2011 Highest 16, 2011 Highest 29

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Improper bribery;

(d) Occupational breach of trust;

(e) Fraud;

(f) Preparation of false official documents;

(g) Exercising false official documents;

(h) Bribery;

(i) Delivery of third-party brain;

(j) Acquisition of third-party brain;

(k) Violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies;

1.(b)ma, children, milk 000), non-occupationals;

Residential Republic of South South Sea II REA

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

2.Nama.C.O. Agriculture

Residential Gyeongnam Sea group

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

3.(a)k.c. ○○ (I officials)

Residential Gyeongnam Sea group

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

4.c. d. g. ChicagoO. officials;

Residential Gyeongnam Sea group

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

5. D.k. Kim○ (AAAAAAA), public officials;

Seo-gu, Daejeon

Reference domicile Cheongbuk District III

6.j. ○○○ (III), and the Note;

Residential Gyeongnam Sea group

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

Meritoriouss

Attorney Yoon Dong-young (for the defendant ○○○)

Attorney Park Yong-chul (for the defendant Park Jong-ok)

Law Firm Seo-Gyeong, Attorney Kim Jong-young (for the defendant 1)

Attorney Park Jong-chul (for the defendant Kim ○-○)

Park Jong-dae (Defendant Kim & Kim, ○)

Attorney Kim Jong-young, and Park Jong-young (for the defendant Song ○○)

August 26, 2011

1. Defendant ○○ shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for Defendant ○○, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by Defendant ○○○, by imprisonment for one year and one year, and by imprisonment for transmission of Defendant ○○, respectively.

2. Provided, That with respect to the defendant Park 00, Park 00, Park 00, and Song ○, the execution of imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

3. 5,00,000 won from Defendant Kim○○○ and 18,077,100 won from Defendant Song○○ shall be collected respectively.

4. Defendant Kim○-○ is acquitted.

Criminal facts

[2011고합16] 피고인 유○○은 2009. 2. 6.부터 현재까지 경남 남해군 ○○면 ○○리 ***-*에 사업장을 두고 전통산지약용식물의 연구개발, 유통, 가공 및 판매사업 등을 목적으로 하는 미|| || | || || (이하 '이 사건 법인'이라고 한다)의 실질적 대표로서 이 사건 법인의 사업운영 · 자금집행 등 업무 전반을 총괄하는 사람이고, 피고인 박○○는 2009. 2. 6.부터 2010. 10. 15.까지 이 사건 법인의 대표이사로 재직하였던 사람이다. 1. 피고인 유CO, 박OO의 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기) 및 보조금의 예산및관리에관한법률위반 피고인 유○○, 박○○는 2009년 1월경 산림청에서 경상남도를 경유하여 '2009년도 산지약용 산림소득사업'(이하 '이 사건 사업'이라 한다)의 보조사업자를 공모 방식으로 선정하려 한다는 사실을 알게 되자, 사실은 이 사건 사업의 보조사업자로 선정될 자격도 없고, 선정된다고 해도 이 사건 사업을 할 능력이 없었음에도 2009. 2. 6. 이 사건 사업을 신청하기 위한 이 사건 법인을 설립한 다음 이 사건 법인 명의로 공모 신청하여 보조사업자로 선정됨으로써 보조금을 교부받기로 마음먹었다.

According to the public notice of invitation of the project of this case directed to the South Sea through Gyeongnam-do in the Korea Forest Service around January 21, 2009, the project of this case requires that the project of this case be implemented in the Korea Forest Service to foster environmentally friendly medicinal plants as clean medicinal plants, build a distribution system for collecting, processing, and promote the mountain medicinal plants through training and brandization, and to increase the income of forest managers through industrialization of mountain medicinal plants through training and brandization; (i) for a project, an application for public recruitment, qualification and requirements; (iii) for the operation after incorporation, for more than one year, the total amount of investment is more than 10 million won; (iv) for more than 25% of the total amount of investment; and (v) for more than five members in the case of a marina farming corporation, for more than five members in the case of a marina farming corporation; and (ii) for the case of an producers' organization, for more than five members in the case of a corporation organized by at least one of the professional producers to jointly produce agricultural products or jointly produce agricultural products.

① Defendant U.S., the actual operator of the instant legal entity, was in the state of having no financial institution and individual debt amounting to KRW 260,000,000,000, and thus, did not have any financial ability to bear capital and self-responsibility. ② The instant legal entity did not have any operational performance since it was higher for the instant business application on February 6, 2009 following the public offering of the instant legal entity, and five members were registered in the corporate registry. However, the instant legal entity was registered only in the name, but the instant legal entity was merely lent only to the name, and actually did not have more than five members who were either invested in the instant legal entity or did not engage in the instant legal entity activity. ④ The members on the remaining register other than one member did not actually engage in agriculture, and thus, Defendant U.S.O and Park○ did not have any capacity to conduct the instant business from the beginning.

Nevertheless, in collusion with the defendant U-Gun's U-Gun's Agricultural Technology Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Technology Center") around February 13, 2009 in order to subscribe to the project in this case, the defendant U-Gun's U-Gun's U-Gun's U-Gun's Agricultural Technology Center (hereinafter referred to as the "O-Gun's Agricultural Technology Center") was established for 2006, 2006, 2006, 30 million, 200, 40,000,000 won, 40,000,000,000 won, and 40,000,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 40,000.

그 후 피고인 유○○, 박○○는 2009. 4. 6. 농업기술센터에서 담당공무원에게 보조 금 교부신청서를 제출하여 2009. 4. 28. 남해군으로부터 보조금 교부결정 통보를 받은 다음, ① 2009. 6. 19. 산림청이 남해군에 송금한 보조금 3억 6,000만 원을 남해군으로부터 이 사건 법인 명의의 우체국 -XXXX계좌로, ② 2009.9. 30. 남해군으로부터 지방비 합계 1억 원(= 도비 6,000만 원 + 군비 4,000만 원)을 이 사건 법인 명의 의농협

2. Fraud;

Defendant 00 and Park ○○○ had excellent technical capabilities and feasibility of the Victim’s Business Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), but was aware of the fact that the Small and Medium Business Corporation provides small and medium enterprises with expenses incurred in starting a business, product production costs, and funds required for corporate management in order to promote job creation, and submitted false documents, and intended to obtain money from the “business start-up support funds.” Defendant 200 and Park ○○ did not have been engaged in the same type of business after he was employed as a public official on December 2006, and Defendant 2 did not have been able to obtain money from the victim even if he did not receive money from the victim.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 유00, 박○○는 2010. 7. 8. 진주시 00읍 00리에 있는 공단 경남서부지부의 담당직원인 원○○에게, ① 이 사건 법인의 조합장인 피고인박이는 같은 업종 종사기간이 6년이고, ② 2010년 4월경 4억 원을 증자하였으며, ③ 이 사건 법인 소속의 기술직원은 2명으로 한방 비사리 막걸리 · 한방 초음료 · 산양삼 된장 제조법 등을 독자개발 중이고 2010년 예상 연간 매출액이 13억 원 상당이라는 등 허위의 '기업현황 및 사업계획서'와 '중소기업진흥공단 자금 승인을 위한 기업 및 제품보고' 등 관련서류를 작성, 제출하는 방법으로 공단으로 하여금 이 사건 법인에 대한 대출 결정을 하게 한 후, 2010. 7. 29. 공단으로부터 창업기업지원 자금 대출 명목으로 이 사건 법인 명의의 농협 IIXXXX 계좌로 1억 5,000만 원을 교부받았다.

