2011 Highis 269, 2012 Highis136 (Joints)

(a) An unjust disposition after the acceptance of a bribe;

(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(d) Interference with bidding;

(e) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

1.(a) A.O. (610215-1), Public Officials

Chuncheon City of Residence

2.b. ○○ Dong (611230-1), other projects.

Chuncheon City of Residence

3.c. d. d. ○ line (610605- 126171), Company Board

Chuncheon City of Residence

4.C. Park ○ fever (60910 - 1260815), Companywon

Chuncheon City of Residence

5.D. Man (620412-1), Public Officials

Chuncheon City of Residence

6.D. Iso fever (680426-1), public officials

Chuncheon City of Residence

7. D. Of 00, construction business (540124-1),

Daejeon

Long-term iron metal, teared leathers trial

August 25, 2015

○ The Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000, and a fine of KRW 10,000,000, respectively.

2. The above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 per day into one day in a case where the above fines are not paid to Defendant 00,000,000.

3. A collection of KRW 203,861,827 from the Defendant’s highest line and Park ○ fever shall be made.

4. To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to each of the above additional charges on the Defendant’s maximum ○○ line and Park ○○ column, and the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to each of the above fines from Defendant’s leap, ○○ column, and ○○ column, respectively.

5. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of accepting the bribe against Defendant 00, the charge of accepting the bribe against Defendant 00's Lee Dong-dong is not guilty.

Criminal facts

“2011 Gohap269,”

1. Joint criminal acts in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by Defendant Park ○○ or ○○ lines;

Defendant Park Jong-he was employed by the department in charge of the facilities belonging to the Gangwon-do Office of Education from December 12, 1978 to January 1, 1992 as the supervisor of the school facilities construction, and thereafter is engaged in the construction business.

Defendant ○, from January 1, 1980 to September 4, 1992, was employed by the department in charge of the facilities belonging to the Gangwon-do Office of Education as the supervisor of the school facilities construction, and thereafter was employed in the construction business.

While the Defendants established and operated a scholarship construction, etc. for the same occupation, the Defendants solicited the supervisory officials of the school facility construction ordered by the Office of Education to take advantage of the fact that they have a pro rata relationship with the public officials of the Office of Education, so that ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.) located in Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.) may receive the brokerage fees from the representative director of the ○ Construction Co., Ltd.

On April 208, 2008, at the ○○ Construction Business Office located in the 6th floor of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 1271 Geumdong, where the above company representative director among the representative director of the company was working as a public official in the construction of the office of education in Gangwon-do, and there are many public officials in the office of education in the office of education. Accordingly, the above ○○'s consent was proposed as follows: (a) so that the government-funded creative construction of the office of education in Gangwon-do can be ordered to receive the ○ Construction; (b) so that the government-funded creative construction of the office of education in Gangwon-do can be ordered to receive the ○ Construction; and

After that, around June 2008, Defendant 1, at the facility department office belonging to Chuncheon City/Gu Office of Education, solicited to “the design and construction supervision of ○○ Middle School Alum, which is ordered by the Chuncheon City/Gu Office of Education, to design '○○○○ Construction Project' in the creative specifications of '○○ Construction Project', and arranged this 'the construction work to supply creative products equivalent to KRW 130,885,000 to the Chuncheon City/Gu Office of Education on August 16, 2008. On September 9, 2008, Defendant 1 received brokerage fees from the above Do○ Construction to the agricultural bank account in the name of Do○ road, from around 17,800,000 to around 18, 2010, and 3750,757,000 won and 375,000 won as shown in the annexed sheet from around 18, 2010.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to accept money and valuables on the pretext of solicitation on the affairs handled by public officials.

2. Interference with Defendant’s bid by the highest line, ○, 00, 00, and 00,000.

The defendants selected a supplier through a multi-user's 2-stage competition (MAS) tender, and the 2-stage competition with a multi-user's 2-stage competition with a design and construction supervisor's 3 creative business selected by the public official in charge of design and construction supervision is awarded a successful tender by the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the representative director of which ○○ is the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the actual operation of the ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the members of the ○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., which the ○○○ Industry Co., Ltd., the member company of which ○○○ Co., Ltd., the ○○○ Co., Ltd., the member company of which ○○ Co., Ltd., the ○○ Co., Ltd., the 2009.

