2016Gohap24 A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act

C. Violation of the Local Public Officials Act

(d) Acceptance of bribe;

(e) Name of the crime of offering of a bribe (name of partial recognized crime of offering of a bribe):

1. (a) b. (c) d. A;

2. B

3. b.(e) C

Jeon Young-young (Court Prosecution), Choi Jin-Jeat, Kim Jong-hee, and Kim Jong-Un (Court Decision)

D Law Firm (for Defendant A)

Attorney E, F, G, H, I

J Law Firm (for Defendant B)

Attorney K, L, and M

Law Firm N (for Defendant C)

Attorney 0, P, Q

August 8, 2017

1. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant B shall be suspended.

A penalty of KRW 70 million from Defendant B shall be collected.

Defendant B shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

2. Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, with prison labor for 1-B and 6-month for each of the following crimes:

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of imprisonment with prison labor prescribed in Section 1 of the judgment against Defendant C shall be suspended.

The defendant C shall confiscate 1020,020,000 won for women's examination color, and shall order the defendant C to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

3. Defendant A shall be acquitted.

Criminal facts

Defendant B, from August 2013 to May 13, 2014, was serving as the Do Governor Switman, and Defendant B, from May 14, 2014 to June 4, 2014, was serving as the Do Governor’s election campaign for the Do Governor candidate in the 6th nationwide local election, and 1) and from September 5, 2014 to December 2015.

Defendant C is a person who has worked as a general representative in charge of development of V Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “V”) established to promote U development projects (hereinafter referred to as “U development projects”) from August 6, 2012 to July 21, 2015.

A is the head of WW headquarters from January 201 to December 2011, 201, and X-type head2 from January 2, 2013 to July 2, 2014. A has a overall control over Ydo U development projects, such as supporting U development projects and managing and supervising V’s funds. On July 3, 2014, from the time when he/she was appointed as the deputy head of the Z city, he/she has the authority to approve various authorization and permission decisions and administrative dispositions of Z city related to U development projects and continued to perform the management and supervision of U development projects performed as the head of the existing X-type project.

1. Defendant C.

A. Violation of the Political Funds Act

No one shall contribute any political fund in any way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act (. 1) 50 million won or more in violation of the Political Funds Act.

On May 22, 2014, the Defendant transferred KRW 500,000 per capita in the name of 10 persons, such as V staff, to the Agricultural Cooperative AB account (AB) in the name of 10,000 won per capita, but immediately after the transfer, B could be at the time at the election commission if “if one company forwards several persons at the same time, at the election commission,” the Defendant would be able to take an issue later at the election commission.” The Defendant returned KRW 50,000,000,000, which was remitted to the account of a supporters’ association on May 24, 2014, after being returned from May 27, 2014, the Defendant elected KRW 50,000 in cash from the office of AD Political Party located in AC to B as a fund for election.

Accordingly, the Defendant contributed political funds in a way that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act. 20 million won in violation of the Political Funds Act

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant issued the current amount of KRW 20 million for election funds to B, who was found in V’s office.

As a result, the Defendant contributed political funds of KRW 20 million in a way that is not under the Political Funds Act.

(b) Expression of intent to offer a bribe 3) - Blusium and 10 million won in cash

On June 16, 2014, at AF AG restaurant located in AF, the Defendant sought to dry shopping bags containing one cash-based 3,640,000 won in the market price of women's official approval and approval of the U development project in the Z, A, and Ydo Construction Division, which are the wife of the Defendant, with AI, in order to increase convenience in carrying out U development project overall affairs, such as authorization and permission of the Z city and management and supervision of the Ydo U development project.

Accordingly, the defendant expressed his/her intent to offer a bribe equivalent to KRW 1,364,00 in relation to the public official's duties.

(c) The offering of a bribe 1) shall meet the requirements of two punishments;

On June 4, 2014, the Defendant issued two dancing uniforms in the market value under the pretext of a solicitation to the effect that convenience would be offered in managing and supervising U development projects to A at the V’s office located in the AJ.

As a result, the Defendant offered two or more bribes in relation to the official duties of public officials.

2) Dual Note 2

Around July 2014, the Defendant issued at AK AK AL alcohol to A for the use of 221,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000,000,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe equivalent to 220,000 won in relation to the public official's duties.

2. Defendant B

No one shall receive any contribution of any political fund in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.

A. Violation of the Political Funds Act of KRW 50 million

The Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash as an election fund at the date, time, and place set forth in Section 1(A) from C.

As a result, the Defendant received political funds of KRW 50 million in a way that is not provided by the Political Funds Act.

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act of KRW 20 million

Defendant was given KRW 20 million in cash as election funds at the date, time, and place specified in Section 1(a)(2) by C.

As a result, the Defendant received political funds of KRW 20 million in a way that is not provided by the Political Funds Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant C and A, and part of the legal statement of the defendant B (as of the 12th trial date)

1. Legal statement of a witness AI;

1. AH’s statement statement in the 6th trial record, the 7th trial record, the witness AO’s statement in the 9th trial record, the 10th trial record, the witness’s statement on September 30, 2015, the 10th trial record, the witness AP’s statement on October 15, 2015, the 10th trial record, the witness AP’s statement on September 30, 2015, the 10th trial record, the witness’s statement on October 15, 2015, the investigation report (verification of the date, amount, etc. related to double payment, the date of purchase, etc.), the investigation report (verification of the date, amount of purchase, etc.), the submission of a copy of the certificate of deposit transaction in the bank account of the Republic of Korea, the investigation report (C mobile phone road map records, AR party’s location search report), the wide area of one bank’s account deposit report, the employee deposit report “where two family members are confirmed”).

Application of Statutes

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

○ Defendant B: each of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

○ Defendant C: each of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (the violation of the Political Funds Act, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the expression of intent to offer a bribe, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of offering a bribe and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Separation of concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant C: Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (Article 18(1)3 of the same Act (Article 18(3) and Article 18(1)3 of the same Act shall apply to the violation of each Political Fund Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment of Offences of the Political Funds Act, which is more severe than 50 million won between the violations of each political fund)

○ Defendant C: The former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of each Criminal Act (Article 50(Article 50(1) of the Political Funds Act) is concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the violation of the Political Funds Act in the amount of KRW 50,000,00,000 among the violations of each Political Funds Act, among the crimes of expressing intent to offer a bribe and the crimes of expressing intent to offer a bribe which are heavier between each of the crimes of offering a bribe,

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances)

○ Defendant C: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (limited to the crime No. 1 of the Decision, taking into account the following favorable circumstances):

1. Confiscation;

○ Defendant C: the first sentence of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant B: Article 45(3) and (1) of the Political Funds Act

○ Defendant C: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant B and C: Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for a month to seven years and six months;

(b) Scope of recommendations;

The sentencing criteria are not set.

(c) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence; and

The Defendant’s crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant that the purpose of the Political Fund Act, which aims to contribute to the sound development of democratic politics, by securing the transparency of political funds and preventing any malpractice related to political funds, may be harming the purpose of legislation of the Political Fund Act. The Defendant received large-amount political funds in the amount of KRW 70,000,00,00, which has been known to the Defendant. The Defendant had an interview with the Criminal Proceeds Act, and the Defendant appears to have known that C contributed political funds for personal interest, such as making an individual solicitation, if R is not supported by R’s political inclination, but is elected.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has no criminal record except for the punishment of a fine once, and that he/she has led to confession and reflects the amount of KRW 50 million among the criminal facts.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following factors, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence is determined as ordered.

