(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.6.20.선고 2012노38 판결

40 million won shall be collected from the defendant.In the case of this case, each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) (the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) (1) (the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) that the Defendant, from around 22:00 on May 19, 2010 to around 22:30, has received shopping bags and document bags containing KRW 30 million as stated in the pertinent facts charged. Even if the Defendant received the above money, it is not related to duties necessary to establish the crime of prior acceptance in light of the Defendant’s status

(2)[The violation of each Political Fund Act] The Defendant did not request AF to provide election funds on April 2007, and accordingly there was no fact that the Defendant sent a name-free box to AG parking lots or received a total of KRW 20 million (total of KRW 40 million) on two occasions from AF, as described in the facts charged.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the basis of each of the statements made by B and AF without credibility, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case.

B. Unreasonable sentencing (Defendant, Prosecutor)

The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 60 million won, additional collection of KRW 100 million) is too unreasonable (the defendant). On the contrary, the above sentence is too unfeasible and unreasonable (the prosecutor).

2. Judgment on the violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant was elected as the head of the PGun on April 25, 2007 and was reappointed from the nationwide local election on June 2, 2010 to the head of the PGun on June 5, 2010, and was in charge of all kinds of development activities, such as land division, permission, etc., while serving as the head of the PGun.

around 21:00 on May 19, 2010, the Defendant was asked to offer convenience to various kinds of authorization, permission, etc. related to a construction company and planning real estate company that he/she operates with the intention of "if his/her election is held to P head of P/Gun because there are many difficulties in operating the planning real estate business and construction business as a main line of V, which was known in the U Lestoc in the 12th floor of the T building, from around 22:00 to around 22:30 on the same day, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 30,000,000,000 in cash prepared by B, and documents containing KRW 30,000 in cash prepared by C, and KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won in the back of the passenger car, and received a bribe from each of the B/30,000,00 won.

After that, the Defendant was elected as the head of PGun on June 2, 2010, and returned to the duties of the head of PGun on June 3, 2010. On July 1, 2010, the Defendant was appointed as the head of PGun on July 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant is a public official, who is a public official, and the Defendant is a bribe of KRW 30 million (total 60 million) in addition to a solicitation in relation to the duties to be taken by PP andCC

(1) become a public official after receiving it.

B. Summary of the defendant's lawsuit

(1) Since May 19, 2010 21:00 on May 21, 2010, the Defendant refused to provide money and valuables to V, but 2) B et al. on two occasions, and received money and valuables.

(2) Direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part is entirely the statement of B. However, the statement of B contains a part that is inconsistent with or inconsistent with the statement of the relevant persons (V and C) who were objectively verified in the situation or site, and the situation of investigation (the time when the prosecutorial investigation of the planning real estate operators commences) at the time or the relation with the church to which he/she belongs (the relation between the progress of various projects promoted by the AS church) in light of the following: (a) the place or method where money was provided to the Defendant who was released as a candidate for the head of the Gun in the local election; (b) the content itself lacks rationality and objective reasonableness; and (c) the statement of B contains a part that is inconsistent with the statement of the relevant persons (V and C

C. The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (a) premised on the fact of accepting money and valuables by the Defendant; (b) evidence directly proving that B received money and valuables in the aggregate of KRW 60,000,000,000,000 provided by the Defendant prior to the entrance in the second 5th floor; and (c) based on the premise that B’s statement was grounded in the above location; (b) examined the important part disputing credibility of B’s statement, such as (i) the rationality, objective reasonableness, harmony with or harmony with objective circumstances; and (iii) whether there is an interest in the statement obtained from the statement; (b) the details of the statement are specific and consistent; (iii) there is no conflict or conflict with the statements of relevant persons, such as C and V, which were conducted before and after the provision of money and valuables; and (iii) concluded that there is a reasonable danger of 201, 300,000,000,0000,000 from the point of the entry to the Defendant; and (b) found that there was a reasonable danger of 201, 30,0,01, etc.

D. Relevant legal principles

The recognition of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the degree of having no reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent of causing such conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant. In addition, the above strict proof includes all specific facts constituting a crime as stated in the indictment by the prosecutor, and in particular, the date and time of the crime specified in the facts charged is the main object of the defendant’s right to defense, and thus, the facts constituting a crime should be established as specified in the indictment

In a case where the issue is whether or not to accept money or valuables, in order to be convicted solely by a statement made by a person who provided money or valuables where there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables, the fact that the defendant denies the receipt of such money or valuables, and there is a need to be admissible as well as credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. Whether or not there is credibility or not there is an interest in the facts charged, especially if there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him or her, and there is a possibility that the investigation into such a suspicion may commence, or if an investigation is being conducted, there is no possibility that the admissibility of such a statement would be denied, it is also necessary to also examine whether or not there may affect the statement made by him or her, and if there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support him or her, it is difficult to accept that part of the statement made by the defendant who provided money or valuables, which is designated as the recipient of the money or valuables, should be found to be inconsistent with the reasoning of the lower court and the lower court’s decision that there is no inconsistency or error between the defendant and the defendant.