A. The Defendant’s maximum line, leap, ○, and co-principal’s conduct

around April 2009, Defendant ○○○○ Educational Promotion Agency’s 2-level competition with the ○○○○○ Educational Promotion Agency’s facility construction, which was ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, requested Defendant ○○○○ to select three companies to participate in the tender as public officials supervising the design and construction of the said facility, and the ○○○○○○○ Office, which was ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, requested Defendant ○○○○ Office of Education to select three companies to participate in the tender. Defendant ○○ Office, who was ordered to contact Defendant ○○ among the ○○○

After that, among the defendant ○○, he prepared a list of three companies, such as ○○ Construction, ○○ Construction, ○○ Industries, etc., as a tendering company, and directed the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○ to send the three companies to the subordinate Kim○○○○. The defendant ○○○○○ received from the above Kim○○ State a document file containing the above three companies’ list, and sent it by e-mail to the defendant ○○○○. The defendant ○○○ was sent to the contracting officer for the purchase of the above three companies, who was aware of the above three companies’ list, and the electronic bid was conducted in the presence of only the above three companies.

On April 16, 2009, at the ○○○ Construction Office located in Daejeon, the Defendant made the said Kim○○ Bureau to access the site of the National Foundation of the Public Procurement Service and made 159,670,300 won, which is 198.754% compared to the shopping mall amount under the name of the National Foundation of the Public Procurement Service, and made 160,119,020 won, which is 93% compared to the shopping mall amount in the name of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., each of which is 160,19,020 won, which is 98.93% of the shopping mall amount in the name of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the representative of the ○○○ Industries Kim○, a competitor company, at the ○○ Industries Office located in Jeonju, to select the lowest price as 169%,587,500 won, compared to the amount of the shopping mall amount proposed at the above comprehensive shopping mall site.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to impair the fairness of bidding by deceptive means.

B. The Defendant’s highest line, e-mail, and e-mail

around June 2009, at the 2nd stage competition with the ○ High School Teachers' School Teachers' Changwons' ○○ High School's ○○ School Teachers' Changwons' 2nd stage competition ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, Defendant ○○ is requested to select three companies to participate in the bidding, and Defendant ○○ University requested to contact with Defendant ○○ among the two companies and send three lists of the participating companies.

After that, among the defendant ○○, he prepared a list of three enterprises, such as ○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○, ○○nam Industry Cooperatives (○○○), and ○○ Industry, etc., as a tendering company, and ordered the above Kim○○○○ to send the list to the defendant ○○○○ line. The defendant ○○○ line received a document file containing the above three enterprises’ list from the above Kim○○○ Bureau and sent it by e-mail to the defendant ○○○○ column. The defendant ○○ column sent the above three enterprises’ list to the contracting officer for the purchase of the above three enterprises and sent it to Kim○, who was aware of such circumstances, and had participated in the electronic bid in the presence of only the above three enterprises.

On June 17, 2009, Defendant 202,179,340 won, which is 97.65% compared to the shopping mall amount in the name of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., by accessing the above ○○○ Construction Business Office’s name-based subordinate employees at the above ○○○ Construction Business Office’s office. Defendant 202,179,340 won, which is 97.65% compared to the shopping mall amount in the name of ○○ Construction Co.,, Ltd., notified a female employee on the name of ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and requested a bidding under the name of ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd.). Defendant 208, which was 97.92% compared to the shopping mall amount in the name of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s office’s name, Defendant 208.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to impair the fairness of bidding by deceptive means.

"2012 Gohap136"

3. Violation of the Road Traffic Act by Defendant 1’s maximum line (driving).

On June 17, 2012, at around 18:05, Defendant 1 driven the 50-Gu 4442-free car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.142% while under the influence of alcohol, from approximately 20 meters to the front of the lecopty in the same Dong from the lecopty of the lecopty of the lecopty, which is located in the Yacheon-si, Yacheon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each of the legal statements made by the Defendant’s maximum ○ line, gambling, leap, 00, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, and e-mail;

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○ home;

1. Each police statement;

1. The current status of contracts by the ordering unit of the Gangwon-gu area (the year 2008-2010), details of general transactions, list of employees, and director of a place of business;

In this respect, ACC Statement, Statement of Maximum Account Submission, Account Statement, 2008 to 2010

status of high contract, construction/property expenditure resolution, ○ case register, ○ Construction Corporation register, and fees

The details of the class (the highest line, the Park ○ fever), the ○ Building Business, the ○○-dong Environment Improvement Project, the Quantity Calculation Report, and the Countries

Documents printed out of the current status of creative enterprises registered in a master shopping mall;