As a result, the defendant UCO and Park ○-○ conspireds to deception the victim's Corporation, and they received 150,000,000 won from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

[2011Gohap29]

1. Defendant 1 was the director of the Agricultural Technology Center in South Sea-gun (local government-grade 5) who exercises overall control over the business of distributing and supporting forestry income from January 2009 to March 27, 2009, and Defendant 1 was the director of the Agricultural Technology Center in South Sea-gun, the director of the Agricultural Technology Center in charge of the business of operating forest products from July 7, 2008 to July 21, 2009 (local government-grade 5) who was the director of the Agricultural Technology Center in charge of the business of this case and the payment of local subsidies related to the instant project implemented by the Korea Forest Service in January 2009. Defendant 1, 200, Defendant 200, and ○○○○○ was the person who received an application for a subsidy business from an organization that meets the qualifications and requirements for the project of this case and reported it to the Korea Forest Service via ordinary Namdo and the Korea Forest Service, supervised the selected subsidy and its duty pursuant to the relevant statutes.

Nevertheless, on February 13, 2009, Defendant 1, 2009, at the Agricultural Technology Center Agricultural Forest and Office, there was no investment amount of the corporation of this case. ② The corporation of this case was funded on February 6, 2009, and there was no actual production, sale, and processing of the corporate register of this case. ③ Although the corporation of this case was aware of the fact that the members of the corporate register of this case jointly produced, sold, and processed drugs, the corporation of this case did not meet the qualifications and requirements for the recruitment of the business of this case, Defendant 200 and 200 received the documents, such as the “business plan for processing and distribution facilities for medicinal drugs,” which is a public official in charge of the production and submission of the documents, such as the “business plan for processing and distribution facilities for medicinal drugs,” and the same date, the corporation of this case was selected as the subsidized business operator of this case on February 26, 2009.

A. On April 6, 2009, Defendant 1: (a) received an application for subsidies attached to the relevant documents on April 6, 2009; and (b) knew that the instant corporation’s failure to secure self-charges was illegal to receive subsidies to the instant corporation; (c) obtained subsidies of KRW 400 million and KRW 200 million of subsidies by granting subsidies for expenses incurred in processing and distributing plant products for mountainous districts on April 24, 2009; and (d) remitted KRW 360 million of the primary subsidy to the head of the Tong in the name of the instant corporation on June 19, 2009 as the payment title of the project cost.

B. In addition, Defendant 1, 209.9. 30 billion won of the second Do subsidy and military subsidy under the same name (i.e., 60 million won + military subsidy of 40 million won), knowing that the payment of subsidies to the instant legal entity was unlawful, Defendant 40 billion won of the instant legal entity, while being aware that the instant legal entity did not secure self-sufficiency, Defendant 2, 40 billion won of the instant subsidies (i.e., subsidies of 40 million won + military subsidy of 140 million won + military subsidy of 100 million won) were transferred to the Republic of Korea of 60 billion won of the instant legal entity’s name (i.e., 60 billion won of the instant subsidies of 4 billion won of the instant legal entity, and 60 billion won of the instant subsidies of 3 billion won of the instant legal entity and 600 million won of the instant subsidies of 60 billion won of the victims’ property damage to Defendant 2, 2009.

2. Defendant Kim○-○

A. A. Around April 2009, Defendant KimO-O-O on the preparation of false official documents and the display of false official documents, in collusion with Kim ○○, a person in charge of the project in charge of the project in the agricultural technology center and office office, and Y○○, the team leader of Punam Sea Team, for the purpose of exercising KRW 600 million in total of the subsidies and local subsidies related to the project of this case to be paid to the corporation of this case. The facts of this case, even though the corporation of this case did not secure KRW 400 million in its own funds, Kim Jong-O prepared a "written review of the feasibility of the application for subsidies", which is a official document stating 'self-reliance in the column of ability to bear the funds by using the computer, with the approval of the review report on the feasibility of the application for subsidies, and kept one copy of the application for subsidies, which is a false document, with the examination report on the propriety of the application for subsidies prepared at that time, and kept it with the head of the agricultural department and the head of the Gun after exercising office.

Defendant ○○○ accepted a bribe of KRW 5 million in total after committing an unlawful act in connection with his duties as follows.

1) On March 31, 2009, Defendant Kim ○○ received an application for a public bid for corporate forest income within the passenger car of this case, which did not meet the qualification requirements as described in Paragraph 1, from Defendant Uk○, and received two million won in cash in return for the payment that the instant corporation selected as a subsidized project operator, by receiving an application for a public bid for the corporate forest income within the passenger car of this case, and received two million won in cash.

2) Around July 2009, Defendant Kim ○ was given KRW 3 million in cash under the same name as the above ○○○○○○○ in the same manner as the Defendant’s U.S. 1).

3. Defendant Song ○○○○ is a person who was elected to another Gun on June 4, 2008 at a five-time local election implemented on June 2, 2010 and on June 2, 2010.

The South Maritime Affairs Association, the South Maritime Affairs Association, takes charge of overall administrative affairs such as various authorization and permission affairs on behalf of the South Maritime Affairs Association, and in particular, if the subsidized project is not implemented as well as the decision to grant subsidies related to the subsidized project, he/she takes charge of overall affairs such as affairs to issue corrective orders or decision to recover subsidies to the subsidized project operators.

Around February 13, 2008, Defendant Park Jong-ok, who had been the head of the office of ○○○○○, was aware of his election campaign and actively helps Defendant Park Jong-young, who had been the head of the office of ○○○○, to conduct an election campaign. ① He was aware at the office of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, with Defendant Park Il-○, who had been the head of the office of ○○○○, and sought an explanation of the project for the development of medicinal herbs from Defendant Park Il-○, and ② in relation to the instant project, Defendant Park Jong-gun, Nam-gun, which was being promoted by Defendant 10 ***-*. ③ Around February 13, 2009, ○○ had received an application for the project of this case in the name of the head of ○○○, who had been the head of ○○○○○, and had been selected from the office of ○○○○, the head of ○○○, a 200-year special election for Defendant Park.