E. The judgment of this Court

(1) The summary of B’s statement

B는 수사기관, 원심 및 당심 법정에서 다음과 같은 취지로 진술하고 있다5). ① B는 2009년 말경부터 V에게 ‘P에서 계속 부동산 사업을 하려면 군수와 인간관계를 맺어 친하게 지내는 것이 좋겠다'면서 수차례에 걸쳐 피고인과의 만남을 주선해 줄 것을 부탁하였다. ② 그러던 중 B는 V으로부터 피고인이 경제적 도움을 원한다는 말을 듣고, 이에 동종 사업에 종사하는 AT에게 연락하였다가 AT으로부터 C을 소개받아 C과 함께 상의하여 각자 3,000만 원씩 돈을 마련하여 이를 피고인에게 제공하기로 하였다. ③ 당시 B는 재선이 거의 확실시되는 피고인에게 금품을 제공함으로써 향후 P에서 추진하는 기획부동산 사업에 도움을 받고자 하였다. ④ B는 약속시간인 21:00 조금 전에 T에 도착하였고, 1층 엘리베이터 앞에서 V을 만나 V과 함께 12층 U 레스토랑으로 올라갔는데, 그곳 내실(룸)에 이미 C이 도착해 있었다. 6 그로부터 약 20여 분이 경과한 후 피고인이 U 레스토랑에 도착하였고, 피고인과 처음 인사를 하면서 명함을 교환하였는데, 당시 피고인은 자신의 명함에 직접 휴대전화 번호를 기재해 주었다. ⑥ 그러면서 네 사람이 함께 대화를 나누게 되었고, 대화는 주로 피고인이 하는 말을 B, C, V이 듣는 식으로 진행되었는데, 당시 피고인은 자신의 군대시절, 회사시절, 노조활동, 정치입문동기, P군수로서의 치적, 종교 등에 관하여 이야기하였다. ⑦ 대화 도중 피고인이 B와 C에게 구체적으로 무슨 일을 하느냐고 물었고, 이에 B는 ‘건설 일을 한다”고 대답하고, C은 '부동산 컨설팅을 한다'고 대답하였다. 그리고 대화가 막바지에 접어들었을 때쯤 V이 피고인과 B, C에게 서로 도움을 주었으면 좋겠다'고 이야기 하였다. 위와 같은 만남은 약 40여 분간 계속되었다(이하 '이 사건 만남'이라 한다). ⑧ 피고인은 위와 같이 대화를 나누다가 다음 일정이 있다면서 자리에서 일어났다. 그때 C이 피고인에게 돈이 들어 있는 서류 봉투를 전달하려 하였는데 이를 본 피고인이 잠시 엉거주 춤하였고, 이에 B가 '제가 가지고 배웅해 드리겠습니다' 라고 하면서 자신이 준비한 쇼핑백과 함께 C이 준비한 서류 봉투를 받아들고 피고인을 따라 내실을 나섰다. ⑨ U레스토랑을 나와 12층에서 피고인이 엘리베이터를 타고 내려갈 때 C은 엘리베이터 앞에서 피고인과 작별 인사를 나누었고, B와 V은 피고인과 함께 엘리베이터에 탔다. 당시 피고인이 차량의 대기 등을 지시하는 전화 통화를 하는 것은 보지 못했다. 피고인은 엘리베이터를 타고 내려가다가 5층에서 내렸는데, 이에 B는 V에게 피고인을 모셔다 드리고 오겠다고 말하면서 피고인을 따라 5층에서 내렸다. 10 그리고 B는 피고인을 따라 5층의 로비 같은 공간의 복도를 지나 출입구 계단 앞으로 걸어갔는데, 그곳에 피고인이 타고 갈 차량이 대기 중이었다. B가 보기에 위 차량은 약간 작고 달빛에 비추어 희끄무레하였다. 또한 위 차량에는 운전석에 사람이 타고 있었는데 피고인이 오는 것을 보고도 차에서 내리지 않았고, 피고인은 차량으로 다가가 뒷문이 아닌 조수석문을 열었다. 이에 B는 위 차량 뒷문을 열고 뒷좌석 위에 올려져 있는 박스에 자신이 준비한 쇼핑백과 C이 준비한 서류 봉투를 넣었다. 그리고 피고인과 악수를 한 후 피고인이 탄 차량이 유턴을 하여 돌아나가는 것을 보았다. B는 군수의 차량이 다소 작고 그리 깨끗하지 않으며 뒷좌석에 짐도 실려 있어 다소 의아하게 생각하였다. ① 그 후 B는 계산을 위하여 5층에서 다시 12층으로 엘리베이터를 타고 올라갔는데, 종업원으로부터 일행이 먼저 계산하고 내려갔다는 말을 듣고 엘리베이터를 타고 1층으로 내려갔다. 당시 1층 로비에는 C과 V이 B를 기다리고 있었고, 이에 B는 C과 V에게 돈은 잘 전달했다고 이야기해 주었다. 그리고 위 세 사람은 주차장으로 나와 각자 자신의 차를 타고 헤어졌다.

(2) Whether there is credibility that could be a reasonable doubt about B’s statements

Based on the aforementioned legal principle, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, it is difficult to view that B’s statement satisfied the credibility to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubts in the detailed contents, such as the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s assertion or defense, the developments leading up to the Defendant’s assertion or defense, the details of the persons involved in the crime before and after the crime, the specific method of providing money and valuables, and the interests arising from the statement. In addition, it is difficult to view that B’s statement satisfied the credibility to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubts.

The Defendant was elected as a member of the EW Council, and the election was finalized on April 25, 2007, pursuant to Article 6 of the Public Official Election Act, for CT, which had been the former head of the Gun due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act, and was elected as a candidate for the PGun. The Defendant was elected as a candidate for the 4th special election of PGun, which was implemented on April 25, 2007. The Defendant was registered as a candidate on April 18, 2010 in front of the 5th nationwide regional election, and registered as a preliminary candidate on April 30, 2010, and 7). At the time of Mannnam of the instant case, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant committed an election campaign using an official election vehicle with AH and implementation expenses, with AI. The Defendant was in need of support from new persons in PS8, which has a strong ability in relation to the failure of local election).

B as AS KIB, it was first planned real estate company 10) around 2003. Since 2006, B established and actually operated a planning real estate company (ju) EX11, (ju) X12, (ju) R13, (ju Y14), and (ju Q15). C was also an employee of the planning real estate company (ju) Z from October 2005 to 2006, as the planning real estate company, which had been the actual operator of AT, from around October 2006, as the planning real estate company, the Defendant and the head of the headquarters of the AS church from around 200 to around October 200. Since 209, V had been in charge of various development and development activities from around 200 to 700,000,000 won and the planning and development activities in relation to B's real estate as well as the planning and development activities in relation to QA and Q15.