1. 21 head of a school photograph;

1. Investigation report (verification of the content of the Internet homepage of the ○○ Construction Business of the company), (No. ○○ Construction Business of the company), (No. ○○ Construction Business of the company), (No. ○○ Construction Business of the company using the upper line), (No. ○○○ Construction Business of the company), (to be attached to materials submitted from ○○○○), (to be attached) (to be attached to the ○○ Construction Business of the Office of Education, the filing of the articles of incorporation and the current status of supply marks), (to be attached to the design services documents, etc. for Changho Construction of the Office of Education of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City), (to be attached to the design documents, etc. related to Changho Construction of the Office of Education of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education), and (to be attached to the design specifications, etc. of the Changho Construction Business of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education);

Part, the next inquiry, the license ledger, and the results of the control of drinking driving;

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. The part concerning the joint principal offense in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by the Defendant’s highest line and Park Jong-ok

A. The assertion

When the Gangwon-do Office of Education concludes a creative supply contract with the ○○ building business operated by Co-Defendant 1, 00, 00 ○○ Construction, ○○nam Aluminium industrial cooperative (○○ building business), etc., as indicated in the attached list of crimes, the Defendants’ receipt of an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the contract amount from Co-Defendant 1 among Co-Defendant 1 does not constitute a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as the price for the establishment and management of windows, not for contract mediation.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1’s highest ○○ line, Park Jong-he received as compensation for each contract amount from Defendant 1’s co-defendant 2 as compensation for each contract amount, whenever a contract for a creative work is concluded between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and ○○, ○○ Construction, ○○○○○, and ○○○nam aluminium Industrial Cooperative (○○○) operated by Defendant 1 and the Gangwon-do Office of Education, and that Defendant 2 received as compensation for the contract arrangement between Defendant 1 and the Gangwon-do Office of Education. As such, the above Defendants’ assertion is not accepted.

① Article 25 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter referred to as the “Local Contracts Act”) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20789, May 21, 2008) provides that a local office of education shall, in principle, select a construction company through bidding, and exceptionally, select a construction company. Under the premise that construction work should be performed at various schools, etc., a specialized contractor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, a public official who is less than KRW 100,00 of the construction cost may choose an enterprise under a negotiated contract. Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that where a private contract is performed, the head of the local office of education shall determine the subject of a negotiated contract by receiving a estimate from two persons, and take into account the estimated price, performance ability, etc. In such cases, the legislative intent of the Local Office of Education prescribed in the Local Contracts Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Local Office of Education’s strict selection procedures in the Local Office of Education Act is to fairly allocate construction works to various enterprises under a negotiated agreement between the above local office of construction contract.

On the other hand, Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits shall be punished under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement for cases or affairs handled by a public official.

(2) When the Gangwon-do Office of Education implements various school facilities construction works in Gangwon-do, the Office of Education first selects a designer through a tender, and then requests the relevant designer to prepare a design drawing, and after ordering the construction work in accordance with the design drawing, the procedure of selecting a construction company is followed. If a public official in charge of the construction of facilities requests a specific construction business operator to prepare a design in the design drawing preparation stage prior to the procedure of selecting a construction business entity, and a new construction business operator makes a design at his/her request, then only a specific construction business operator’s product will be used in the design. The office of education does not select a specific construction business operator with the highest construction cost or ability to perform the construction work among many specific construction businesses in the design process in accordance with the purpose of the Local Contract Law, but only a specific construction business operator already determined in the design stage. In the Gangwon-do Office of Education has a practice to commission a specific construction business operator in advance in the process of performing the construction work, and due to such practice, a public official in charge of construction works in the Gangwon-do Office of Education may actually place an office of education.

③ According to the Local Contract Act, even if a public official in charge of facility construction works of the Gangwon-do Office of Education implements construction works in several circles, he/she cannot freely designate only one specific company as a contracting party, and the most suitable company among multiple companies should be examined and selected. Considering the above selection procedures, a public official may not enter into a construction contract in excess of a “business proposal submission and public relations of the contracting company in favor of the contracting company” in the contents of a “business to receive government-funded construction works.” If a third party directly or through the form of a sales agency contract, directly or formally proposes a business that the local office of education would select a specific construction company as a contracting party, and if a construction contract is concluded between the local government-funded land office and the construction company, it constitutes an unlawful act of receiving or promising the above public official’s payment of expenses under Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-law Act for the purpose of receiving government-funded construction works or private contracts, it constitutes an illegal act of receiving or promising the above public official’s own payment of expenses.

