officer.

[2010Gohap25]

○ The fact of the acceptance of the bribery against Defendant 2

On December 8, 2005, Defendant 2, as a secretary of the office of Hongsung Support Execution Officer, notified Defendant 6 of the bid status in order to obtain a successful bid of the Daejeon District Court's red support support 2005do15294 from Defendant 6 at the same court officer of the same court and the two-way restaurant located in the Hongsung-gun, Hong-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, to inform Defendant 2 of the bid status and to inform Defendant 6 of the bid status.

On December 19, 2005, Defendant 2, along with an executive officer of the same court, committed an unlawful act by notifying Defendant 6, who was the bidder, of the absence of the bidder, while receiving a bid bag at the above auction procedure conducted by Hongsung support on December 19, 2005. Defendant 6 had the above farm awarded a successful bid of KRW 1.94 billion near the minimum sale price. After that, Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 12 upon the request of Defendant 6 and Defendant 5 who introduced Nonindicted 12 to deliver money.

As a result, Defendant 2 committed an unlawful act with respect to an auction case in which he is in charge of his duties as a member of the office of execution officer, and received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 12.

On December 13, 2005, the delivery of third-party brain products to Defendant 6

Defendant 6, around December 8, 2005, notified the members of the Red Support Execution Officer, including Defendant 2, etc., of the bid situation so that the auction is being conducted in red support, and asked them to a successful bid. On December 13, 2005, Defendant 6 issued KRW 20 million to Nonindicted 12, who was introduced by Defendant 5, to Defendant 2, etc., under the pretext of requesting them to deliver to Defendant 2, etc., red support enforcement officers.

As a result, Defendant 6 delivered KRW 20 million to Nonindicted 12 for the purpose of allowing Defendant 2 and Red Support Enforcement Officers to deliver them to them.

The violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by giving and receiving money under the pretext of brokerage in a case handled by a public official to Defendant 5

Defendant 5 knew that Defendant 6, who was known to the general public, was awarded a successful bid for the said ▽▽△ farm owned by Nonindicted 13 and wanted to purchase the land and building that is not included in the said auction and to operate the farm, and agreed to arrange for it to Defendant 6.

Defendant 5 introduced Defendant 6, around December 2005, Nonindicted 12, who is well aware of Defendant 2, who is the office of the Red Support Execution Officer, to Defendant 6, and concluded an agreement between Defendant 13 and Defendant 6 with respect to the buildings, etc. not included in the auction in the auction in the event of the auction of the ▽▽△ farm, and received KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 on January 25, 2006.

After that, on May 25, 2006, Defendant 5 prepared a real estate sales contract with Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 13, stating that “Nonindicted 13 sells the building outside of the building, other than the building, which was legally proposed in the △△△△ City, to Defendant 6” with Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 13, and that “in selling and selling the above real estate, Nonindicted 13 shall be deemed to have been disposed of as a package of internal facilities by auction with respect to the inside of the real estate, and the seller shall not be deemed to have any loss to the facility in the future.”

As a result, Defendant 5 was delivered KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 under the pretext of arranging the case to be handled by an executive officer, such as Defendant 2, who is a public official, etc.

2. Determination

All of the charges charged are premised on the fact that Defendant 2, who is a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, is a public official.

However, Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act mean a person who is engaged in the affairs of the State, local government, and public corporations equivalent thereto, based on the legal basis, and whose labor content is not limited to a simple mechanical or physical one (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4593, Nov. 22, 2002). In order to be recognized as a person engaged in affairs of the State, etc. based on the legal basis, in order to be recognized as a person engaged in affairs of the State, etc., the authority to perform public duties must be based on the law, and even if there is no need for a certain form, appointment under public law should be required in principle.

In light of Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the office clerk of the execution officer is merely to assist the execution officer's duties, and is not granted proper authority based on the legal basis (Article 21 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Execution Rule of the Act), unlike the execution officer appointed by the chief of a district court, the representative execution officer is employed as an individual qualification (Article 21 (2) of the same Rule). The office's remuneration is also paid to the execution officer (Article 24 (1) of the same Rule). Article 111 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person who is deemed a public official in the application of penal provisions under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act shall be deemed a public official under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and it shall not be deemed that there is a separate provision for punishment for breach of trust and a separate provision for punishment for a public official under Article 129 through 132 of the same Act.

Therefore, under the former Enforcement Rule of the Execution Act, the representative execution officer must obtain permission from the head of the district court to which he belongs in employing a clerical staff, and there is a provision that the clerical staff is obligated to report the results of performance assessment, the contents and result of disciplinary action to the head of the district court to which he belongs, or the clerical staff is paid remuneration equivalent to the public official in general in the court. In addition, even though the nature and content of the clerical staff in charge of the clerical staff of the execution officer office are required to secure the integrity and fairness of the administrative affairs in the auction procedure, or there is a high possibility of criticism against the defendant, it is not allowed to interpret the clerical staff of the execution officer office to be included in the public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act or Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act in the direction unfavorable to the defendant, unless there is a separate provision that the clerical staff is deemed a public official in the application of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged under the premise that Defendant 2 is a public official, the delivery of third-party bribery to Defendant 6 on December 13, 2005 is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime. Thus, it is not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the delivery of the third-party bribery to Defendant 5; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to Defendant 1, 2; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to Defendant 1, 3 through 7; the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Bribe to Defendant 2; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Bribe to Defendant 3; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Bribe to Defendant 3; the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Bribe to Defendant 6; the violation of the Act on the No.

Judge Han Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)