A. A. Around July 2009, 8, and 200, Defendant Songdong received a delivery of KRW 13,300,000 (one million in cash, USD 2300, KRW 300,00 in Korean Won, KRW 300,00 in KRW 10,000, KRW 300,00 in KRW 230,000 in KRW 10,000 in KRW 10,000 in KRW 10,000 in KRW 10,000 in KRW 230,00 in KRW 100 in KRW 200,00,00 in his residence) from the head of Si/Gun with the knowledge that it was a bribe under the pretext of providing convenience such as smooth business progress in relation to the instant business promoted by the head of Si/Gun with the knowledge that it was a bribe for the head of Si/Gun with the knowledge that it provided it for convenience such as smooth business progress (the head of Si/Gun with KRW 53,5000,00,00.).

4. Defendant 10

(a) Bribery;

Defendant 00,000 won, in consideration of the receipt of a public contest project, the selection of a business operator, and the provision of subsidies to the instant legal entity without qualification for application at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 2-b, Defendant 2-B, as described in paragraph 2-B. Accordingly, Defendant 00 delivered a bribe in connection with the public official’s duties. However, Defendant 2-○ offered a bribe to the public official.

Defendant 1 delivered money and valuables worth KRW 18.6 million to Defendant 1, who is the wife of YOO on two occasions in order to request YO to provide convenience related to the instant project promoted by himself/herself at the time and at the place described in paragraph 4-a (a) and at the place described in paragraph 4, to Defendant 1, who is the wife of YOO, in order to request YOOO to provide convenience related to the instant project promoted by himself/herself.

Summary of Evidence

[2011Gohap16, Defendant 00, and Park 00]

1. The defendant CO and each court’s statements 1. The prosecutor’s office’s interrogation protocol on the defendant’s ○○ and Park ○-○

1. Each police statement on yellow0, KimO, KimO, Ma, leap), gambling, ambling, 00, 100, 100, 200, 100, Do governor, Do governor, Kim○, and Kim○;

1. A written statement of yellow ○○, leap○, original ○○, Park ○○, and Kim○○;

1. 2009년 산지약용식물 유통가공 시설사업현황 및 사업계획서 사본 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 4), 산지약용식물 유통가공시설 보조금 교부결정 관련공문 사본 등 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 5), 산지약용 유통가공시설 보조금정산서 및 검사서 사본 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 6), □□□□□□□ 등기사항전부증명서 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 7), 압수수색검증영장 집행결과보고(■■■■■■■ 통장첨부), □□□□□□□□□통장사본, 2009년 산림청 산림소득사업 공모계획안 사본(증거목록 순번 46), □□□□□□ 대출통장 거래내역 등 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 60), □□□□□□ 대출통장 거래내역 등 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 61), 대출약정서 정책자금융자신청서 기업현황, 사업계획서 등 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 86), 피의자 유이 명의의 농협통장 거래내역 발췌자료 첨부보고(증거목록 순번 89), 융자사업 실무 매뉴얼, 기업평가 실태조사서, 중소기업 정책자금 융자신청서 사본, 기업현황 및 사업계획서 사본, 기업 및 제품보고 사본, 임포인트커뮤티케이션즈 대표 성영임과 진화통화 내용 보고의 각 기재 [2011고합29, 피고인 곽○○, 김○○, 유○○, 송○○ 부분]

[The part of the co-principal committed by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2]

1. The legal statements by Defendant Kim○-○ and some of the Defendant’s outer ○○○○’s legal statements

1. Each statement of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant 1O, each statement of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant 1 and each statement of the police interrogation protocol about the defendant 1 Kim-○

1. Each statement made by the police at least four times in relation to ○○○, each of the third and fourth police statements, and each statement made by the police at the time of Kim00;

1. Attachment (Evidence No. 15), such as a notice of subsidy grant certificate and receipt certificate for projects for distributing forestry products in 209, a copy of the official document (Evidence No. 23), a copy of the official document (Evidence No. 24), a copy of the official document (Evidence No. 25), a copy of the official document (Evidence No. 25), a copy of the official document (Evidence No. 29), a copy of the official document of the application for a public design for forest income projects in 2009 (Evidence No. 25), a official document (Evidence No. 26), a copy of the official document of the plan for public design of forest income projects in 209 (Evidence No. 27), a copy of the official document of the decision on granting subsidies for forest drug distribution facilities in 209, a copy of the official document of the decision on granting subsidies for mountainous district distribution facilities (Evidence No. 29, a copy of the official document of subsidies distribution processing facilities for mountainous district distribution, and a list of subsidies No. 329 (Evidence No. 25) related to the original document;

【Preparation of False Official Document against Defendant Kim 00; Presentation of False Official Document; Acceptance of Improper Action and Acceptance of Bribery by Defendant 00】

1. The legal statements of Defendant ○○○ and some of Defendant Kim○○○’s legal statements; 1. The witness O. KimO, MaO, MaO, and GaO’s respective legal statements; 1. The prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Defendant Kim○○

1. Statement of the third police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant ParkO;

1. Each statement of each police officer's statement 3 and 4 times against ○○○, each statement of each police officer's statement, 2 and 3 times against Kim○;

1. Each description of a report based on attachment of a self-written statement on the suspect ○○○ (Evidence No. 7), a report on confirmation of details of financial transactions (Evidence No. 7), a report on the review of an application for the grant of subsidies for processing and distribution facilities for processing and distribution facilities for processing mountainous drugs (Evidence No. 27), a public notice on the decision of granting subsidies for distribution and processing facilities for mountainous drugs (Evidence No. 28), a public notice on the decision of granting subsidies for distribution and processing facilities for mountainous drugs (Evidence No. 29), a public notice on the decision of granting subsidies for distribution and processing

[The delivery part of the delivery of the third-party brain by Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○]

1. The Defendant’s legal statement and the Defendant’s partial legal statement; 1. The witness’s ○○, and Park ○○’s legal statement; 1. The result of this court’s examination of sound and visual CDs

1. Entry of the third protocol of suspect examination of the defendant ○○ in the prosecution;

1. Entry of the prosecutor’s protocol on the NC, entry of the part of the prosecutor’s protocol on the prosecutor’s office’s protocol on the defendant’s SongO (including the part of the prosecutor’s protocol on the defendant’s ○○○) and the part of the prosecutor’s protocol on the prosecutor’s protocol on the defendant’s office