④ Around April 208, Defendant 1, who held office as a public official in charge of the installation works of the Gangwon-do Office of Education, and the highest line agreed with Defendant 2, who held office in charge of the installation works of the Gangwon-do Office of Education, to offer an order for government-funded construction works conducted by the Gangwon-do Office of Education to Non-defendant 2, a creative enterprise, and ○○ Construction, etc., and to offer a proposal to demand payment of the amount equivalent to 10 to 17% of the contract amount when a contract for construction works is concluded with a local office of education. This constitutes a violation of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

⑤ In light of the fact that: (a) Co-defendant 1, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 300,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,000,0.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

2. The part that interferes with Defendant’s highest line, leap, e-mail, e-mail, and e-mail.

A. The assertion

Defendant 1, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 selected two companies using creative products similar to the ○○ Construction Business from ○○ column, and asked Defendant 1 to send three companies’ unit price comparison table from ○○ Construction Business, including ○○○ Construction Business. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not know that Defendant 1 received three companies’ unit price comparison table from ○○ Co-Defendant 1 and sent it to ○○ and ○○○ column, and Defendant 2 did not know that the three companies were designated as bidders.

Defendant 2-A, No. 2, No. 2, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, were designed and designed to reflect the product of the ○○ Construction Business from the time of design, and therefore, Defendant ○○○, which was well aware of ○○ Construction Business due to the lack of physical color, requested Defendant ○○○, who was well aware of ○○ Construction Business, to select three companies as the target of tender, and therefore there was no intention to interfere with the tender.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, it can be recognized that Defendant 00, 00, ○○, ○○, and ○○ Construction, Co-Defendant 2, ○○○, operated by ○○○, and ○○ Construction, operated by ○○ Construction, or selected an enterprise belonging to ○○ Honam Industries Cooperatives, to which ○○○○ Construction, belongs, as a bidding participant. Accordingly, Defendant 2, 00, ○○, ○○○, by adjusting the successful bidder, the successful bidder, ○○ Construction, and ○ Construction, ○○ Construction, was awarded a successful bid.

① When the Office of Education of Gangwon-do selects a creative construction enterprise among the facilities construction, if the amount of the contract deposit for the original construction exceeds KRW 100 million, it shall undergo a two-stage competitive bidding process with multiple suppliers (MAS). The second-stage competitive bidding with multiple suppliers shall be conducted in the way that the enterprise that proposed the lowest price among the three creative enterprises selected by the public official supervising the design and construction works is awarded a successful tender. This is the short point of the existing bidding method, namely, the price competitiveness only becomes the most important standard for the successful bid, and the quality of the original product shall not be examined. In the way of supplementing the two-stage competitive bidding with multiple suppliers, the public official in charge shall select three enterprises most suitable for the execution of the creative construction project through a fair process so that collusion among the participating enterprises does not occur.

② According to the testimony that Defendant ○○ was present at the court as a witness, this is difficult to view that Defendant 2’s testimony was made in charge of Defendant 2’s testimony, taking into account the following facts: (a) from the design stage of creative construction as indicated in paragraph (b) of Article 2 of the judgment, Defendant 2, who is a supervisory official of the Gangwon-do Educational Agency; (b) from the design stage of the original construction to the ○○ Construction Business operated by Co-Defendant 2; and (c) the product specifications of the ○○ Construction Business could be reflected in the design; (d) Defendant 2 selected the ○○ Construction Business as the subject of contract; (e) the contract amount of KRW 100 million; (e) Defendant 3, who introduced the ○○ Construction Business to the Gangwon-do Office of Education, the ○○ Construction Business, the ○○○ Construction Business, the ○○ Construction Business, the ○○○ Construction Business, the ○○○ Construction Business, the ○○○ Construction Business, which was the subject of Defendant 2’s testimony.

The act of Defendant ○○ fever and ○○-type, which designated a construction company as ○-type business and reflected it in the design, and then introduced the ○○-type business to the Office of Education of Gangwon-do, requesting Co-defendant ○-type to designate and request the rest of two enterprises participating in the bidding against the competition of ○○-type, and selecting three enterprises from Defendant ○○-type, without other companies color, as a bidding participant, as a bidding participant by making it impossible for the bid participants to participate in a fair competition. It seems that Defendant 00, 00, ○-type, and ○○-type, as seen above, was aware that the fair competition of the bidders was not achieved during the bidding process.