1) On February 6, 201, V recommended the instant statement to the investigative agency on the charge of (V20) Q’s adviser at the request of B around the end of 2009. Around that time, B would have to enter into a human relationship with the head of the Gun to continue the business in P, and requested V to arrange for the head of the Gun and the south, and V would appear to contact B with the head of the Gun. Although V’s office was on the map of the king, V visited the office, and the Defendant visited the office of the Defendant for the election campaign that he would not have opened the office of the first half of May, 200, and that V would have refused to contact the Defendant with the head of the Gun, and that he would have called the Defendant for the first half of May, 200.

B On January 27, 2011, the prosecution made a statement to the effect that “B asked V to post a bridge so that the Defendant can come up each time V is delivered with the mind that there was a mind that P head of P Gun and human relationship was created for the purpose of receiving assistance in carrying out a business. B from April 2010, around April 5, 2010, at the time of the commencement of the election campaign by the 5th local election, submitted to V several requests to meet the Defendant more actively and actively, and V made a statement to the effect that “The date, time, and place was informed of the date, time, and place of each of the above statements made by V and B.”

2) On May 23, 2011, the changed statement V after the lower court appeared as a witness at the court of the lower court on May 23, 201, and stated to the effect that “On May 2010, when during the election campaign period, the Defendant did not have visited V’s offices, and that the Defendant requested V economic assistance at spring in 2010. However, the Defendant was unaware of the period of sponsoring at the AS church. However, since the church is likely to create political funds, V would have expressed to introduce other persons to the Defendant. The first reason for this talk at the court of the lower court was that there was no particular question at the investigation stage, and therefore, V was present at the court of the lower court on May 25, 2012, and made a statement to the effect that “I would not have known the Defendant that I would have been able to fully support the local election at the time of the first instance court of the lower court,” and that I would not request the Defendant to make a statement to the effect that I would have “I would have given our political funds.”

On the other hand, B was present as a witness in the court below and the court of a party, and stated to the effect that “B was asked B to introduce himself first on the ground that V was the Defendant, and the Defendant was able to do so. It is not an important content in the prosecution, because it is not an important part).”

3) Defendant’s statement and presumed facts

(4) On February 11, 201, the Defendant, at the prosecution, talked with the Defendant on May 201 that it was difficult for the Defendant to unilaterally engage in an investigation into the following facts: “If the Defendant had not been able to take advantage of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had not been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had not been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had not been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had not been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had not been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had been able to take advantage of the fact that he had not been able to take out the election of the Defendant.”

C. The lines of the persons involved after the full passage of the instant case

1) On January 27, 201, the contentsB of the testimony made a statement to the effect that “V and C were personnel affairs and hedging at the time they embarked on the elevator B and the Defendant, and that they went to the 1st floor parking lot after getting off the elevator.” Unlike V and C’s above statement at the prosecution, the Defendant consistently made a statement to the effect that “V and B got off the elevator at the 3rd floor and got off the elevator at the 1st floor and got off the elevator at the 5th floor, and only the Defendant was released at the 5th floor, including but not limited to the Defendant’s personnel affairs, at the 1st floor after getting off the elevator at the 1st floor.” This statement was made to the effect that “It was clear that V and B got off the elevator at the 5th floor, and only the Defendant was released at the 1st floor and made up the elevator parking lot at the 20th floor after getting off the elevator at the 1st floor.”

2) The elevator getting on board the elevator constitutes an important circumstance to make it difficult for the defendant to change the purpose of his office that the person V, who gets on board the elevator, has come to 5th floor and returned to 1st floor. The first instance, the defendant stated that he was on board the elevator only with the same defendant as the defendant's statement, and then changed the contents of his statement in accordance with the V's statement. However, the above statement to the effect that V was on board the elevator with the defendant and the defendant is insufficient for the following reasons. The Eul consistently loaded the elevator and consistently fell to 5th floor, put the defendant's money and valuables into 12th floor for calculation, and then let the defendant go to 12th floor for calculation. And according to the following purport, it would be difficult to keep the defendant's 3th floor up to 12th floor in consideration of whether the money and valuables were delivered to 5th floor and immediately after the defendant was delivered to 3th floor, and it would be difficult to say that he was on the 12th floor, not immediately after the second floor, but after the second floor up to 15th floor.

Although there is no room for doing so, it is difficult to view the fact that he re-entered into the 12th floor for calculation even when he waits from the 1st floor. On the contrary, if he left the elevator in the 12th floor with the Defendant while leaving V and C as they are in the 5th floor, such as the Defendant’s statement, and then getting off and getting off the elevator in the 12th floor, it would be natural that he would immediately go back to the 12th floor. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s statement is credibility.

3) According to the records of the reason that the defendant stopped the elevator on the fifth floor, the defendant and the defendant were asked where the defendant parked the vehicle on the fifth floor, and there is no circumstance to ask where the defendant and the defendant park the vehicle on the fifth floor. Thus, there is no question as to how the defendant left the elevator on the fifth floor for any reason. The prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor stopped the elevator on the fifth floor in order to receive money and valuables from the above place because the defendant mobilized a person who was in fire in advance and waits for the vehicle on the fifth floor.

However, the following circumstances, namely, if the Defendant does not get off B while proceeding, the Defendant will eventually be cut off with B at the first floor, and if the Defendant she gets up at the same time as document bags, verification color shopping bags, handbags, etc., it can be borne by the Defendant, who is an incumbent Gun and a candidate for the next Gun, from the standpoint of the Defendant, who is the candidate for the next Gun. Furthermore, if the Defendant attempted to deliver money and valuables in accordance with B’s first floor and the front parking lot 34, which is a public place, after having taken off from the first floor, the Defendant’s refusal to provide the document bags as a whole, even if the Defendant refuses to do so (as long as C had already seen the move of the Defendant to provide the document bags at the 12th floor, it can be deemed that the above situation was sufficiently anticipated), it can be deemed that there was a reasonable reason to deem that the Defendant she gets off B on the 5th floor, as pointed out by the Prosecutor, and that it would have been mixed 1 floor.