2. Defendant C.

(a) Crimes No. 1 of the holding: The scope of punishment for violation of the Political Funds Act (1) shall be limited to the recommended range of punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years and six months);

The sentencing criteria are not set.

3) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence; and

The Defendant committed this part of the crime is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the purpose of legislation of the Political Funds Act with the aim of contributing to the sound development of democratic politics by securing the transparency of political funds and preventing any malpractice related to political funds; (b) the Defendant, as he became aware of R’s neighboring party B, actively requesting R to contribute political funds by stockpiling a pro rata, and actively requesting R to contribute a contribution of a large amount of political fund of KRW 70 million in a short period; (c) the Defendant committed a planned act, such as borrowing KRW 40 million from another person in advance to contribute political funds during the election period; and (d) the Defendant tried to contribute political funds for personal interest, such as making a personal solicitation, if R is elected rather than supporting R’s political inclination; and (d) the circumstances that requested in return for political funds already contributed to B after the election of R appears to have been elected.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant does not have any previous error, and that the defendant confessions all of the crimes in this part, and is against the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following factors, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

B. 1-B and 3-2 of the holding: The scope of the punishment for offering of a bribe and each of the offering of a bribe 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for a month to 7 years and 6-2): 4 months to 10 months;

[Determination of the type] of the offering of a bribe in category 1 (less than 3 million won) (in the case of a person who is subject to special mitigation (aggravating) / In the case of a person who expresses his/her intent to grant a bribe (aggravating) / The type shall be determined based on the sum of the amount calculated by adding up the indication of his/her intention to offer a bribe and the amount of a bribe offered according to the method of handling like concurrent crimes (aggravating)* according to the method of handling the same kind of bribery

Although* also appears to have voluntarily surrendered, as seen later, the defendant seems to have voluntarily surrendered for the purpose of harming A, not to voluntarily surrenders with the genuine intention of reflect, and therefore, it should not be considered as a mitigation factor.

3) Determination of sentence: The crime of this part of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months is to provide cash and gifts exceeding KRW 13 million to a public official who is the general representative in charge of the management and supervision of U development projects in the event of U development projects. The fairness and adequacy of U development projects and the trust of the general public in society is harmed; the defendant attempted to give a bribe actively over several occasions against A's will; the defendant seems to have made an illegal solicitation by giving a bribe actively against A's will; and the defendant seems to have made an internal audit without accepting such solicitation, and it appears that A actively made a false statement or instigated a false statement to cause A when he/she conducts an internal audit without accepting such solicitation.

Considering this point, it is inevitable to place the defendant on a severe punishment, so that he/she may choose imprisonment despite the punishment of a fine by the prosecution ( although the defendant acknowledged his/her criminal act, he/she led to the confession of his/her criminal act of offering a bribe in order to have A punished as a crime of bribery).

In addition, even if the defendant refuses to accept a bribe of the defendant, it seems that the fairness in the performance of his/her duties is not impaired, such as the fact that the internal audit of V was conducted, and that the defendant files a criminal charge of breach of trust and embezzlement, and that there is no previous fault, etc., the defendant does not have any previous fault, and the defendant's favorable circumstances and age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, shall be determined as ordered.

Judgment on Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant did not receive political funds worth KRW 20 million from C at the V office around June 3, 2014, as stated in Section 2-B, from around June 3, 2014.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables, in order to acknowledge guilt only with the statement made by the person who provided the money or valuables, the admissibility of evidence is required, as well as the credibility of such person’s statement. In determining credibility, the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, and consistency in the contents of the statement itself, as well as its human beings when determining credibility, in particular, whether there is a concern about a crime committed against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or that there is a possibility that his/her testimony may be conducted, or that he/she may be conducted, in the event that there is a suspicion that the admissibility of the statement would not be denied, even if there is a suspicion that he/she would be a crime committed against him/her and that he/she would have an impact on the statement made by him/her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6089, Sept. 12, 2013; 2014Do217).

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from C in the office room around June 3, 2014 as election funds.

(1) From the perspective of this law to the 6th time local election, C has sought a V office from the investigative agency to the end of this law, and “AR political party has promised to run an election advertisement for the candidate of the Do Governor to AT, and if the advertisement is placed, it exceeds the statutory election expenses, and thus, I cannot leave the advertisement in V. In this case, “C requested to do so, and the Defendant does not have money.” In this case, “C is so doing,” and “C does not have money?” The Defendant consistently accepted money and valuables from the office’s safe office to the close of 50,000 won, and the Defendant had consistently made a statement to the effect that, in light of its credibility and credibility at the time of receiving money and valuables, the Defendant continued to accept money and valuables from the office’s safe office to the close of 50,000 won, 4,000 won, and 22,000 won,00 won.”

② [Attachment] C stated that it was in custody of KRW 200,000,000 from the chairperson AU Q Q on May 16, 2014, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won in cash at the office of office, by borrowing KRW 200,000 won from the chairperson AU Q Q on June 13, 2014. At the investigative agency’s request on May 16, 2014 for lending KRW 200,000 to the first time on May 16, 2014, C made a statement to the effect that it would be adequate for C to prepare for the remainder of 30,000 won by the end of May 16, 201. In relation to our business, C made a false statement to the effect that it was not a 300,000,000 won in cash, but a 300,000 won in its account.

③ [The motive for C’s false statement] On July 2015, 2015, C resigned from the KYdo’s general development supervisor according to the resignation pressure of shareholders, such as YDo, and at the time, C requested the purchase right for the site and the compensation for the amount of KRW 400 million after resignation. Since such demand was not accepted at all after resignation, C appears to have a bad appraisal by the Defendant, who is a close part of the RDo governor, who received the election fund from himself (the fact that the Defendant received KRW 50 million is also recognized).

However, this part of the criminal facts do not seem to have been stated by Q who appeared as a witness in the course of investigating the crime of breach of trust and embezzlement against C as described in the above paragraph (2) in the course of investigating the authenticity of the grant of election funds as a result of stating the loan circumstances. Also, as recognized by the Defendant, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from C as an election fund during the 6th nationwide local election period from C during the 6th regular local election period. In addition, there seems to be no motive to make a false statement that C received KRW 20 million as an election fund even when he had the risk of being punished as a crime of free accusation, a violation of the Political Funds Act, a violation of the Political Funds Act, or a offering of bribe.

④ On June 3, 2014, the Defendant completed meals at AV at around 13: 51, and settled credit cards at AV, and at around 14:53, new departure in AX and AY market approved the gas station at AZ stations at around 14:53, and at least 50 minutes of V located at AZ stations, C was found in V offices, and it is physically impossible for the Defendant to arrive in V offices at around 2:3:00 p.m. to find out the fact that the Defendant did not arrive at 5:0 p.m. office at around 6:0 p.m. on the day of the instant case. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to find out that the Defendant was unable to arrive at 5:0 p.m. office at around 14:53 p.m. on the date of his oral statement at around 3:0 p.m., the Defendant’s oral statement at the time of 2:00 p.m.