Therefore, Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

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

(a) The largest shareholder of the defendant: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive referral of bribery, appointment of imprisonment), Article 315 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 44(1) (a) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 315 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant Park ○-up: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of and the fact of the acceptance of the accepted bribery, inclusive, and the choice of imprisonment);

C. Defendant leap, 00, 00, and 00: Article 315 of the Criminal Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of interfering with tendering, the choice of fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○ Line: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the Attorney-at-Law Act which is the largest penalty)

Defendant ○: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty for concurrent crimes as provided for in Article 2(b) of the Judgment with heavier punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant leap, 00, 00, and 00: The penalty shall be collected in accordance with Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act.

Defendant Maximum ○, Park ○-up: The latter part of Article 116 of each Attorney-at-Law

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 2: The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is based on Article 334(1).

1. Legal penalty;

(a) The maximum line for defendant: Imprisonment for six months to seven years; and

(b) Park ○ fever of Defendant: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

(c) Defendant 00,000 won or less of each fine of 7 million won or less; and

(d) In the case of Defendant Lee ○: Fines not exceeding 10.5 million won;

2. Recommendation type on the sentencing criteria: Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by the defendant, his highest ○, and Park ○-up at the time of prosecution of this case.

The sentencing criteria for crimes have not been prepared, and the sentencing criteria for other crimes are also e.

It is not considered in the absence of training. 1)

3. Sentence;

(a) The maximum number of defendants: Imprisonment for three years, 203, 861, 827 won shall be additionally collected;

(b) Defendant Park ○ fever: Imprisonment of two years and six months, 203, 861, 827 won; and

(c) Defendant 00,000 won per fine of 5 million won; and

(d) A fine of KRW 10 million for Defendant’s transfer to Defendant:

4. Grounds for sentencing;

A public official in charge of facility construction of a local office of education shall give an equitable opportunity to participate in construction works to a construction company, select an enterprise most suitable for facility construction, enter into a contract with an enterprise which presents the most favorable conditions to the office of education from among enterprises with the same kind of technology, and shall not waste the budget of the office of education. In order for the public official to implement the foregoing intention properly, the public official shall observe the procedures prescribed in the Local Contract Law and select the construction company fairly.

Defendant 1, who is a public official retired from the Gangwon-do Office of Education, proposed and promised to receive the payment of the consideration to this ○○ among the persons operating the Changho Construction Project, on the basis of the friendship between the supervisory officials of the establishment of the Office of Education and the public officials in charge of supervision of the establishment of the facilities of the Office of Education. Furthermore, the Defendants actually concluded 39 contracts between the Gangwon-do Office of Education and the Do Office of Education and the Do Office of Education, and received the payment of KRW 407,723,655 in total at the same time as the contract is concluded. Such act of taking good offices causes the risk of breaking the trust in the duties of the public official and establishing illegal practices in the performance of the official duties of the official duties. In particular, since the contract payment between the office of education of Gangwon-do and the 00-gu Office of Education and the company operated by this ○, the Defendants’ act of taking good offices should be wasted by the budget of the Gangwon-do Office of Education in addition to the profits acquired by the company.

As a part of the above construction contract mediation, Defendant ○○○○ Office of Education of Gangwon-do and Defendant 1, who is a public official, subject to the list of bidders, issued the above list to Defendant 1 who participated in the bid from ○○○ Office of Education in order to arrange for approximately KRW 100 million as a part of the above construction contract mediation, and actually, to conduct a construction contract between Defendant 1 and a specific enterprise operated by ○○○○ Office of Education and Defendant 1. Defendant 2: (a) Defendant 2, who was a public official, issued the above list to Defendant 1; (b) Defendant 2, who was appointed only the list of the list of the list of the specific enterprises from ○○○○, prior to the successful bid of the specific company, was selected as a bidding participation company; and (c) so, the Gangwon-do Office of Education concluded a construction contract with the particular company arranged by Defendant 2, not the public corporation selected fairly; and (d) as a result, this would undermine trust in the performance of public official’s duties and cause financial insolvency of the Office of Education.

As such, each of the Defendants’ crimes related to the procedure for selecting a public corporation of the Gangwon-do Office of Education is not good.

However, there is a reason to take into account the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendant Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○ in depth, and that there was no history of committing the same kind of crime, and that there was two times of the crime of interference with tender of this case, and thus, it should be reflected in the sentencing.