1. Each entry in an investigation report (a full-time examination of affairs in the South Sea and attaching Ordinance on Management of Subsidies) and a reply to a request to provide financial transaction information (Evidence No. 117);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant ○○○○○: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the victim’s morale to the Republic of Korea, Gyeonggi-do, and South Navy: Provided, That the upper limit of the punishment shall be 15 years of imprisonment provided for in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); hereinafter the same shall apply] Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 133(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (including delivery of third-party bribery); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Subsidies; Article 40 of the Criminal Act on the Receipt of Subsidies from the Republic of Korea; Article 30 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Misappropriation; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant ①0, Park ○○: Each of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code Article 40 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Subsidies, and each of the punishments is imposed on the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with more severe punishment. However, Defendant Red O: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code are imposed on the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with more severe punishment. Defendant Kim○-○: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code (the punishment specified on the crime of occupational breach of trust and the violation of the Act on the

1. Selection of punishment;

Each occupational breach of trust, each crime of fraud, preparation of false public document, uttering of false public document, third-party bribery, third-party Bribe Acquisition, third-party Bribery, and offering of bribe shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: The penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, among the concurrent crimes committed in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest punishment provided for in the same Act);

(b) Defendant Kim-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for the most severe punishment);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant Park ○, ○○, and ○: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances among the grounds for both punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant Park ○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (The grounds for both types of punishment, taking into account each favorable circumstances)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant ○○○, Song-○: The latter part of Article 134 of each Criminal Act

[Calculation of Additional Collection Amount for Defendant ○○] 18,017,300 won = 15,00,000 won in Korea + 2,477,100 won in US dollars 2,300 ($1,077 won/$1,000 in foreign exchange banks as of August 23, 2011 near the date of the pronouncement of the instant case + Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel

【Judgment on Defendant 1’s Grounds for Appeal】

1. The assertion;

The project of this case was implemented under the supervision of the Korea Forest Service, and the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Service did not have the authority to determine whether to be eligible to select the subsidized project of this case and whether to grant subsidies to the subsidized project of this case, and Defendant 1 was obligated to receive the application documents when prepared in compliance with the law and regulations. At the time of receiving the application for the selection of the subsidized project of this case, it was nothing more than the approval of the intermediary as an intermediary without accurately knowing whether the project of this case is disqualified.

2. Determination

A. Whether the South Navy has the authority to determine the eligibility to select the subsidized project operator of the project in this case and whether to grant subsidies

According to the public notice of the project for forest income in 2009 and the public notice of the project (Evidence List 23), the purpose of the project in this case is to foster eco-friendly mountain drug plants as clean drug materials in the Korea Forest Service, to promote the commercialization of forest drug plants through training of experts and brandization in order to build the system for collecting, processing, and distributing forest drug plants, and to promote the mountain drug industry. The total project cost is 40,20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

According to these facts, the project of this case was under the supervision of the Korea Forest Service and is final in the Korea Forest Service. However, in order to involve the local expense (50% of the Do expense, 50% of the 50% of the Gun expense) among the project cost, and to ensure carefulness in the selection of the assistant project operator, the Korea Forest Service requires a thorough examination as to whether the requirements for selection are met, compared with the evidence related to the project plan submitted by the applicant to the relevant local government. In conclusion, the remaining Gun, which received the project plan of this case, has the authority and duty to decide whether to select the assistant project operator and to grant subsidies. The defendant YO, the director of the South Maritime Agricultural Technology Center, who was in charge of the project of this case, has the authority to receive the project plan in consideration of not only whether the project plan of this case was prepared simply in compliance with the law, but also whether it conforms with the contents of the plan and whether it conforms

B. Whether Defendant 1 knew that the instant legal entity was disqualified at the time of receipt of the project plan to select assistant business operators

(1) Qualification requirements for auxiliary business operators for processing and distributing medicinal plants

In order to be selected as a subsidy business operator for the processing and distribution of medicinal plants in the mountainous district under the provisions of 209 public notice and public offering plan (Evidence List 23), it is required to be a corporation, business entity, or producers' organization that has been equipped with the production scale capable of supplying raw materials in the mountainous district or in the neighboring area to modernize distribution facilities for the collection, processing, and commercialization of medicinal plants or to be a product producer that can supply them in direct transaction to the re-market or manufacturing company, or to encourage mass consumption. (1) Corporate owners are corporations with short-term income such as farming associations, forestry cooperatives, and local public enterprises, the total amount of investment of which is at least 10 million won, and the amount of investment of one member of the agricultural association is at least 25% after its establishment and the amount of investment of which is at least 5 members of the agricultural association, which is prescribed by Presidential Decree of the Framework Act on Agriculture, Forestry and Food Industry.

(2) Determination

According to the statement of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and some statements made by the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○ was an employee of the Agricultural Technology Center in South Sea, ○○○○ is an working person in charge of the selection of the instant assistant project operator, ○○○○○○○○, the head of Mannam Sea Team, ○○○, the head of the charge, 2), and ○○○○○○○’s ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

According to such facts of recognition, Defendant 1, while the instant corporation failed to meet the qualifications and requirements for the instant project, reported the fact that it submitted the project plan from ○○○○, and received the application with knowledge of the fact, so that it was selected as a subsidized project operator, and it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 was paid subsidies and local expenses despite being aware of the illegality of the subsidies granted to the instant corporation due to its failure to secure self-payment.

C. Therefore, Defendant 1’s assertion cannot be accepted.

[Judgment on Defendant Kim○-○ and Defense Counsel]

1. The assertion;

On August 2009, Defendant 100,000 won, the first subsidy was paid to the corporation of this case, and the head of the environmental agriculture division was transferred to Defendant 1,00,000 won from Defendant 1’s U.S. Forest and Forest in South-west-gun, Kim 100,000 won, and the first subsidy was paid to the corporation of this case, and the first subsidy was paid to the corporation of this case and the first subsidy was transferred to the head of the environmental agriculture division at Defendant 1,00,000 won after the completion of the meal. The Defendant 1 million won received from Defendant 1,000 won since 1,000 won was not considered as an assistant to the business of this case.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial whether or not Defendant Kim○ received KRW 5 million from the Defendant U.S. ○○○, the conviction should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which could lead the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as such doubt cannot be ruled out, the conviction cannot be made unless it is determined. In a case where the Defendant, who was designated as the consignee in the crime of bribery, denies the fact of the bribery and does not have any evidence, such as objective materials to support it, the statement made by the donor and the sender must be admissible as well as evidence, and the credibility should be ensured to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, efforts should be taken into account not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency of the statement itself, but also the interested parts obtained from the statement, and in particular, if there is a possibility of criminal suspicion against him and there is a possibility of criminal investigation or there is no possibility of criminal investigation into him/her, and efforts should be taken into account to the extent that it does not reach 707 times in the following case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 707Do27).