(5) The defendant's motive for denial of the defendant is denied the fact that he received KRW 50 million from C while recognizing the fact that he received KRW 50 million from C. The part of KRW 50 million is returned on the ground that C, like the facts stated in the crime, once transferred to the RR association account, is doubtful, "one-time college opening" is doubtful. On the other hand, the part of KRW 20 million is not objective evidence. Thus, there is a circumstance to change whether to grant and receive two money.

Defendant A’s acquittal part 1. Violation of the Political Funds Act and violation of the Local Public Officials Act

A. Summary of the facts charged

At the YDo Office's 6th nationwide local election 7) BB, the director of the group "A" in front of the YDo Office, and inside the YDo Office, BB, BB, B, B. B. The candidate of the BC political party. "," the director of the BC political party, who obtained such a question from the RDo governor, and obtained a new letter and issued a new position in personnel affairs in the future, decided that "The director of the Do Office of the Do Office of the Do Office of the Do Office of the Do Office of the Do governor decided to help 3 million won for the election fund and reported the Do office of the Do governor to the Do Office of the Do governor's publication from the beginning of March to April, 2014. The director of the branch office, who reported the Do office Do office Do office Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do .

As a result, the Defendant conspired with C to contribute political funds in a way that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act, and at the same time, raised donations to support R candidates as local public officials.

B. Summary of the parties' assertion

While the Defendant consistently asserts that there is no demand from the investigative agency to contribute election funds to C to the Governor, the Defendant asserts that C would contribute election funds in collusion with the Defendant, as stated in Article 1(a)(1) of the Criminal Act, while C, as stated in the same facts constituting a crime, that it contributed 50 million won to B with the election funds to the Do Governor.

C. Determination

1) As indicated in Article 1. A. 1-1 of the Criminal facts as indicated in C’s summary of the evidence, the fact of contributing KRW 50 million to B is as seen earlier. Therefore, the issue of this part of the criminal facts is whether the Defendant conspireds with C to commit the above criminal acts or not.

On May 23, 2014, there are the recording files of the special shareholders' meeting of V on May 23, 2014, the C, B, andN's legal and prosecutor's statement, the photographs of the DNA mobile phone, the text message files stored in the C mobile phone, etc.

2) Probative value of the recording file of a temporary general meeting of shareholders on May 23, 2014

First, on May 23, 2014, the Defendant argued that the recording file of a temporary general meeting of shareholders is inadmissible.

Article 14(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that no person shall record a conversation between others that is not open to the public. Article 14(2) provides that "The contents of the conversation acquired through the recording in violation of Article 14(1) shall not be admitted as evidence in a trial or disciplinary procedure."

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, V prepared the minutes after the completion of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors and prepared the stenographic records separately after receiving the signature of the participants, and V prepared the stenographic records around April 2014 by moving the office from Seoul to Z and decided to record the meeting in preparation for the dispute that the directors could not attend the meeting in person, and purchased a camping with the recording function on March 11, 2014. C ASEAN working as the director of the V Planning Team at the meeting of the board of directors or the meeting of the board of directors. The fact that the temporary general meeting of shareholders was recorded on May 23, 2014 at the meeting of the board of directors and the meeting of shareholders, when the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders are held, the stenographic records prepared and sent them back to BF by the planning team leader who did not attend the meeting.

However, on May 23, 2014, the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders held by the representative director BD, C, auditor AP, and the defendant were present, and the defendant testified in this court that he did not know that the meeting was held on the table table or that the contents of the meeting were recorded. The defendant alleged that he did not know that the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders were recorded. The head of the planning team team BF testified to the effect that the recording was not carried out by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, but the head of the planning team or the head of the board of directors testified to the effect that the recording was not carried out in a regular manner with the system of reporting, and that the recording was carried out by NN was highly likely to have recorded for the business convenience of preparation of stenographic records, there is insufficient evidence to view that the recording at the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders was recorded with the consent of the participants in the meeting.

Furthermore, even if the recording was recorded with the consent of the participants in the meeting, the part that is to be used as evidence for the facts charged of this case is to be used as evidence for 30 minutes after the completion of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, and considering the fact that C, Defendant, and P are part of private dialogues and that it is not good for investigative agencies to find out the improvement of the soundness in the investigation agency, this part of the conversation appears to be private dialogues after the completion of the meeting unrelated to the contents of the meeting, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant, C, and P, a participant in the conversation, consented to the recording of this part.

Therefore, on May 23, 2014, the recording file of the special shareholders' meeting on May 23, 2014 is inadmissible as it recorded a conversation between others that is not disclosed.

3) According to C’s credibility of C’s statement, the Defendant “The Director-General of the Do Office of the Do governor decided to grant KRW 3 million to the Do governor’s Publication Commemorative Council,” and the Agency of the Do Office reported the establishment of the branch office with a thickness, which led to the election of the National Assembly. The branch office personnel through B, the most adjacent party B. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to believe C’s above statement as it is. (1) [the relationship with the Defendant]; (1) the Defendant was the birth and birth of R when R was withdrawn in the BG election; and (2) “Ydo Party” refused to grant “Igdo Party”, but “Igdo Party” was not known.

The question is as follows: (a) the so-called “BB Y Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do.” In this regard, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant reported that Do Do Do Do Do Do

(2) [The relationship between the Defendant and B] A] was employed by the Ro governor as a S Assistant to the Ro governor and was employed by the Defendant’s side. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant thought that the Defendant was the former branch of the Do governor and the enemy related BC party BC party affiliated to the Do governor and the enemy related party BC party, and thus, there was no reason to be close to the Defendant, and it was between the Defendant and the heading on the corridor to the extent that only the heading on the hallway personnel was

In this relation, it is also difficult to believe that the defendant requested C to contribute illegal political funds through B.

(3) [The relationship between C and R and B] On the other hand, C and C request that the Defendant, who was in charge of U development projects as the head of BI graduate school in 2012, be able to work again with the Defendant at the request of the Do governor. As a result, on January 2013 after the completion of education, the Defendant took office as the head of the X Project Division, which is the upper organization of the U Promotion Group. ② Since he became aware of B around February 2014, on April 1, 2014, the Defendant appears to have come to have been friendly with the Do Governor, as his V office, and the Defendant appeared to have been 0 B from the 1st century hotel of B and the 20th anniversary of the Defendant’s request on April 20, 2014, B were 0 B from the 30th hotel, B from the 201st hotel of B, B from the 2014 first hotel of B, B and C from the 201314th hotel of B.

(4) [The Defendant’s motive for committing a crime] C argues that the Defendant intended to attract R in order to view his Ydo public official and his wife AI personnel affairs. However, the Defendant was appointed as a public official in 1976 and appears to have been well aware of the public official’s political neutrality obligation for the period of 40 years up to the time of the instant case. ② At the time, the Defendant appeared to have attended a meeting to support the BM Do Governor candidates in competition with R, and the Defendant was tamped to the door that he would not want to contribute illegal political funds to the other candidate in order to deny this question. ③ In light of the fact that it is reasonable for the Defendant to support the Y Do Governor at the time to view his personnel affairs in the future, it appears that the Defendant did not have much motive to contribute illegal political funds to the other candidate for the purpose of blocking the purpose of personnel affairs.

(5) [5] On the other hand, C is a business entity, C borrowed KRW 400 million from A Q and BN in order to use it as political funds in relation to the 6th nationwide elections, and C states that the remainder except the above KRW 70 million, which was granted to B, is written as political funds, etc., and C appears to have well motive in relation to U development projects over which enormous interest is attributed to C, which is a major shareholder, at the time of Z with Ydo or authorization and permission. In light of the above, C seems to have sufficiently motive to contribute political funds to R even without the Defendant’s request.