4) Whether related persons were re-convened on the first floor

With respect to whether V, B, and C are accompanied by both the first floor parking lot or street, it is difficult to believe that each statement of the relevant persons related to this part is inconsistent and partly distributed in detail. BY in the first floor parking lot where B was loaded up to T on the day of the instant case is stated in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below that C left the first floor and T. In light of the special characteristics of C's status and role as the representative director, it is difficult to believe that the relevant person confirmed the situation where B was loaded in the first floor parking lot or street, and delivered documents, bags, and shopping bags to the Defendant.

(D) Whether the instant crime was committed specifically

1) From May 19, 2010 to 200, 21, 22, 200, 25, 200, 20, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 30,000, 20:0,000,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000: 4:5:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 2:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00:0,00,00,00,00).

In support of the fact that the Defendant was attending a meeting of the FE Union by moving the aforementioned meeting to a AV rest area of 21:40 on the day of the instant case, the Defendant appeared at the court of first instance and stated in the process of taking and submitting the above photograph as a witness in the court of first instance. However, in light of the EG’s statement attitude directly heard by the trial, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above photograph falls under any material that was fabricated. Ultimately, insofar as the burden of proof on the date or time of the crime was maintained to the prosecutor, the Defendant appeared at the above meeting and stated in the record as to the process of the above photographing and submitting the above photograph. It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s view that the above photograph could not be seen as having been proven to fall under any material that was fabricated in the first place of crime (2:200 to 230-230 on the day or time of the crime) due to the change in his entrance and exit of the Defendant, which was one of the front parties to the crime.

2) Relationship with camping on the day of the instant case

According to the results of on-site inspection of the lower court, it is recognized that there was a camping out of the students who had been traveling at the next 5th floor of T at around 22:0 to 22:30, the time period of receiving money and valuables in this case. At that time, three schools run camping out in the order of 19:10 to 20:40.

On the other hand, B consistently states to the effect that shopping bags and document bags were used around the Defendant’s vehicle waiting in the lower parking lot of the fifth floor consistently, and that other special circumstances, such as camping or the movement of students, have not been discovered. However, the following circumstances, namely, ① wide area of the entire space of the fifth floor may easily recognize the event in a considerable range of distance due to the fact or night, such as light and smoke caused by the use of a scam, scams, and odor, etc. when executing a camping scam, ② The camping event is one of the most important most important parts for the students visiting the school, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was a large noise or scambism as the most difficult time to view that there was a lack of experience from around the 12th floor and that it was difficult to view that there was a scambling in the front part of the given scam in the front part of the given scam.

3) The rationality of specific methods of crime alleged by the prosecutor

The prosecutor asserts that the defendant, after receiving money from the fiveth floor to the fiveth floor, has gone away from the fiveth floor, once he was absent from the fiveth floor, and again, in contact with AI and AH, he left T with the official election vehicle on the first floor. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the defendant has moved to the first floor with AI and AH as an official election vehicle, and that the defendant has moved to the AV rest area after leaving the 1st floor with the official election vehicle, along with AI and AH. According to the records, the fact that both the defendant and AI and AH have been in the vicinity or at least, is confirmed.

(4) If a prosecutor finds it difficult for a prosecutor to take advantage of the fact that he/she was unable to take advantage of the fact that he/she was unable to take advantage of the fact that he/she was using a vehicle at the point where the above mobile phone was used from 20:56 to 22:12, and that a base station at the point where the above mobile phone was used (one time) around 21:18, which is a driver of the defendant, was confirmed as a base station at the point where the above mobile phone was used. However, considering these circumstances, it is difficult to view that there is credibility to the extent that the prosecutor’s specific method of crime is based on the trend and reasonable doubt. ① Since there is a high need for a prosecutor to take contact with a waiting person at the next place during the election campaign period or to call time to the front and rear passenger at the same time, it is difficult to conclude that he/she received money and valuables separately from a new parking lot or to receive money and valuables from the defendant on the ground that there is frequent call between the driver and the defendant.

On February 11, 2011, the Defendant made a statement at the prosecution that “The fiveth floor in which the vehicle is parked has rootsed the proposal for offering B’s money and valuables, and left T.” On March 2, 2011, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant, upon undergoing an investigation by the prosecution, changed the previous statement to the effect that “B, who intends to lock an elevator from the fiveth floor, intending to offer money and valuables, was unloaded to the first floor, after getting off the elevator at that seat, she left T.” In relation to the course of the change, the Defendant stated that “I would be adequate if the inspector asked him/her about the cause of the change.”

In light of the fact that the Defendant was unable to properly memory the overall situation of the Republic of Korea, which had been old due to bad election schedule, etc. during the election campaign period, and that it is difficult for the prosecutor to eliminate the possibility of making a statement by focusing on the fact that the Defendant did not receive money or valuables from a person who first received an investigation for bribery, based on the above circumstances alone, the Defendant cannot be deemed guilty of this part of the facts charged, solely on the above circumstances.

E. Circumstances after crimes

1) The absence of a solicitation or an quid pro quo act

V, B, and C state that, after the instant crime, no solicitation has been made to the Defendant with respect to the pending issues related to real estate and there is no actual benefit from the Defendant. In particular, B state to the effect that, although there was a statement made by the Defendant in connection with the AC land, the Defendant explicitly refused to accept it by deeming it a matter within the regulatory limits. There is doubt as to whether the Defendant’s attitude to perform the duties may lead to the occurrence of bribery amounting to KRW 60 million from B, etc. In addition, in the case of C, it appears that there was no need to contact or find the Defendant after the Defendant was appointed as the head of the PGun.