(1) On February 14, 201, ○○○○○○○ has prepared and submitted a self-written statement to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 6 of the instant project, at the time of the instant project, issued 5 million won to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 6 of the instant project, at the time of the instant project’s 6th session, at the time of the instant project’s 10th day of the 6th day of the 20th day of the 6th day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the oral.

(2) On February 16, 2011, at the investigation agency and this court on July 1, 2011, after the investigation on the instant case was initiated, Defendant Park○ stated that Defendant Kim○ stated that he was able to return money to Defendant Kim○ as his dry field located in ○○, Kim○-nam ○○○, and that he was able to say that Defendant Kim○ would return money because Defendant Kim○ did not have any mechanisms for raising money to Defendant Kim○○ at the time.

(3) On March 31, 2009, Defendant U200,000 won and five million won respectively were withdrawn from the agricultural bank passbook under one’s own name.

According to these facts of recognition, although ○○○ issued the second money at an early stage, there was a relatively consistent statement on the background, method, and place of delivering the money. In particular, when the first money is given, ○○○○○ has been placed in the front of the 100 lap of the 10,000 lap of the lap of the 100 lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the 100 lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the 100 lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the lap of the la.

B. Whether the defendant was a bribe on duty

The legal interest of accepting bribery is the fairness of performing duties, the social trust in the performance of duties, and the impossibility of purchasing such duties. Since there is no need to make a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received, it is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in connection with the performance of duties, and there is no need to specify an act of performance of duties. Whether a certain profit obtained by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit in a quid pro quo relationship, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duties, the relationship between a public official and a benefit provider, the degree of interest, the process and timing of receiving such profit, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is under the legal interest of protecting the fair performance of duties, social trust in the performance of duties, and the impossibility of purchasing such duties, it shall be deemed that the public official received money and valuables from the public official and received them from the public official and received them from 100,000,000,000,000 won won or more.

According to the above evidence, Defendant Kim ○ was in charge of the selection of assistant project operator of the project in this case as the director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in South-Nam-gun, and Defendant U.S. received a business plan of the corporation which was submitted on February 13, 2009, and Defendant U.S. submitted on or around February 6, 2009, and there was no operational record of the corporate register of the corporation in this case, and Defendant U.S. did not produce, sell, or process medicine jointly, and Defendant U.S. members of the corporate register of this case did not have any ability to pay self-charges even after being selected as assistant project operator of the project in this case, he received the corporate business plan of this case with knowledge that the corporation in this case did not meet the qualification requirements to be selected as assistant project operator. Defendant U.S., who received the application for subsidies of this case and approved the decision to grant subsidies with knowledge that the corporation did not secure self-contributory charges, and Defendant U.S. ○ received subsidies from Defendant 2006.

In addition, the defendant was selected as a subsidized business operator of the project of this case by the U.S. ○○ who has no special private relationship with the defendant, and received the first subsidy of 2 million won and 3 million won, respectively. This is sufficient to doubt the merit of performing his duties from the general public of society. The defendant U.S. ○ has repaid that he received or received from the defendant in connection with the previous one, and there is no special circumstance that can be viewed as merely an exceptional payment or a private-friendly relationship with the defendant in light of the social norms.

Therefore, the circumstance that the timing of receiving money was already paid the first subsidy to the instant corporation, or that it was after the Defendant was transferred to the head of environmental agriculture division from the forest department of agriculture, and no longer deemed the business affairs related to the instant project, is insufficient to reverse the criminal facts acknowledged earlier, and the funds received by the Defendant should be deemed to have business relations with the selection of the assistant business entity of the instant project.

C. Accordingly, Defendant Kim○-○ and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

【Judgment on Defendant ○○○ and Defense Counsel’s argument】

1. The assertion;

Defendant U.S. ○○’s statement is the sole evidence to acknowledge the facts charged against Defendant U.S. ○○. Defendant U.S. 00’s statement is inconsistent with the source that prepared money in the process of receiving money, the time of delivering money, and the method of delivering money. As such, Defendant U.S. ○○’s statement is not reliable, and Defendant U.S. ○○ did not know about Defendant U.S.’s business conducted by

2. Determination

A. Whether ○○○ received money and valuables equivalent to KRW 18.6 million from Defendant U-○○○

The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the doubt that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction shall not be made unless it is ruled out. In the case of bribery, in a case where the defendant, who was designated as the consignee, denies the fact of the bribery and there is no objective material to support it, the statement made by the lender and the sender shall be admissible as well as credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, it shall be sufficiently examined whether the contents of the statement are reasonable, objective reasonableness, and consistency before and after, as well as their human beings; in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime and there is a possibility that an investigation into the facts charged may be initiated, or if an investigation is being conducted, it is not possible to exclude such doubt; in a case where there is no evidence, such as intimidation or objective material to support it, etc., the following circumstances should also be considered to have influence on the defendant's business and the delivery of money and valuables to the ○○○○○ in a criminal trial (see, 2007).7).

(1) On April 11, 2011, Defendant U.S. stated to the following purport consistently until this Court’s ruling, Defendant U.S.’s U.S. statement to the effect that, in order to deliver an honorarium to assist the prosecutor’s office to receive a subsidy in relation to the instant project, Defendant U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”)’s wife, sought an honorarium at the office of Song-gun’s head office, and provided money and valuables in an amount equivalent to KRW 18.6 million over twice.

around 209.8, around 20.20, Defendant U.S. 1 stated that 00 U.S. dollars were exchanged for 2,300 U.S. dollars before June 19, 209, and that 00 U.S. dollars were delivered together with money and valuables at the time of the second subsidy payment. After requesting the head of the NAF to provide financial transaction information, 00 U.S. dollars 2,30 U.S. dollars 1 and 00 U.S. dollars 200 U.S. dollars 1 and 00 U.S. dollars 1 and 00 U.S. dollars 1 and 300 U.S. dollars 1 and 00 U.S. dollars 1 and 200 U.S. dollars 1 were sent to the head of the NAF at the time of delivery.

As such, Defendant ○ consistently states the specific details, place, and method of delivery of money and valuables provided from the prosecution on April 11, 2011 to this court.