(6) [The relationship between the Defendant and C] The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant, who is a major shareholder of V and the head of X project exercising overall control over YO development projects, was in fact a superior of C, the general development supervisor of V, and was unable to comply with the Defendant’s request. However, U development projects, under the leading project of YDo, YDo bears the burden of providing sites and providing joint and several sureties, whereas Y is a project implementer, Y has no pecuniary investment; Y also has the situation where U development projects should not proceed properly from the perspective of YDo; YDo, it appears that the Defendant, who exercises overall control over YO development projects, was in a cooperation relationship rather than unilaterally directed C, the Defendant, who is the representative of V development supervisor, was in a relationship with Ydo, and even if YDo and V were in a commercial relationship as C’s assertion, it is difficult to deem CY again to have made a request for the appointment of the Defendant’s political funds from the Do Governor in light of the circumstances that the Defendant did not have any political funds after the appointment.

In addition, the Defendant made a statement that: (a) after the R re-election, the Defendant was moving to the office of R and that the Defendant had been able to influence, and that such written remarks were not believed; (b) on the other hand, C had been found in the Do governor’s mission after the election; and (c) at the time the Do governor’s office was called the Do governor’s office at the time of election; and (d) on June through July 2014, 2014, the Defendant appeared to have expressed that the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant had made a false statement to the Do governor that he had been convicted of illegal acts, such as embezzlement, breach of trust, etc.; and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant made a false statement to the Do governor on the charge of the violation of the Do governor’s punishment. (h) On March 2015, C made an indirect statement to the Do governor on the charge of the violation of the Do governor’s punishment.

(1) However, although C does not state the name of the defendant from the beginning, at the first time, C does not want to assist in the election, from the standpoint of B, C appears to have been thought to have discussed the name of the defendant and stated that C would have been more friendship with B, and the defendant's name is thought to have been discussed. ② under the circumstances where the relationship between the defendant and R is not good, C, which states that the defendant will continue to engage in U development projects, appears to have a reason for the defendant to engage in U development projects. ③ At the time when B, C, and the defendant met with BL prior to this portion of political fund contribution, B and the defendant met with the lead of C by gathering from each other, and at that point, C acted with the defendant as the defendant's referring to the defendant and the defendant as the ar.

피고인은 ' 뭘 그렇게까지 말하세요. ' 라고만 하는 등 C이 주도적으로 R의 측근인 B에게 피고인의 구명할동을 한 것으로 보이는 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 보면, 앞선 B의 진술만으로는 피고인이 C과 공모하여 정치자금을 기부한 것이라고는 사실을 인정하기 부족하다 .

B) N.N. At the time when C was required to send 5 million won in the name of 10 persons, including V employees, to the R.R. account on May 22, 2014, the V Planning Team leader BF received the above 5 million won from BF, and the BF “whether or not the Defendant was requested?” The BF stated that “the talk was made,” on the BF’s office’s book, that the talk was stamped “5/22 A (Defendant) with a cell phone,” and related documents were stamped.

(1) However, the BF, who was employed on March 12, 2014 and was no longer than five years old, requested the payment of illegal political funds by C to BF at the request of the defendant. The BF states that there is no common sense that C would be the request of the defendant in this court; ② BF states that there is no fact that CF would be the request of the defendant in this court; ③ if RF is returned to the Do Governor at the time, it is known that the defendant would have promised to benefit from personnel affairs; and ③ if it is returned to the Do Governor, the BF states that it is difficult or difficult for the defendant to support RN candidates in competition with RF at the time to find that there is no benefit from personnel affairs; and ④ there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of the aforementioned photograph and/or photograph in light of the following facts:

C) In addition, even if indirect evidence, such as text messages printed out of the PDF files stored in C’s mobile phone, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspiredd with C in connection with this part of the facts charged on the grounds as seen earlier.

2. Violation of the Public Official Election Act;

A. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant 6th nationwide City/Do election 8) was placed in front of the YDo Office, and YDo Office "A head is YDo City Ra in BB B B B B B. The candidate for the BC political party." The defendant ' is a person who is the candidate for the BC political party. In order to raise this question and to receive new information from the Do governor and to be issued in personnel affairs in the future, he thought that the re-election of the Do governor and the election should be set up in the 6th national Do local election, and he thought that he will put up a public service in the 6th national Do local election through C through a corporation that is managed and supervised by the defendant.

R In the above election, the U Development Project, which had been promoted as the candidate for YDo governor, has entered into a U-N contract and provided the government with subsidies for the connected bridge project expenses, etc., and if success in the re-election, the U Development Project first published a pledge to create U-Mate in East Asia. U Development Project, as an outstanding pending project of YDo, has emerged as an important issue among YDo residents voters, and the Defendant published an advertisement with the content of promoting U Development Project, in the Y District Newspaper to help the re-election of the R candidate.

On April 2014, the Defendant, at the end of X project head office, continuously changed the advertising advertisement of U development projects to AT and AT to the end of the election day. If so, it is favorable for the branch office in the election. “I must pay advertising in the form of employment of staff as it is possible to violate the election law.” As it is an advertisement for employment of staff, I request the advertisement to publicize the results of U development projects. The request was made several times.

As a result, although there was no plan for employment of employees in fact, C was decided to publish the employment advertisement of the title V, ‘V corporation recruitment advertisement' through several times immediately before the election in A and AT, and the defendant ordered C to enter ‘(95.4 billion won)' on May 2, 2014 in U-Korea foreign investment zone, ‘the designation of U Korea foreign investment zone', ‘the final decision of the project cost of U Korea entry bridge (95.4 billion won)' on the advertisement in V through U promotion team.

C according to the Defendant’s order, from May 9, 2014 to June 4, 201, published 5 times in AT, 4 times in total, 19 times in total, and 19 times in advertising (hereinafter “employment advertisement of this case”). The purpose of the advertisement was to publicize the performance of U development projects, including “B QU Korea”, “designated as a foreign investment zone of U.S.”, “the total project cost of U.S. access bridge (95.4 billion won)”, without providing employees, such as the deadline for submission of employment documents, documents, and interview screening, the date of announcement of successful applicants, and the date of receipt of applications.

Accordingly, the Defendant had C publish the advertisement favorable to the re-election of the R Do governor as above in AT and AT nine times, thereby having committed an act that affects the election by taking advantage of the status or status of a public official in relation to his duties.

B. Summary of the parties' assertion

The Defendant asserts that there was no request from the investigative agency to present a false recruitment advertisement to C for the purpose of promoting U development projects with a view to consistently laying down R’s re-elections up to this court.

C. Determination

1) An overview of evidence;

In support of this part of the facts charged, there is C’s legal and prosecutor’s statement that the Defendant requested to publish U as stated in the facts charged, and other indirect evidence.

① On the date and time indicated in the facts charged, AT, BR, BSV advertising advertising paper was published in AT and AT; ② R candidate was unable to carry out U development projects as his/her own outcome;

There are BU’s legal and prosecutorial statements to the effect that there is no employee employed based on the employment advertisement of this case, and BF, BV, and B’s prosecutorial statements to the effect that the Defendant planned the employment advertisement of this case directly through public relations, and B’s prosecutorial statements to the effect that the Defendant planned the employment advertisement of this case immediately after election.