2) Since the relationship between the Defendant and B was long after the completion of the instant interview, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant received money from B on the day of the instant case, and thus it is possible to maintain such relationship, considering the circumstances such as the fact that B sent the Defendant a reduction in the election of the head of P/Gun, and the Defendant and B made several calls around July 2010, and that there was four or more personal meetings in Seoul and South Korea, and thereafter, the Defendant received money from B on the day of the instant case.

However, as seen earlier, it is inappropriate to conclude that the Defendant received money or valuables from B on the day of the instant case solely based on the circumstances as seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) there was no case where the Defendant, as the head of the Gun, received B’s solicitation or the unfair demand from the AS church; (b) the Defendant would rather have been able to handle the bribe on the day of the instant case without any distance and maintain an individual-friendly relationship with B while handling it according to the principle of business without any distance; and (c) even from the perspective of B, even if the initial bribe grant plan was not successful, it could have been determined that maintaining the friendly relationship with the Defendant would have resulted in favorable treatment to the operation of the planning real estate.

F) Grounds for commencement of the investigation

1) Difference with other crimes that B led to confession

B was written on the case of delivering bribe in relation to the planning real estate company prior to the crime of this case. However, the content of the crime of this case where B and C delivered KRW 60 million to the defendant is not written on the above multiple principles. It is explained to the effect that it did not remain in the record that it was directly performed by B. However, the previous case of offering money and valuables is hard to say that there is a substantial difference between B and the crime of this case with most of the previous cases of offering money and valuables, and in particular, in light of the fact that in the case of money prepared by C, it is not easy to understand the above explanation of B as it constitutes funds not prepared by B.

In addition, examining the circumstances of the crime of offering other bribe provided by B and C, if most of the outstanding issues exist and the purpose is not achieved as originally planned, it can be seen that the recipient of the money and valuables provided money and valuables, and actively respond to the demand to prepare a letter of commitment or demand the resolution of the problem. However, if the defendant received KRW 60 million from the first south to the second after the receipt of the claim in this case, it can be seen that the defendant did not raise any objection even if he did not provide any convenience in the course of performing his duties after the receipt of the amount of KRW 60 million.

2) B and C’s interests in false statements and C are those engaged in the planning real estate industry as well as AS church believerss. Since the Defendant assumed office as the head of the Gun, in light of the circumstances where the number of authorization and application for permission related to real estate development activities has sharply decreased, the Defendant appears to have implemented policies that comprehensively burden on the planning real estate business. In such a situation, when a large investigation was conducted on the operators of planning real estate businesses by a prosecutor under such circumstances, B and C, etc., who have experienced a threat to the existence of the planning real estate business entity they operated, and at the same time, have been able to receive a prior action in the investigation being conducted by making a statement on the fact that money and valuables were provided to the public officials who were the head of the Gun. In fact, after cooperation with the investigation into the instant crime, it seems that the investigation on the operators of planning real estate business entities by a prosecutor is completed without any serious progress.

3) Defendant’s attitude at the investigation stage

On February 1, 2011, the Defendant came to contact B during the first holiday period. In addition, on February 11, 2011, the second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused, stating as follows: "A is written as follows: (a) the suspect was dead; (b) the suspect was dead; (c) the snow was string off; and (d) the suspect was string off several times; and (c) the concealment was easy."

However, it is not appropriate to see these circumstances as soon as they are connected to the sex of the instant crime. This is because the Defendant had been somewhat inappropriate to see him as externally and externally after the passage of the instant case, and there are other circumstances where gift certificates or some monetary support have been provided. It is determined that these circumstances have to be prevented the Defendant from responding to the investigation as passive and defensive from the early stage of the investigation.

(3) Sub-decisions

According to this, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is erroneous, erroneous, or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles is justified.

3. Determination on the violation of each of the Political Funds Act

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On April 25, 2007, before the special election for the head of a Gun implemented on April 25, 2007, the Defendant requested AD to provide a subsidy for election funds to AF operating AE, a company collecting aggregate, and received from AF to receive KRW 20 million in cash as a cash for the election funds, by sending out a false name box to AG parking lot. The Defendant then requested AF to provide a further subsidy for election funds, and then received cash KRW 20 million from AF in the same place at around 22:00. Accordingly, the Defendant received from AF each political funds amounting to KRW 20 million (total KRW 40 million) in a manner that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

B. Summary of the defendant's lawsuit

The Defendant did not recognize the receipt of the instant political fund itself. Each statement of the F, AO, and NN is not suitable for AG parking lot to place for committing a crime where money and valuables are to be received; it does not fit for the common sense to have received money and valuables by sending the money and valuables to the AF and the nameless boxes without awareness; if the Defendant received money and valuables from two lanes, it appears that the Defendant could not be hedging without any specific conversation during the extremely short period of time like AF’s statement; and it is unreasonable for CM to believe that it was not believed even if he/she stated in the original court court that he/she received the second money and valuables, and there is a political motive to make a false statement, it is difficult to grant credibility in the statement.

C. The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on April 2007, based on the following: (a) there was a statement of AF that made a contribution of political funds to the Defendant as evidence that can directly prove the receipt of the instant political funds; (b) the statement of AF maintains consistency from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; (c) there is no circumstance to doubt the reasonableness or objective reasonableness of the statement itself at the place or time of providing money or goods; and (c) the statement of AF corresponds to each statement of AF, a related person, AO andN; and (d) the statement of AF that made a contribution of political funds twice in the AG parking lot, and on this basis, it found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

D. Relevant legal principles

As seen above 2. D., in this case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the Defendant did not deny the fact of receiving money or valuables and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support it. Therefore, in order to determine the credibility of AF’s statement, it is necessary to examine whether the content itself is rational, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement and its human beings, whether there was an interest in the statement being gained from the statement, and, in particular, whether there was an effort to escape from the imminent situation due to the possibility of criminal punishment, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201).

