Do 2017 3219 (A) interferes with the exercise of ex officio rights

(b) Preparation of false official documents;

(c) Exercising false official documents;

D. Violation of the Local Public Officials Act

(e) Acceptance of bribe;

(f) Acceptance of good offices;

(g) Offering a bribe;

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

(f) B

Defendant and Prosecutor (Objection to Defendant)

Attorney DDR, DS, and DT (Defendant A) who is a legal entity of D& Q

Attorney J in charge of legal affairs, DU, DV, DW, K, X, L, M, DY, and DZ (Defendant)

B For purposes of Section B

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Do4109 Decided February 8, 2017

May 17, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted as to interference with the exercise of the right to abuse of official authority, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the lower court convicted of the facts charged as to the charge of obstructing the exercise of the right to abuse of official authority (excluding the part not guilty) for the same reason as indicated in the lower judgment. There is no erroneous error by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interference with the exercise of the right to abuse of official authority, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, as to the degree of proof necessary for the recognition of guilt, etc.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted as to the violation of the Local Public Officials Act, it is reasonable to acknowledge the facts charged as guilty on the charge of violation of the Local Public Officials Act on the grounds as stated in the original judgment on the grounds as stated in the judgment below.

At this time, there is no error in matters of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles on the "act of exerting unfair influence" under Article 42 of the Local Public Officials Act, and the legal principles on the degree of proof necessary for the recognition of guilt, such as the assertion of the reasons for appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted, it is justifiable to acknowledge the fact that public prosecution on the receipt of a bribe for the same reason as the judgment of the lower court (excluding the portion of innocence) was guilty. On the other hand, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the receipt of a bribe, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by a prosecutor

A. As to Defendant A’s preparation of a false official document, the fact of exercising a false official document, the fact of obstructing the exercise of ex officio abuse by the members of the work evaluation committee, and the fact of obstructing the exercise of ex officio abuse by the BV and BU’s evaluation of duty

On the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below rendered a judgment not guilty of all the public prosecution facts concerning the preparation of false public document, the exercise of false public document, the interference with the ex officio exercise of the right to abuse by members of the Committee on the Evaluation of Work Performance, and the interference with the exercise of ex officio abuse of the right to evaluation of BV and BU duties. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable. On the contrary, the above judgment of the court below is just. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the crime of conspiracy, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal, or by exceeding the limit of free evaluation due to a violation of the logical and empirical rules.

B. As to the receipt of a bribe by Defendant A and delivery of a bribe by Defendant B

The court below's decision that accepted a bribe of Defendant A for the same reason as the judgment of the court below, and that of Defendant B's bribe

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recognition of the substantial authenticity of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor, or by exceeding the bounds of the due diligence due to violating logical and light power, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to Defendant B’s acceptance of a bribe to Defendant B’s W public officials

The court below shall accept money and other valuables from WW military public officials for the same reason as the judgment of the court below.

In light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of accepting bribe as alleged in the grounds of appeal, such as misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of accepting bribe, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

All appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

[Attachment-dae]

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il