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that even based on the aforementioned evidence, there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant allowed the Defendant to publish the instant recruitment advertisement with an intent to exert unfair influence on the election campaign in favor of theR candidates.

(1) The Defendant’s motive to commit the crime of the Defendant was written in a petition for supporting R candidates and competition-related persons BM candidates, and not only did the relationship with R were not clear, but also did not have any motive to advertise U in order to assist the Defendant in the election of R, not BM.

② The credibility of C’s statement is the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged. C’s internal audit is conducted at the Defendant’s direction around March 2015, and C’s result is suspected of illegal acts, such as embezzlement, breach of trust, etc., and it appears that C had the Defendant’s original intent due to the charge of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Price, Etc., at the Z Public Prosecutor’s Office on June 8, 2015. As seen in the above, C has the motive to make a false statement against the Defendant, and C has the motive to make a false statement, and it is difficult to believe this part of the statement as to other facts charged against the Defendant.

③ In light of the following: (a) at the time of the advertisement, BF states that, at the time of the advertisement, V was required to employ an employee, such as an accounting position and a visa; (b) the report of the advertisement of the instant case was recorded in the curriculum but did not meet the requirements for the curriculum; and (c) the employment of BE, BV, BX, BY, and B are employed after the employment advertisement of the instant case; and (d) the employment advertisement of the instant case did not require any new employee to be employed at the time of the employment advertisement.

(4) When the BU, who was the head of U promotional group, received a proposal for employment advertisement from V employees BT to report to the Defendant, who is the head of the X project group, the fact that the Defendant ordered the designation of a foreign-invested area and the determination of the project cost of the entry bridge is recognized in the employment advertisement.

However, even according to C’s statement, V’s monthly advertising expenses and promotional expenses were set at approximately KRW 60,000 (in the investigation record 1632 pages), and V’s U promotional advertising was made even around April 2014 when V moved to Z Si office. At the time of the instant recruitment advertising, two U development projects, namely, designation of a foreign investment zone and securing of project expenses for U entry bridge, have been resolved. Accordingly, U promotional head BU, who received the Defendant’s order to add the above phrase, will be promoted and would be able to include the above phrase in U development project under the situation where the progress of U development project is higher.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not think that it was merely an inappropriate instruction, and that the Defendant and U promotion team had been able to prepare a draft of the advertising phrase, select the media to be advertised, and secure the contact number of media even when putting an advertisement in place while supporting the business affairs of V, etc., the Defendant appears to have “the Defendant’s legitimate business instruction to include the phrase “the designation of a foreign investment zone and the designation of an access bridge project cost” in the instant recruitment advertisement is deemed to have been the Defendant’s legitimate business instruction, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had the purpose of helping the Defendant win the R.

⑤ The Prosecutor’s Office stated to the effect that the Defendant and C met only with the Defendant at BL after the election was completed, and that the Defendant and C met with the intention that the instant recruitment advertisement was carried out a big contribution in the R election, and that the Defendant and C reached a turn on each other.

However, in this Court, B: (a) in this Court, there was three stories after the completion of the election that there was a virtue of the employment advertisement of this case after the completion of the election; (b) however, it is no accurate memory that the Defendant told; and (c) C, which the Defendant continued to be in charge of U development projects, has been an election transfer.

From the point of view that the Defendant continued to be named “B” and this day is likely to cause C to feel that there was the Defendant’s success in the election of R, and even if the Defendant made the above remarks, it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that B made such remarks to be well known to B, who is the party of the R elected after the election. In light of the fact that the said statement alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

6) As to whether the instant advertisement actually has a positive effect on the R’s election, the rate of votes obtained by R at the time of the CA BG election was 56.44%, and on June 4, 2014, at the time of the 6th national local elections, 59.97% at the time of the national local elections.

However, in light of the fact that CB PartyCC (hereinafter “ZW”) which is a candidate at the time of the CA. At the same time, is located in the Republic of Korea, but is located in BC Party BM (hereinafter “ZW”), which is a candidate at the next order, at June 4, 2014, was located in BC Party BM (38. 58%) which is a candidate at the time of the second order, and there is a possibility that the rate of R obtained votes from the Z was increased, and G U development projects were carried out as an election campaign after BM as well as R candidates, it is difficult to conclude that the instant employment advertisement caused unfair influence on the election to be elected.

3. The point of acceptance of bribe

A. Summary of the facts charged

(i) double-class dancing;

On June 2014, the Defendant, as the head of AJ C’s office located in AJ, received two high-quality dancing clothes equivalent to KRW 5.6 million from C and received a bribe equivalent to KRW 5.6 million in relation to public officials’ duties under the pretext of solicitation that convenience would be achieved in managing and supervising U development projects.

2) Fluoral bags and cash 10 million won

From June 16, 2014 to July of the same year, the Defendant: (a) was taking meals with the Defendant’s wife at AF AF AF AG restaurant with AI, C, and C’s wife; and (b) was a 2:00 square meters. During that process, the Defendant is the head of the Do, who is the head of the Do, and is also the head of the party who is the head of the Do, and is well requested. The Defendant also listened to the horses such as “.....” The Defendant also received a bribe from C in relation to the official duties of the 3640,000 won official, which is the market price of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 in cash, and received a bribe from C in relation to the official duties of the 364,000 won official.

3) Dual Note 2

Around July 2014, the Defendant purchased a bribe equivalent to KRW 1,00,000,000 at a AK AL drinking house and received a bribe from the market price of KRW 1,00,00,00 in relation to the official duties of public officials by using a siren 21-year two-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-year two diseases

B. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

1) With respect to the part regarding the receipt and delivery of double dancing, although there was a fact that the Defendant had two double uniforms through a foundation in which C had not been in compliance with the two double uniforms, the pertinent double uniforms cannot be deemed to have received a bribe since they were products with 50% of the mixed volume 50% of the market price per one punishment, and immediately after the receipt of the double uniforms, paid KRW 2 million to C as the price for the double uniforms.

2) With respect to the portion received in fluoral bags and cash 10 million won, the Defendant on June 16, 2014

Although AG only met with AG and C attempted to dry shopping bags in the same place, there is a refusal by the defendant, and there is no receipt of bribe, and there is no knowledge of the content of the shopping bags.

3) In relation to the delivery and receipt portion of the two weeks, although C was able to engage in the two weeks of which C had been assigned to the AL main points, it was concluded that C was purchased and entrusted with V funds, and the Defendant, as a director of V, obtained C’s permission in relation to V’s duties, and it cannot be deemed that C received a bribe merely for approximately KRW 220,000 won in total.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be followed, the case may be

Even if there is doubt that the defendant's assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, the interest of the defendant should be judged.

2) The direct evidence that conforms to this part of the facts charged is the statement of C, and even according to the statement of C, the following facts are recognized.

① On June 3, 2014: (a) around 30, 2014: (b) around 30:30, the Defendant and V Audit AP requested the president of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu CE TE TE TE P to take a business trip with C’s office.

② On June 3, 2014, the Defendant and AP visited C’s office by gathering the fact that the Defendant and AP visited C on the same day are measured with a double-resistant water control, and the Defendant and AP have returned to C’s office in that place.