E. The judgment of this Court

(1) Summary of AF’s statement

AF consistently states the process of receiving the political funds of this case at the prosecution and the lower court. ① around April 2007, AF received a request from NF to provide the election funds of this case on behalf of the Defendant. ② At the time, AF, despite no special motive or reason to provide the election funds, is certain from NF to the Defendant who is in a deep trust relationship, and thus, would be able to provide the political funds of this case at the present time. ③ After that, the AF would provide 20 million won, which is considered appropriate according to its own decision, and then delivered the said 20 million won to the name poorer who appears to have been sent by the Defendant at the AF parking lot. ④ At the time, the AF would make it clear that the AF would raise money from the Defendant’s side and that it would not directly provide the said funds to the Defendant, ⑤ The AF would have been able to provide the said funds at the AF parking lot but would not directly provide the said funds to the Defendant.

(2) Whether the AF statement is beyond reasonable doubt

Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, IF’s statement is consistent in its major part, and there is no reason to doubt the reasonableness or objective reasonableness in the detailed contents, such as the circumstances and place of provision of money and goods, the specific method of provision, and the source of money and goods. Also, IF’s statement is also based on each of the statements and contents, including AO and NN, which directly experienced the circumstances before and after provision of money and goods. Accordingly, IF’s statement is credibility.

At the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below, AO proposed to obtain election funds from AF, and tried to look at the issue directly with the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant and N in one election office. After doing so, AO stated to the effect that "IF became aware that it would bring about KRW 20 million" from the Defendant, it was only KRW 20 million, which means that money is too small."

In the prosecutor's office and the court below's decision, â………………………………â…………â…………â……â……â……â……ââââ……â………ââââââââââ…………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

Each statement of AO and NN is consistent with the AF’s statement in relation to the process of providing the political funds of this case, and there is no contradiction. Each of the above statements has a meaningful value in determining the credibility of AF’s statement in that it does not witness the field of receipt of political funds by AO, etc., even though it did not witness the place of receipt of political funds itself, and that it statements before and after the time when the defendant

B. On April 5, 2011, the specific contact process AF was examined by the prosecutor's office in comparison with the Defendant, and "after the following day of the first supply of money and goods, the Defendant had talked about the Defendant using the cell phone at night at the latest, and the Defendant had talked about the helper, and again, the Defendant provided money and goods as follows: "I cannot move to a person in the future of the AG rest," while I cannot move to a person in the future of the AG rest," and "I cannot move to a person." In relation to the second provision of money and goods, I received contact with the Defendant in the first delivery of KRW 20 million from N or the Defendant, followed, the Defendant made a relatively clear contact about the process prior to the provision of money and goods to the effect that IG parking lot and the Defendant had to do so, but did not directly contact the Defendant in the court of the lower court before the second and the second delivery of money and goods to the prosecutor's office.

The Defendant alleged to the effect that it is difficult to understand the specific method that AF provided political funds, but the Defendant could not memory with the Defendant, based on the empirical rule. However, in light of the fact that the receipt of the political funds of this case was in April 2007 and that it was carried out promptly and closely during a relatively short period of time, AF can be deemed to have made a voluntary statement of the contact details prior to the provision of the political funds of this case according to the contents he/she is memory, and the credibility of the entire AF’s statement cannot be deemed to fall short of the credibility solely on the grounds that the Defendant did not make a conclusive statement on the part of a person who had contact with him/her.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in light of the fact that the AF parking lot indicated by AF as a place to dry up money and valuables falls under a place where people with the purpose of using the CO restaurant freely pass through, and the circumstances where vehicle drivers operating immediately next to the CO restaurant could easily recognize the situation within the parking lot, the AF’s statement is difficult to believe.

However, according to the fact that the AF consistently stated that money and valuables were provided twice at the AG parking lot, and according to the fact that the place specified at the time of the on-site inspection by the lower court was specifically specified, and the result of the above on-site inspection, it is difficult to view that the place of the crime identified by the AF constitutes a place where many people pass through or lighting much to the extent that it would substantially interfere with giving and receiving money and valuables at the latest night time on April 2007. Although one-way road going into Seoul at the front, it is difficult to understand the trends of the place of the crime inside the vehicle travelling through east-do, unless there is any fact, or if there is any particular shock, it is difficult to understand the situation of the place of the crime in which the money and valuables were provided, depending on how the money and valuables deliver uniforms or uniforms, etc., even if it seems possible for the money and valuables received by the CF to receive money and valuables at the place of crime, it cannot be concluded that the money and valuables are not provided at the AG parking lot in itself.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the statement that AF provided the primary money and valuables to a person who sent the name of the defendant is against the AF's statement that, considering the fact that there is a lot of possibility for voters to demand and receive money and valuables against a third party by visiting the candidate in the election process, it is against the AF's statement that the primary money and valuables should not be recognized.

According to the statement of the Health Center and AF, after receiving a request for money and valuables from NN which is a long-standing place of time and at the specific place of time from the defendant, the money and valuables were provided to the name weak person sent by the defendant, leaving the AG parking lot and the defendant sent. It is difficult to view that the above statement was lacking in the existence or rationality solely on the ground that the defendant pointed out, and the credibility of the statement is insufficient solely on the ground that the AF did not clearly memory who received money and valuables under the direction of the defendant.

(e) The receiver of the second money or valuables;

The defendant asserts that in relation to the provision of the second money and valuables, the defendant did not have any reason to leave the place where the crime was committed, and that CM, a defendant's performance secretary similar to the defendant, received the second money and valuables on behalf of the defendant and delivered it to CZ without notifying the defendant.