(2) Around August 2009, Ma○○ intended to depart from Germany and Switzerland for the so-called policy shopping on new and renewable energy and environment-friendly agriculture, but at the time, the overseas business trip was cancelled due to the former president's visit to the South Sea of August 25, 2009 and the Prime Minister's visit to South Sea of August 25, 2009. The Defendant's oil exchanged US$ 2300 at the Nam-gun branch of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. Such facts support the statement that the Defendant U.S. ○○ delivered US dollars 2,300 for the use of the money and valuables to Defendant Song○○ for the overseas business trip around August 20, 2009.

(3) As seen earlier, Defendant U.S. stated the process of giving money and valuables to the extent that it is difficult to make a statement without actual experience, such as making detailed statements on merchandise coupon cases and their packaging used when delivering money and valuables to Defendant U.S. ○○○. Defendant U.S. also stated that Defendant U.S. visited Defendant U.S.’s home on two occasions on its own. In addition, Defendant U.S. stated that Defendant U.S. visited Defendant U.S.’s home on two occasions. Defendant U.S. head of Gun left a final decision on the decision to select as the executor of the instant project and receive subsidies. Defendant U.S.’s statement was not given to Defendant U.S. ○○○○. In light of the following, Defendant U.S.’s credibility can be acknowledged.

(4) As to the delivery of money and valuables to ○○○○○○○○○ on August 209, Defendant 1 reversed the first statement made by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was recorded on KRW 10,000,000, and then delivered KRW 3,000 before 20,000 to Defendant 1’s first statement (the prosecution’s statement made on April 8, 201) and then reversed the statement that was paid around August 209. The first statement made on KRW 10,000,000, which was recorded on KRW 10,000,000, which was recorded on KRW 10,000,000, which was recorded on KRW 10,000,000, which was recorded on KRW 10,000,000, which was recorded on KRW 100,000,000,000.

However, even though there was a statement that is inconsistent with the Defendant’s ○○○’s testimony on the delivery of money and valuables, it is only a disagreement arising from the process of making a statement of past facts based only on memorys. Rather, as seen earlier, the money and valuables were delivered, the details of the money and valuables were left, the delivery was made in any way, and the testimony of Defendant 100 on the circumstances in which the U.S. dollars were included in the money and valuables was made, and it cannot be deemed that the contents of the testimony of Defendant 100 on the circumstances in which the money and valuables were included in the money and valuables could not be deemed to be specific, and thus, it cannot be said that the credibility of Defendant 1’s testimony on the delivery of money and valuables is not granted. Accordingly, it is difficult to conceal the credibility of

(b) Whether the person is on duty as a bribe for the remaining Gun;

According to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant Song-○ also stated that he was introduced by the defendant Park Jong-○ to the effect that he was running a drug business, and that the defendant had visited his house on two occasions, and the defendant had attempted to pay merchandise coupons to himself whenever he visited his house. The defendant Song-○ made a merchandise coupon by using the merchandise coupon by the defendant Yu-○○, and the defendant Song-○ stated that "the person who cultivated the her house did not want to do so, and returned the her house to YO" to the effect that "the person who cultivated the her house did not want to do so."

As such, in full view of the contents of Defendant 1’s visit to Defendant 1’s house and the statement of Defendant 100, which had no relationship with Defendant 1’s husband, Defendant 1 should be deemed to have sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 had a relationship with Defendant 1’s husband, who had a relationship with Defendant 1’s husband, and who had a relationship with Defendant 1’s husband, and that ○○ offered money and valuables in relation thereto.

C. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of the defendant's transmission and defense counsel is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant 20

[Scope of applicable sentences] From 3 years to 22 years (calculated by adding 1/2 of the maximum punishment to the long-term punishment prescribed in the crime against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) / [Determination of basic crime] Type of the crime of offering of bribe: The crime of offering of bribe: Where the contents of solicitation are illegal or illegal, or is related to the execution of duties, a special mitigation: A person in a self-denunciation: Where there is a high relevance of duties;

General mitigated: Voluntary reflectors;

Scope of Recommendation: Basic Field, Imprisonment for not less than four months, but not more than ten months;

[Concurrent Crimes] Type of a crime of delivery of third-party acceptance: A bribe crime group, a bribe offer, or a person under a special relationship of Type 1: Where the contents of solicitation are illegal or illegal: A person under a special mitigation: A person under a self-denunciation: Where the relevance of business is high.

General mitigated: Voluntary reflectors;

Scope of Recommendation: Basic Field, Imprisonment for not less than four months, but not more than ten months;

[Standards for Handling Multiple Crimes] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months but not more than one year and not more than three months (in relation to the crime of offering of bribe and the crime of delivering third-party bribery, 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence range of concurrent crimes shall be added to the upper limit of the sentence range)

[Scope of the revised sentencing] Imprisonment for not less than three years (the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria set and the minimum limit of the sentencing criteria set forth in Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set shall be set according to the lower limit of the sentencing range set in the sentencing criteria for the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, and the lower limit of the crimes for which no sentencing guidelines are set is set is higher than the lower limit of the final sentencing range, so the lower limit of

[Determination of Sentence] Three years of imprisonment

Defendant UCC prepared and submitted a false business plan in order to obtain subsidies, etc. with knowledge of the fact that the instant corporation, which it operated, could not be selected as a subsidized business operator of the instant project, and received subsidies and subsidies of KRW 400 million and KRW 200 million upon request from the public officials in charge of the instant project. Moreover, by submitting false documents, Defendant UCC received a loan of KRW 150 million from a start-up business enterprise support fund and received subsidies of KRW 150 million. Moreover, Defendant UCC also provided money and valuables to a third party for the purpose of offering a bribe or providing a bribe to a public official in charge of the instant business. Defendant UCC is a large amount of money obtained by fraud, and a bribe granted to a public official, etc. is not a large amount of bribe, and the amount acquired by fraud is not completely recovered. In

However, the defendant U.S. 00 reflects his mistake in the old age, and there is no previous error, and the crime of offering bribe and the third-party brain delivery are divided into his mistake, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, and the character and conduct of the defendant's care in this case shall be determined by taking into account all the sentencing conditions in this case, including the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, and the punishment as ordered.

2. Defendant’s gambling ○

[Determination of Sentence] One year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution, Defendant Park ○, along with Defendant ○○○, has issued a false business franchise to obtain subsidies and local funds, has acquired false documents by borrowing funds to support start-up enterprises by carrying them, and in view of the fact that the amount acquired by Defendant Park ○○ was a large amount of money, the crime of Defendant Park ○○ is not easy.