③ On June 19, 2014, the Defendant received two set of two (two (one set of two) clothes completed by C, and thereafter, C was paid one million won per one set of two million won per two set of two uniforms. At the time, C did not receive it, and the Defendant made the defect with the intention to not receive it, and the Defendant did not receive the said money and did not receive it in the future. “At the same time C received the said money.”

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in the above facts, C intended to impose two punishments on the Defendant, but the Defendant intended not to receive such punishment without compensation, and paid C the amount equivalent to the two-way payment.

It is reasonable to see that the defendant received the above two punishments as a bribe, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① AP의 진술에 의하면, 2014. 6. 3. 당시 AP이 먼저 양복 치수를 재고 있을 때 피고인이 C의 집무실에 들어왔고, 양복을 맞추는 AP이 미안할 정도로 C이 피고인에게 양복을 맞출 것을 강권하였다는 것이다. 이는 피고인이 양복을 맞추라는 C의 제안을 거절하였으나 C이 계속 권유하였고 피고인의 거절에 옆에서 이미 양복 치수를 잰 AP 감사가 머쓱해하고 난감해하는 것 같아 할 수 없이 치수를 잰 뒤 양복 대금 상당액을 지불한 것이라는 피고인의 주장에 부합한다 .

② According to C and CO alleged that the Defendant’s two uniforms in two parallels are composed of 1,80,000 won per 1,000 won per 2,00 won per 1,000 won per 2,000 won per 1,000 British mountain. However, according to the test report (Evidence 3-2) submitted by the Defendant, the two uniforms received by the Defendant are composed of about 55% of each polyscure, about 45% of the hair, and about 45% of the hair. These parts are based on AO’s statement, and the Defendant received and stated that the two uniforms are not of quality with 50,00 won, and it is difficult to view that the two uniforms were of quality with 10,000 won, or that the two uniforms were of 20,000 won and 28,000 won per 20,000 won per 20,000 won per 26,000 won, respectively.

The Defendant was indicted on July 2017, when the date and time of this part of the facts charged was " around July 2014."

14. On the date of trial, from June 16, 2014 to July 2014, the public prosecution was instituted to the effect that even if based on the changed facts charged, it is illegal because the date and time of the crime is not specified.

The purport of the law, which stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged are sufficient to include these elements in the facts charged to the extent that it can distinguish them from other facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do807, Jun. 20, 2002, etc.).

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are that the defendant, the defendant's wife AI, C, and wife AH had a cash of 10 million won from AG to the defendant as a bribe, and the wife C and C stated that the date of the crime is after July 9, 2014, which was after BX entered BX as a member ( July 7, 2014), while the defendant asserted that the date of the crime was before BX enters V as of June 16, 2014, which was the same as the defendant's wife's statement, it is inevitable to revise the indictment to "from June 16, 2014 to July 2014, 2014." Furthermore, the defendant's argument that both the defendant and the above husband did not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his right of defense, as well as the above defendant's wife did not appear to have interfere with the defendant's defense.

B) The Defendant husband and wife and C husband and wife asserted that the final and conclusiveC at the time of delivery from AG, and their wife AH met the Defendant couple from the prosecution to the present court on and after July 9, 2014, and the Defendant and their wife AI were the same date and time.

16. As the Defendant’s husband and wife and C husband and wife claim it, first of all, we look at the date and time of delivery in AG.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it is difficult to believe that the defendant couple and C couple’s statement of C and H was made after July 9, 2014 when the date of delivery in AG was met. The date when the defendant couple and C couple met in AG is determined as June 16, 2014, as alleged by the defendant.

① AG is a restaurant in which the Defendant frequently determined as a place where the Defendant promised. From May 13, 2014 to August 1, 2014, AG’s business account books (No. 32-2 of the increase) are presumed to have lost a fluent or group loss solely on the details of the orders by table. Of them, AG’s business account books are prepared from May 13, 2014 to August 1, 2014.

9. On June 16, 2016, there are only orders on which the name of the defendant was indicated, and there is no order stating the name of the defendant in the place of business on July 2016. In addition, there are orders on which the name of the defendant was indicated in the above date and on which the name of the defendant was indicated, and there is no order stating the name of the defendant in the AG.

② In addition to the settlement details of the Defendant’s above corporate card in the AG, with respect to the absence of settlement details of the participants on July 2016, C asserts that the AG’s food was calculated in cash. However, the CF of AG stated that when the Defendant provided meals, the principal or his employee calculated food and that there is no memory for other person’s calculation; C also stated that the Defendant was able to bear food if he provided meals like the Defendant; and C’s V corporate card usage, C appears to have calculated most food units using the card, and there is no reason to calculate it in cash; C’s wife stated that it was the same as the Defendant calculated in this court; and C’s wife stated that it was the same as that of the Defendant in this court. In full view of the foregoing, it is difficult to believe that C’s above statement that it calculated the food unit in cash in the AG.

③ On January 7, 2016, 2016, C and H meta from AG on July 29, 2014, to the prosecution of the Republic of Korea on the basis of “Seoul Special Self-Governing Party” or “Kakakao Stockholm, which sent a son or a meal”.

29. Although there was a specific set of dates, following the fact that the Defendant met with the Agricultural Telecommunication on July 29, 2014, the Defendant stated that the date of the instant crime was only after the father’s proposal on July 9, 2014, and that the specific date cannot be clearly specified.

However, as above, C and AH submitted evidence (this refers to a specific date and time of crime based on their own Kakaox, and even according to the statement of G and AH, it was extremely difficult for the Defendant to take office as the deputy head of the Z on July 2014, so it would not be impossible to specify the date and time when verifying the contact details between the parties and the business account books of AG confiscated by the prosecution, and the prosecution would not make it impossible to set up the date and time. On June 3, 2014, C and C submitted the search details of C’s mobile phone road map (rogate page 978 pages of investigation records) to B, and C and C did not appear to have made any specific efforts to search their mobile phone road map at the time of entering into the AG and make it difficult for the Defendant to temporarily submit evidence, other than the investigation agency of 123 pages, and there appears to have been no specific evidence for the Defendant to be present in the AG 240G road map.

④ On June 16, 2014, at a department store located in Seoul, AH purchased the instant French household. On June 16, 2014, the following day of June 15, 2014, the Defendant’s wife, the date of birth of AI, and the date of birth of C husband and wife (AI does not inform C husband and wife of the date of birth). If AH purchased the instant French household household unit in accordance with AI’s birth day, it seems ordinarily to have attempted to do so around the day of birth. Even if AH purchased it as a daily gift, the instant French household is high, and even if AH already was in possession of the same French household unit, and even if AH’s statement was made by the Defendant, it would have not been refunded to C’s husband and wife, and it would not have been refunded to C before the date of exchange. Thus, it would have been impossible for C’s husband and wife to exchange its products.

⑤ As above, the reasons why the Defendant couple and C couple sharply conflict with the date of delivery in AG are related to the credibility of the prosecutorial statement of BX, a third party (the purport that C added cash of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 in the household of this case, and that shopping bags were loaded in AH’s vehicle) that strongly support the statements of the married couple C, who correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, is related to the credibility of the prosecutorial statement of BX. BX was admitted to V on July 7, 2014, and as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant couple’s husband and wife and C were admitted to V on June 16, 2016, if only from AG to the next spouse, the credibility of the statements of BX and the statements of BX were entirely extinguished.