There is no doubt as to whether the Defendant is required to receive KRW 20,000 directly from a candidate’s secondary criminal place prior to a special election. However, there is no doubt as to whether there is a need to receive KRW 20,000 in the candidate’s status. However, there is a consistent and concrete statement about the circumstance of providing the second money and goods and sources, as well as a consistent and detailed statement from the Defendant’s standpoint, in a situation where the Defendant’s statement that the amount of money was insufficient from a single point of view, but it is not easy to request it in such a situation where the Defendant appears that it would not be possible to request it. In relation to AF, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement that he received the second money and goods directly from AF and received the second money and goods from AF, and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement that he received the second money and goods from BF before and after the receipt of the first money and goods from CF’s witness or statement that it was difficult to do so without considering the circumstances that the Defendant’s testimony was given and statement.

The interest AF does not voluntarily report the crime of this case on the basis of bad appraisal against the defendant, and merely seems to have led to the confession of all the contents of the crime in the process of investigation by the prosecution. The AF statement is highly deemed to be credibility in light of the following: (a) there is no other circumstance that may cause a false statement in the process of its statement; and (b) it is difficult to find a special interest to the extent that the defendant would be subject to criminal punishment by making a false statement although the defendant did not deliver money and valuables to the defendant; and (c) there is no other circumstance that the statement

The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) a person who was engaged in an election campaign in AO and NO was engaged in the former head of CT election campaign, and did not have any reason to have active interest in the election fund of the Defendant; and (b) there was a motive to make a false statement because he did not receive any case expected by the Defendant after the Defendant’s election was elected; (c) there was a history of engaging in an election campaign at the former head of AO and N in the election campaign; (d) but at the time of the crime, it appears that there was sufficient reason to have interest in the election fund of the Defendant because the person was expected to be active after the election campaign of the Defendant; and (e) there was no relation with the Defendant to make a false statement with the intent to undermine the Defendant, solely on the ground that the Defendant points out.

(3) Sub-decisions

According to this, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is correct, and there is no error as alleged by

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal on the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the facts charged in this case is with merit, the above part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed. Since the remaining part concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act is concurrent crimes with the above part under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so long as the court below rendered a single sentence in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety. Accordingly, without omitting the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the whole judgment of

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the violation of the Political Funds Act due to waterways of a number of million won which is heavier than the second one)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considering favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below):

1. Additional collection:

The latter part of Article 45 (3) of the Political Funds Act

The crime of this case in the reason for sentencing is that the defendant, who was selected as a candidate for the election of the head of PGun, receives political funds of KRW 40 million in total twice in a way that is not prescribed by law, and constitutes an act that damages the purpose of legislation of the Political Funds Act enacted to ensure the sound development of democratic politics by guaranteeing the appropriate provision of political funds, securing transparency, and preventing any malpractice related to political funds. This is that the defendant believed the integrity of the defendant and knew a considerable sense of view to the local residents who elected as the head of the Gun, and that the defendant denies his criminal act, etc., the crime is not weak in consideration of the fact that the defendant denies his criminal act.

However, since the receipt of the political funds of this case by the Defendant, it does not seem that the Defendant, a provider, was deprived of preference or has committed another quid pro quo, and that the Defendant did not have any record of committing the same kind of crime before the commission of the crime, etc. In addition, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the crime shall be determined by taking into account all the factors of sentencing as indicated in the arguments of this case.

The summary of the acquittal portion [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)] is the same as that of the above 2.A., and this constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as seen in the above 2. E., thereby not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges

The presiding judge and judges shall be appointed.

Judges Kim Gin-ran

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Note tin

1) On October 6, 201, the prosecutor specified the time and place of the acceptance of the bribe during the 9th trial of the lower court as the same time and place, and B and C, respectively.

A request for amendments to Bill of Indictment was made to the effect that the court below permitted the issuance of KRW 30 million.

2) However, the accurate time of arrival and the time of money are disputing this.

3) The Defendant asserts as follows with respect to the truth of this part of the facts charged of acceptance of bribe. ① V, who is the head of the AS church construction headquarters, is a new AS church.

(C) The Fund is completed through B and AT (C is a person operating a planning real estate company on behalf of AT) that operates a planning real estate company as a person;

On the other hand, the defendant tried to deliver to the defendant. ② The defendant requested the support of the AS church in the 5th nationwide local election.

The Si V made a single set at a time, and as the defendant, the support of the AS church was essential for the election.

In other words, the Defendant did not reject the Defendant’s refusal on May 19, 2010 to V, and set the date and time on May 19, 2010 to V.

The Defendant, who was committed on the same day, extended from 19:0 to 21:00 the initial time of the promise, 201, 5, 19, and 19, an election campaign.

From 20:50 to 20:10 to 20:20 to 10:20 to 200 to 10:20 to 20

However, the defendant thought that B and C were the persons from the AS church to verify himself/herself.

The dialogues between them and about 20 minutes naturally about election, etc. have been divided from 21:10 to 21:10 to 21:

C. ⑤ At the time of the above, C or B intended to provide an envelope by putting the envelope, but the Defendant may be aware of what he is “......”

The defendant refused to accept the letter to the effect that he is in need of the letter "...............) The defendant immediately thereafter refused to accept it.

At that time, AI calls for waiting for a vehicle (at that time, AI was not infinite and was infinite with AK, and the detailed call was not immediately cut.

C) The Defendant was on board to get off the first floor. At the time B alone was on board the elevator according to the lower-class Defendant.

As a result, it is inappropriate to see that B was in the face of money and let him / her the first floor.

In the fifth floor on which he knows the structure of the building, he has set up an elevator and landed B, and clearly expresses his intention to refuse the replacement, and mixed.

(7) The defendant, while getting off the same floor as above, has been a driver AH around 21:14.

The city telephone and waiting the vehicle, and the toilet has arrived at the first floor after the arrival of the vehicle. ③ The AH calls to the defendant around 21:18.

and the Defendant, upon receipt of the above phone, has been urged to leave as soon as possible, and the Defendant, together with an official election vehicle (AU inspection) with BU and AI and AH.