However, there is no criminal history, and the substantial management of the corporation of this case is responsible for the defendant ○○○, and the defendant Park ○ does not play a leading role in the crime of this case as the formal representative director, and the defendant Park ○○ is in depth of his mistake, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age and character of the defendant Park ○○, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account all the sentencing conditions in this case, such as the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, and the punishment

3. The defendant's outline ○

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 15 years

[Scope of Recommendation] The crime of embezzlement and breach of trust, Type 3, basic area, imprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years (decision of sentence), Defendant 1 and June of the suspension of execution, and Defendant 10 of the suspension of execution of 2 years as the director of the Agricultural Technology Center at South-west Agricultural Technology Center (the director of the Korea Agricultural Technology Center), knowing that the corporation of this case was unable to be selected as a subsidiary of this case, he received a false project plan, and reported it to the Korea Forest Service via Gyeongnam-do, thereby allowing the corporation of this case to be selected as a subsidiary of this case. Defendant 1, 200 acknowledged that the corporation of this case was aware of the absence of qualifications to be selected as a subsidiary of this case, such as one year has not passed since the establishment of the corporation of this case, but he could not know the exact contents as intermediary of this case, and received a request from the Gyeongnam-do or the Korea Forest Service, and received a return of the application from the public official of this case, and received the social damage of Defendant 10.

However, Defendant 1 did not have the same criminal record with Defendant 1, and the time when the instant corporation applied for the selection of the assistant business operator of the instant project is no longer than one month after Defendant 1 was issued as the president of the Agricultural Technology Center in South Sea, and it appears that Defendant 1 took part in the instant crime even though Defendant 1 did not fully grasp the said business, and Defendant 1 appears to have actively participated in the instant crime. In addition, after considering the motive, means, and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, Defendant 1’s age, character, and conduct, all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the age and character

4. Defendant Kim ○○

[Scope of Punishment] The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than June 22 shall be calculated by adding one-half of the maximum punishment to the long-term punishment determined for the crime of acceptance of bribery after illegal disposal] / [Determination of the basic crime] The type of occupational breach of trust: the category of embezzlement and breach of trust, the scope of recommendation of types 2: the basic area; the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than three years

[Concurrent Offense] Offenses of Illegal Bribery: Offense of Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, and Persons in Special Type 1: Scope of Improper Action Recommendation related to Acceptance of Bribery: The scope of aggravated punishment, 8 months to 2 years.

[Standards for Handling Multiple Crimes] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than four years (in relation to the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of bribery after illegal disposal, 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence range of the basic crime shall be added to the upper limit of the sentence range).

[Scope of the modified recommended sentencing] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year (in cases of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, the lower limit shall prevail according to the lower limit of the range of sentencing in the sentencing guidelines

[Determination of Sentence] One year of imprisonment

Defendant ○○, despite being aware of the fact that the instant corporation cannot be selected as a subsidized business operator, received a false business plan, and reported it to the Korea Forest Service through Gannam-do with the knowledge that it was false in order to acquire subsidies, etc., thereby allowing the instant corporation to be selected as a subsidized business operator. As such, even though the instant corporation was aware that it did not secure self-charges, Defendant ○○○ was able to receive subsidies. In addition, Defendant ○○ had actively participated in the instant crime, such as preparing a false feasibility review protocol so that the instant corporation could receive subsidies. Defendant ○○ actively participated in the instant crime, such as preparing a false feasibility review protocol so that it could receive subsidies. Defendant ○○ was considerably damaged the fairness and the reliance of the public official’s execution of duties, and was related to the execution of duties, and was related to the unlawful purpose of the provision of a bribe, and that it could be avoided even after having received a bribe, it is not good for Defendant ○○○ to commit a crime.

However, with respect to the remaining crimes except for the part receiving a bribe, his mistake is divided, and there is no other criminal record except the fine, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant Kim ○, character and conduct, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in full view of all the sentencing conditions in this case.

5. Defendant sent 00

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than five years;

[Scope of Recommendation] A bribe crime group, offer of bribe, type 1, basic area, imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 4 months but not more than 10 months (general mitigation) delivery, and there is no record of criminal punishment

[Determination of Sentence] 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 1. Defendant 1, the husband, is in charge of the overall duties of the instant business, and Defendant 1 acquired money and valuables worth KRW 18.6 million from 00,000,000, even with knowledge that the instant business was a bribe granted by Defendant 1,000,000,000,000 won. Defendant 1, in light of the fact that Defendant 2 was denied the said money and valuables while acquiring them, and that Defendant 2 committed a crime by using her husband’s status and status as a senior public official, it is not good that Defendant 2’s crime is committed.

However, considering the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age of 00 the defendant sent, character and conduct, family environment, etc., the punishment is determined as per the order.

The acquittal portion

1. From July 13, 2008 to the date of establishment of the Seo-gu Office of the Daejeon District Forest Service, Defendant Kim ○○ is a state public official in charge of the selection of a business operator and the provision of subsidies, etc. related to the instant project in the Korea Forest Service income and the forest management of the Korea Forest Service located in the 189 Government Daejeon Office building. Defendant Kim ○○ received an application for the selection of a subsidized business operator only from a person meeting the qualifications and requirements for application for the instant project, based on the submitted project plan, the certified corporate registry and other relevant evidentiary documents, and subsequently selected an applicant as a subsidized business operator after strict examination, on-site examination, and expert examination and evaluation, and there was an occupational duty to pay subsidies accordingly. Defendant Kim ○○ established a project plan for processing plants of the instant corporation, which was received through the South Navy-gun and Gyeongnam-do around February 13, 2009, and determined that it did not meet the requirements for the establishment and public announcement of the instant corporate registry (206).

On the other hand, in the case that the corporation of this case applied for the recruitment of the "business entity of this case" in the qualification of the "business entity of this case" under the jurisdiction of the Korea Forest Service and applied for the recruitment of the "business entity of this case", the defendant Kim ○ shall select the business entity by any method around that time, using the fact that the "producers' organization" is more relaxed than the qualification requirements for the "business entity of this case" (management performance and capital requirements, etc.), so that the corporation of this case can be selected as the "producers' organization". The defendant Kim Jong-soo arbitrarily changed the qualification of the business entity of this case to the "producers' organization of this case" of this case. At the office of the Korea Forest Service around February 2, 2009 and around 25, 200, 1) the person who applied for the selection of the "OOOOOO" to the "organization's organization (OOOOOOOO)" of this case without revising the 2006 organization formation date of the corporation, 3.

As a result, Defendant Kim ○ issued subsidies of KRW 400 million to the instant legal entity in violation of his duties, knowing that the instant legal entity would incur the same amount of damages to the Republic of Korea of the victim and at the same time, the instant legal entity would receive subsidies by false application.