Therefore, with respect to the statements of BX, the health department, BX, the prosecution on 10,26.7.

20. From around July 25, 2014, around C’s instruction, two white bags were placed in C’s office room with two bags with 50,000 won labs, and C was placed in one bags with 10,000 won labs. However, on November 9, 2015, BX testified to the prosecutor’s office with 10,000 won and 10 million won labs in a verification color. On December 19, 2015, BX sent a false confirmation document to the effect that C was put in a labs in a verification room and this court made a statement to the same effect.

살피건대, ㉮ 앞서 본 바와 같이 2014. 7. 경에 피고인 부부와 C 부부가 AG에서 만났다고 볼 만한 보이는 통신내역, 영업장부, 결제내역 등 객관적 증거가 없는 점 , Q BX이 검찰에서 처음 진술하기 직전인 2015, 10. 21. C을 접견한 녹취록에 BX이' 가방을 산 것이 6. 12. 이고, 자신이 입사한 것인 7. 7. 이다. ' 는 취지로 말하자, C이 ' 놨다가 나중에 갖고 왔으면 돼. ' 라고 말하는 부분이 있는 점, ㉰ BX이 위 접견 당시 메모한 2015. 10, 21. 자 다이어리에도 ' 몇 월에 산건지 ', ' 7 / 7 입사 ', ' 7월 말쯤 ? 중순 ? ' 이라고 기재되어 있는 점, 라 BX이 위와 같이 진술을 번복하자, C은 BX이 2014. 7. 경 C이 집무실에서 이 사건 불가리가방에 돈봉투 넣는 것을 목격한 것은 사실이고, 다만 BX 이 봉투를 가져다 주었다는 부분만 허위진술을 하게 한 것이라고 진술하는데, BX이 가방에 돈봉투를 넣는 것을 보았다면 굳이 공소사실과 무관한 봉투의 출처에 대하여 허위진술을 시킬 만한 이유를 찾아볼 수 없는 점, 아 비록 BX이 C 구속 이후 경제적인 어려움을 겪으면서 C을 통신비 명목 1, 149, 710원 사기죄로 고소하거나, 다른 사람의 경제적 도움을 받은 정황은 있으나 위증죄의 부담을 감수하면서까지 피고인의 구명을 위하여 이 법정에서 허위진술을 할 만한 사정은 없어 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 2014. 7. 경에 C의 집무실에서 이 사건 불가리 가방에 돈봉투를 넣는 것을 본 적이 없다는 BX의 번복된 진술이 믿을 만하다 .

C) Summary of the evidence.

On June 16, 2014, the date of delivery from AG, the husband and wife of the Defendant, and the husband and wife of C, delivered a bribe as shown in the facts charged to the Defendant, as direct evidence supporting this part of the facts charged. On December 28, 2014, the Defendant’s wife and CH’s respective statutory and prosecutorial statements (excluding temporary parts) were given to the Defendant, which received only the instant French bank from the Defendant’s wife on December 28, 2014.

Other indirect evidence: (a) around August 2015, CH, BE’s prosecutorial statement that BX sent the instant BX to the Defendant along with the instant franch; (b) BX’s prosecutorial statement that CX sent the instant franch bank and money to the Defendant as a bribe; (c) it was not deemed that C purchased cash 10,000 won in the instant franch bank; (b) around December 2014, it was not deemed that C purchased the instant franish bank and money from the public prosecutorial office to the Defendant; and (c) around the end of December 2014, it was not deemed that C purchased the instant franch bank and the instant flusium’s testimony to the effect that the instant f1,000,000 won was franched, and that there was a change in the public prosecutorial office’s statement to the effect that the instant franch bank and the instant flusium were 614,2014.7.

D) Determination

(1) C, AH’s credibilityC and AH’s statement were stated to the effect that the Defendant’s husband and wife gave a room for the instant reason that money was paid to the Defendant’s husband and wife in the event of eating together with the Defendant’s husband and wife.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, C and AH’s above statements are difficult to believe.

①① C은 돈봉투를 넣은 이 사건 불가리가방 속주머니 자크를 잠궜고, AG에서 AI에게 쇼핑백을 건낼 때 AI가 가방의 속주머니를 열어보지는 않았고, C이 그 안에 돈이 들어있다고 말한 사실도 없다고 진술하는 반면, AH은 C이 가방 안을 보라고 수차례 말하여 AH이 가방 안을 보니 가방 안쪽 속주머니에 흰색 봉투가 보였다고 진술하여, 두 사람이 기억하는 전달경위가 매우 상이하다 .

② 게다가 AH의 진술은 그 자체로 다음과 같이 일관성이 없고, 그 내용도 상식적이지 않아 믿기 어렵다 .가 AH은 2015. 10. 30. 검찰에서 소고기를 먹으면서 이런 저런 이야기를 하다가 쇼핑백을 맞은편 건넸다고 진술하였다가, 2016. 2. 16. 검찰에서 음식이 깔리기 전 상 위에 쇼핑백을 올려 놓았다고 진술을 변경하였는데, 위와 같인 진술을 변경한 것은 이 사건 불가리 가방이 든 큰 쇼핑백을 상 위에 올려놓지 않고는 AH의 진술처럼 전달과정에서 더스트백을 풀어 가방 안을 보기 어렵기 때문인 것으로 보인다 .

On October 30, 2015, the CDH stated that the Defendant sent a bank to AI and opened the bank, and that it was ice of a white bag on the inner part of the inner part of the bank. On December 16, 2016, the CDA changed the statement that he opened the bank and opened the inner part of the bank. The change in the statement seems to be due to C’s statement that he closed the bank’s inner part of the prosecution on December 9, 2015.

AH made a statement at the prosecution on October 30, 2015 that it was visible to ice only a white bag inside the bank. On December 16, 2016, the prosecution opened a brotomer to the effect that the entrance of a white bag was 50,000 won since the entrance of the brotomer was scokeed. On February 16, 2016, when re-expled by the prosecution on February 16, 2016, he/she opened the entrance and confirmed money at the entrance of the brotomer, unlike the front line statement. Unlike the above statement, re-fluencing the envelope was connected with C at the time of re-flucing the entrance of the brotoine at the time of re-flucing. The reason seems to be due to the fact that the brotomer’s structural structure of the brotoine of the instant non-fluent bank could not open only the content of the envelope because it could not reach the above.

D. Through this process, AH finally stated that he considered money in the envelope by hand and in the envelope in this court, and that he held a bank in the middle and back a gift with a regular gift, and then confirmed and delivered money by taking out the envelope in the middle and back in the middle and back cover.

③ On March 8, 2015, C appears to have had the intent to make a false statement to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) around March 2015, at the Defendant’s order, internal audit of V was conducted; (b) there was suspicion of illegality, such as embezzlement, breach of trust, etc. of C; and (c) on June 8, 2015, it appears that C had the intent to make a false statement to the Defendant; (d) as seen earlier, C had the intent to make a false statement to BX; and (c) the date and time of the instant crime was stated after July 7, 2014, after C’s entry into BX; and (d) it appears that C’s prosecutor’s office made a false statement to BX’s prosecutor’s office on the part of BH’s statement that “I expressed the money incurred in the instant case from the prosecutor’s office on October 30, 2015.”