AV restings (the name of the food service is the "P restings," and the name of the operator of the past is frequently ‘AV rest' according to the following schedule:

AV rest area was moved to 'AV rest area', and around 21:40 arrived at around 21:40, and left around 20 to 30 minutes. 9 Defendant 9

B, who was refused to provide money, re-entered to U Lestop in the 12th floor where he is waiting to do so, and discussed the countermeasures.

V and B, which had played a key role in delivering money and valuables to the defendant at the time, have divided more stories;

C, which only participated in the above place under the direction of AT, will have come back first on the first floor alone. After that, V and B dialogue.

After completion, each person returned to the first floor. Ultimately, V, B, and C were gathered at the first floor. There was no situation in which 5, B, and C were gathered at the first floor.

This is the case.

4) Persons who directly experienced this part of the facts charged are only B, and V and C are the defendants together with B, or B are the defendants.

There is no direct financial transaction data, etc. concerning receipt of money and valuables in this case.

There is no CCTV video, etc. that is caught at the scene of receiving money and valuables.

5) The purport of a change in the statement is to be based on the final statement.

CT was elected as P/Gun in the fourth nationwide local election conducted on 2006, 5,31.31, but 500,000 won to P/Gun electorates prior to the above election.

It was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for criminal facts which provided money equivalent to money.

7) According to the Local Autonomy Act, where the head of incumbent Gun goes out of an election, the performance of duties by the head of Si/Gun from the registration period of preliminary candidates to the election period shall be suspended

The head of a high-ranking Gun shall act on his/her behalf.

8) FA, a foundation, is a religious order established by FB on November 17, 1973, which purchased FC real estate in the 1980s and completed 'FD', and within P group.

in addition to AS intersections, various facilities such as T, sports center, play facilities, golf driving ranges, childcare centers, etc. are held. AS residing in P group.

The number of church believerss is approximately 800 900.

9) At the time of a special election in 2007, the Defendant was the wind to withdraw the support after he promised to give the Defendant support at the church level.

There is a deficit that has suffered difficulties.

10) Planning real estate business entity means a business entity that purchases real estate with large investment value and obtains permission from the competent local government for division of land;

A company that engages in the business of employing Lemabs and selling them to customers.

11) Although the office was established around November 2006, the office was closed around September 2007 and was closed around March 2008.

12) Although the office was established around May 2007, the office was closed around 2009, October 10, and was closed around October 2010.

13) Around February 2008, the establishment was established.

14) Around May 2009, it was established but was closed around October 2009.

15) It was established around March 2009.

16) In light of various circumstances, AT is the actual operator of the (State)S, and C is deemed to be a representative director in its name.

(c)

17) B stated that 70% of the total income from which he has deposited into his pay and borrowed account has been paid to a church (a right of investigation record 1).

328, 329 pages) In light of these circumstances, the significance of the relationship between the AS intersection and the planning real estate company is also expressed.

18) (State)X purchased and divided AC land around September 2007, and sold it to the customers. It is thought that there is no first big problem.

It seems that obtaining permission for opening access roads did not seem to have experienced considerable difficulties. Accordingly, B, etc. was 2009.

There is a letter of delivery of KRW 10 million to B of the PJ conference, which was scheduled to take a business trip with the defendant around July of the year (Seoul Central District Court).

201. Gohap159, etc.

19) This is an essential point in determining the credibility of B’s statements, together with the actions and scams of the accused or persons concerned before and after the time of committing the crime.

The issue is the issue.

20) For convenience, the name of the telephoneer shall be recorded as it is; hereinafter the same shall apply.

21) See, e.g., 436, 437, 447 investigation records

22) A title 377-379 of investigation records

23) See the lower court’s protocol of examination of witness concerning V 24-28

24) Statement 13, 14, 23, 24 of the examination of the witness by the trial court against V

25) See Protocol 26, 27 pages of the examination of the witness in the case of Party B

26) See Protocol 65, 66 of the lower court’s examination of witness as to B

27) See title 1, 700, 701 of investigation records

28) See title 435, 436 of investigation records

29) See title 1, 386 of the investigation records.

30) See title 1, 444 of investigation records

31) see, e.g., either right 458, 459 of investigation records

32) See title 1, 487 of investigation records

33) Furthermore, C states that it would be said that it would calculate the value of its teahouse before hedging with B.

34) According to the result of on-site inspection by the lower court, the front glass of the first floor building is transparent.

V) On February 6, 2011, 201, V had different knowledge as to whether there was money on the day of the instant case in the wall bags, etc., B.

A witness who stated to the effect that he/she was aware of KRW 60 million (see, e.g., Disposition No. 1, 443, 444).

according to the present memory, “I, according to the first floor of the day of the incident, I would like to say that B was well delivered.”

The statement was made to the effect that “he is memoryd” (see, e.g., the protocol of examination of witness by the court below on V).

36) See Protocol 7, 13, 42, 43, 44 of the lower court’s examination of witness as to B

37) See each of the 8, 12, 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the examination protocol of the lower court as to C, 5, 6, 7, 10, 18, 21, and V of the examination of the witness of the lower court as to C.

38) The Defendant, at around 21:12 around 21:14, 21:14, and at around 21:18, 21:18, sent a vehicle to the first floor while communicating with AH.

(c)

39) This is ultimately a kind of on-site absence that the Defendant did not appear between 22:00 and 22:30, the time of committing the crime as stated in the facts charged.

The purport of the assertion can also be seen as having been asserted.

40) See title 1, 467 of investigation records

41) Two pages 1048, 1049 of investigation records

42) This is not merely a bribe granted on an individual basis, but also a planning real estate enterprise operated by the ASIS believerss.

It seems that it was implemented systematically for the benefit of interest.

43) Although the indictment is written in 21:00 to 22:00, the lower court recognized it as such.

44) It focuses on the matters alleged in the trial and overlaps with the reasoning of the court below.

45) See, e.g., the protocol of examination of witness against AF by the court below