2. Determination

A. In light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the work performed in the course of occupational breach of trust, an act of breach of trust refers to any act that does not perform as a matter of course an act expected to not perform, or is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course, under the provisions of the statutes, the content of the contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, abandons the fiduciary relationship established with the principal. In determining whether an act of breach of trust was intended to obtain intent or unlawful acquisition in relation to the act of breach of trust, the intent of breach of trust shall be recognized only where it is recognized that such act is an intentional act with the awareness that one’s or a third party would obtain pecuniary benefits (including dolusent perception) and that such act would cause damage to the principal, taking into account the circumstances, such as the process and motive leading up to the act of breach of trust and the content of the duty, contents of the duty, and probability of occurrence of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do810, Jul. 9, 2007).

In addition, in a criminal trial, the establishment of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the degree of confiscing a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of confiscing such conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

B. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

(1) Defendant Kim ○, while working in the Korea Forest Service as a forest management income, was in charge of the instant project, and was recruited twice in September and October 2008 on two occasions in 2009, but did not select a business operator. After January 2009, the instant business plan was received in the Korea Forest Service through the third public offering in January 3, 2009, and the Korea Forest Service was finally selected as an executor of the instant project following the third public deliberation in accordance with the relevant statutes. The instant corporation submitted a business plan to the Korea Forest Service and submitted the certified copy of the corporate register with five members, and the total amount of investment was stated as KRW 200,00,000,000 to the members of the instant corporation, and there was no actual deposit in the name of the members of the association, and there was no actual deposit.

(2) At the time, at the meeting of the Financial Management Inspection Board on December 4, 2008, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which was urgently held as the main source of the loan of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, thoroughly formulated all plans to allow each department, including the Korea Forest Service, to carry out the budget with the budget budget and the immediate budget execution for the promotion of economic promotion and internal control, and as long as it does not violate the law, the plan to exempt the audit and inspection from the duties related to early enforcement was demanded to be promptly executed as soon as possible by devising special measures, and the Prime Minister Public Official Ethics Support Office also issued a public notice that it would create an atmosphere to create an atmosphere, such as exempting the error when actively performing the duties in the Korea Forest Service on January 209.

(3) In order to be selected as a subsidized project operator of the instant project, it is required to be a corporate entity or producers’ organization that can supply raw materials in the growth complex or adjacent areas of mountain medicinal plants by modernization of distribution facilities for the collection, processing, and commercialization of mountain medicinal plants into a large quantity of goods to the pharmaceutical market, manufacturer, etc., or product producer that can lead to large volume consumption, by expanding distribution facilities for the collection, processing, and commercialization of medicinal plants;

(1) A corporate management body shall be a corporation comprised of items subject to business of short-term income forestry products, such as an agricultural partnership, forestry cooperative, and local public enterprise, the total amount of investments of which is at least 100 million won, the actual amount of operation after its establishment is at least one year, the amount of investment by one member shall not exceed 25 percent of the total amount of investment, and the amount of investment by one member shall not exceed 25 percent of the total amount of investment, and the agricultural partnership shall be at least five members. The agricultural partnership shall be a corporation with at least five members.

(4) The corporation of this case filed an application for the selection of assistant operators in the capacity of a corporate body, and the corporation of this case received a letter of business authorization in the Jind Korea Forest Service, which is the qualification of the corporate body of this case, at the time of examining the first documents, and Defendant Kim ○ received the business plan and related evidential documents, and confirmed that the date of incorporation is about February 6, 2009 and five members are the certified corporate register, and the business plan is about 2006 and is different from the certified corporate register of this case since the establishment date is 7 investors. The corporation of this case knew that the establishment date of this case was 206 and it did not meet the requirements of the corporate body of this case since 1 year has not passed since the establishment of this case, the corporation of this case would be changed to the application of assistant operators as the qualification of the corporate body of this case. Accordingly, Defendant Kim ○○-○ of the Korea Agricultural Technology Center of Korea.

(5) At the second on-site examination, Defendant Kim ○○ confirmed the location of the instant corporation’s project site, drug grassland cultivation site, and gathering facilities, and made the project evaluation data of the instant project in order to conduct the third announcement and conduct an expert evaluation. From the evaluation data, Defendant Kim ○ entered in the applicant column as a producers’ organization (OOOOO), the organizational integrity date of 2006, the number of investors, five, and the total number of investors as KRW 200 million, respectively, and entered the business performance of the instant corporation in accordance with the data received from South Seah group.

(6) The review committee members in charge of the final review for the selection of the subsidized project operator of the instant project reported evaluation data and decided to select the instant corporation as the subsidized project operator of the instant project.

C. Determination

It is necessary for the instant corporation to be selected as a subsidized business entity not later than one year after its establishment. It is recognized that Defendant Kim ○ was selected as a subsidized business entity of the instant project on the premise that the instant corporation was qualified as a producer organization and the instant corporation was granted subsidies, even though it did not meet the qualification of an incorporated business entity, and more than five farmers were gathered by jointly producing, selling, processing, or exporting agricultural products, or did not meet the qualification of a producer organization because it did not hold capital of at least 100 million won.

However, in light of the following facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1’s act was intentional on the facts charged. In other words, Defendant 1’s business plan was received through South Sea-gun and Gyeongnam-do. However, in view of the establishment date of the corporate register, it was found that the corporate management conditions should not be satisfied that the number of members recorded in the corporate register and the total amount of investment recorded in the corporate register should be more than one year after its establishment. However, Defendant 1’s establishment date was not known as false, and it was difficult to find that Defendant 2’s establishment date and the total amount of investment recorded in the corporate register were not recorded in the corporate register and that there was no way to select the corporation as a subsidized business operator and to recommend the active business performance and rapid budget execution of the planning office and the Prime Minister’s office office, and it was difficult to find that the corporation did not immediately return this business plan to the Plaintiff’s association, and that there was no other evidence that the corporation did not have any effect on the establishment date of the corporate register in the previous year.

Therefore, as to the fact that Defendant Kim ○ did not confirm the authenticity of the evidence different from the facts and that the corporation of this case can be selected as a subsidized business operator by trusting the contents stated in the business plan as it is, separate from imposing administrative responsibilities or responsibilities under other Acts and subordinate statutes on Defendant Kim 00. It is difficult to view that Defendant Kim ○ was granted subsidies in violation of his duties under the awareness that Defendant Kim ○ would cause property damage to the corporation of this case and inflict damage on the Republic of Korea on the victim, or that the corporation of this case was granted subsidies with false application.

D. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged against the defendant Kim ○ constitutes a time when there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge and assistant judge;

Judges Lee Sung-sung

Judges Park Jong-chul