① around August 8, 2015, CI’s prosecutor’s statement stating that BX displayed the Zs of this case and that it was the bank that the said bank was the Defendant with the money, CH, BE’s prosecutor’s statement, and CI’s statement that CX paid BX the instant interest bank and money to the Defendant as a bribe, was the following: (a) since C was accused of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, BX, a person making the original statement, was transferred to C after June 8, 2015; and (b) as long as C’s statement is not believed, it is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of this case. (c) Whether the facts charged are recognized by other indirect evidence.

In other words, the circumstances acknowledged by the remaining evidence, i.e., the following: (a) the couple C has two French bags 3,640,000 won or more; (b) the Defendant’s wife AH’s proposal was only at the CK restaurant on December 28, 2014; (c) the Defendant’s statement that reversed the Defendant’s favorable statement was not made at the end of December, 2014 or at the early January 2015; (d) the Defendant’s statement that was not made at the 2nd Z library around 2000,000 won, and the Defendant’s mobile phone restitution was not made at the 1st 4th e.g., the Defendant’s mobile phone restitution at one time and 1st e., the Defendant’s mobile phone restitution at one time and 4th e.g., the Defendant’s mobile phone restitution at one time.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court legitimately adopted and examined evidence, i.e., (1) it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s husband and wife of the instant case was frying at AG 1 and CH’s statement; (2) even according to C’s statement, most of the Defendant attempted to calculate c’s meals; and (3) the Defendant was frying with C’s lecture right around June 2014, he did not receive any money, and paid 200,000 won to C’s 4th day after he was frying.4,000 won to C’s 6th day on September 2014; and (4) it appears that C’s 1 and 6th day on which he purchased the instant blood products from C’s 1 and 6th day on which he did not receive any money. In light of the fact that C’s 6th day on which he did not receive any money from the Defendant’s 1 and 4th day on which he purchased the instant blood products.

12. On June 16, 2014, it is difficult to view that it is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that an AI received the instant ster from the AI from her husband (Defendant) at the time when it was returned to her husband. In full view of the fact that it is difficult to exclude the possibility that an AI received the instant ster from her husband and later became aware of the fact that the Defendant was returned after he received the instant ster from her husband. 4) After the date of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant received the instant ster from her husband cannot be considered to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

이 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 증거인 C, AP의 각 진술, 수사보고 ( 참고인 CL의 전화조사 녹취서 요약 보고 ) 등에 의하면, ① C은 2014. 7. 경부터 2015. 4. 경까지 서울 CM상가 내 ' AM ' 이라는 상호 ( 사업자등록명은 ' CN ' ) 의 수입품가게에서 양주를 구매하여 AK 소재 AL 술집에 맡겨두고 사용한 사실, ② 피고인이 2014. 7. 11. C에게 " 사장님 경호처 손님이 와서 21년 두 개 씁니다. " 라고 문자메세지를 보냈고, 같은 날 저녁 AL 술집에서 BJ대학교 연수 중 알게 된 청와대 경호처 CL과 가족동반으로 술을 마신 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the defendant used the above two weeks of disease as a bribe without any reasonable doubt that the defendant used it as a bribe.

① At the time of around July 2014, the Defendant was a public official of Ydo at the time, and there was a lot of discussion as a matter of inviting the president to U-public ceremony between YDo and Cheongdae. CL is not a position to participate in the President’s decision-making on whether to participate in the official ceremony, but it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of cooperation with V cannot be ruled out if the president is determined to participate in the official ceremony in the future, and that AP, which was a V auditor and CL’s official line and security guard line, was allowed to be present at the drinking place at the time. In full view of the foregoing, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was using the above two weeks regardless of the duties of V even if there was no direct conversation between the Defendant and CL on the official ceremony at that place.

② C asserts that the two weeks of this case purchased funds with personal funds, not with the funds of V, but with the funds of personal funds, and made a bribe. However, C purchased the two shares at “AM” and used them in relation to the AL alcohol, and C used them as a bribe from April 8, 2014 to August 8, 2014.

11. In full view of the following facts: up to September 1, 198, the amount paid by account transfer to the president of the “AM” CP reaches KRW 8,609,00 on nine occasions; and the Defendant also has used the share that he left in the AL alcohol book when he/she counters a job with C or a journalist related to the V, the Defendant is likely to have been aware that the two shares of the instant case were purchased with the funds of KRW 5.

③ 피고인은 AL 술집에서 이 사건 양주 2병를 사용하면서 C에게 " 경호처 손님이 와서 21년 두 개 씁니다. " 라고 사용목적을 밝혀 양주를 사용한다는 문자메세지를 보낸 점, AM ' 사장 CP의 증언에 의하면 피고인이 사용한 위 발렌타인 21년산 양주 2 병의 가액은 병당 11만 원으로 총 22만 원에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 이를 뇌물로 수수한다는 의사로 사용한 것이라고 보기 어렵다 .

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since all the facts charged against Defendant A constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, it is sentenced to innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant C’s not guilty portion: Acknowledgement of partially the crime of offering a bribe as a crime of expressing an intention to offer a bribe

Although the Defendant made confessions on the facts charged that he provided KRW 3.64,00,000 to a public official who is a public official for the solicitation of KRW 10,000,000,000 in cash and KRW 3.64,00,000 in cash, as seen in Article 3 of the not-guilty Part A, insofar as it is judged difficult to recognize the facts charged that A received it as seen in Article 3 of the not-guilty Part, this part of the bribe offering to A cannot be deemed to have been proven without any reasonable doubt, and

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, this part of the facts charged contains the facts charged of the crime of expressing intent to offer a bribe, so long as the crime of expressing intent to offer a bribe within the scope of the same facts charged is found guilty

Judges are judges of the presiding judge -

Judges Ish Jeong-hee

Judges Jae-young -

1) Defendant B was in charge of exercising overall control over the election campaign for the Do governor candidate. Defendant B’s election campaign is indicated in the indictment, but Defendant B’s election campaign.

In addition, there is not enough evidence to see that the officer was in general.

2) X agency shall support U Development Corporation’s operation through the U Promotion Agency, an organization affiliated with the AE’s telegraph in charge of business such as attracting investment;

Affairs related to overall management and support for U development projects, such as designation and management of U Development Areas, support for operation of U Government-Support Working Consultative Body, and Ydo large.

It has been in charge of the management and supervision of the financing execution of V as shareholders.

3) Although this part of the crime was prosecuted for the offering of a bribe, the facts charged for the offering of a bribe include the facts charged for the offering of a bribe.

It differs only from whether the other party to the grant has received the bribe, and therefore this part of the facts charged is indicated as the intention to offer the bribe without any changes in the indictment.

Even if the defendant C was found guilty, there is no substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant C's right of defense.

4) On June 3, 2014, A’s inventory of the two uniforms measurements on inventory, on June 9, 2014, and issued the completed two uniforms on June 19, 2014.

5) In the facts charged, the market price of the two parallels is KRW 5,60,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

As such, the market price of the two-wheeled punishment is not 5.6 million won.

6) In the facts charged, the market price of the two weeks above is one million won, but the two weeks above is not purchased from the AL alcohol house, but the Seoul.

Materials are purchased from "AM" to 110,000 won per disease and entrusted to AL and the alcohol house, so 20,000 won per purchaser shall be deemed as the market price.

7) The election period began on May 5, 2014, and 22, and the election day was on June 4, 2014.

8) The election period began on May 22, 2014, and the election day was on June 4, 2014.