The sentence against the Defendants shall be determined as ordered in consideration of both the following factors: the person subject to the punishment, and other factors, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the Defendants.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Subsequent to the acceptance of the bribe by the defendant Lee Jong-chul

From July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008, the Defendant served as a public official in charge of designing and supervising school facilities at the establishment of the Dong-dong Office of Education belonging to the Gangwon-do Office of Education from January 1, 2009, and served as a public official in charge of designing and supervising school facilities in the Gangwon-do Office of Education from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2008.

On March 208, 2008, the Defendant was required to construct a multi-family house with a size of 4th floor at cost, without profit, at the hives room for the operation of the Lee Dong-dong, which is located in the head of the Dong-dong, Chuncheon City master's degree 234m, 913-9, Chuncheon City master's degree 913-9, which was trying to be newly constructed to the above Lee Dong-dong.

From March 2008 to August 2008, the Defendant had the above ○ Dong constructed a multi-household housing construction work, and paid only pure construction cost of KRW 223,30,000, such as material cost and personnel expenses excluding profit, and acquired pecuniary profit equivalent to KRW 22,30,00,00, which is the difference between the actual construction cost and the actual construction cost paid, including profit.

After that, the Defendant, a public official in charge of design and construction supervision, who is a public official in charge of planning and construction supervision, cannot make an unjust demand for the design of the construction of school facilities to designate a specific company's creative product. However, the Defendant exercised pressure on the maximum-class certified architect performing the design services of the new construction of a dormitory in the Taecheon High School ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, which was at the time, to design the new construction of a new dormitory in the Taecheon High School, which was ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, for the design of the construction of the new construction of a new dormitory in this ○○dong-dong, and supplied and constructed the construction of the new dormitory at around November 2009 by exercising pressure on the design of the new construction of the 137,

In addition, the defendant, who was in charge of around June 2009, exercised pressure on the design of remodeling construction works by the Gangwon-do Office of Education which is ordered by the Gangwon-do Office of Education, to construct the floor floor structure structure in the amount of 132,860,000 won around September 2009 by means of pressure to design the floor floor structure specifications of the ○○○-dong, which is handled by the ○○○-dong Office of Education.

As a public official in charge of designing and supervising the construction of school facilities, the defendant received a bribe and committed an unlawful act.

B. The offering of bribe to Defendant 00’s consent

The Defendant provided a bribe in relation to the official duties of a public official by granting the above ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2. Defendant Lee Dong-chul and Lee Dong-young’s assertion

At the time of the construction of the multi-family house from March 2008 to August 2008, Defendant Lee Dong-dong introduced to Defendant Lee Dong-dong's Lee Jong-dong's construction work volume of concrete divers construction volume, building and stone construction volume, and it is not deemed that Defendant Lee Dong-dong gave a contract for the housing construction work to Defendant Lee Dong-dong. In addition, Defendant Lee Dong-dong introduced the construction volume as above and paid the construction price to Defendant Lee Dong-dong to Defendant Lee Dong-dong instead of Defendant Lee Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-appellee-

3. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of evidence by a judge, does not mean that a judge’s arbitrary judgment is granted as to whether it conforms to the discovery of substantial truth. Even if a fact-finding judge has a prior right to the determination of evidence, such judgment is subject to restrictions consistent with logical and empirical rules, insofar as it conforms to the basic principles of criminal procedures for the discovery of substantial truth and the guarantee of fundamental human rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3031, Sept. 7,

In light of the principle of public trial-orientedism and the purpose of the hearsay rule, where a person other than the defendant makes a statement different from the statement made at an investigative agency while taking an oath and testimony on the date of public trial, there is an objective material to support the examination in an open court in order to deny the credibility of the free statement made at an investigative agency and to recognize the credibility of the statement made at an investigative agency by going through a teaching examination in an open court and under the burden of perjury. In this case, the judgment of abstract credibility is not limited to the judgment of abstract credibility, and if there is no obvious reason for the change of the statement, it is the principle that the statement should be added to the free statement made at one court while imposing the burden of perjury.

B. Determination of the case

At the time of investigation by the prosecution, the defendant Lee Dong-dong and Lee Dong-dong were awarded contracts to Lee Dong-dong for the new construction of the multi-family house as stated in the facts charged. Lee Dong-dong and Lee Dong-dong continued the above public works and eventually acquired the profit equivalent to the profit therefrom. Lee Dong-dong stated to the effect that if Lee Dong-dong moved personnel to the Gangwon-do Office of Education located in Chuncheon, Lee Dong-dong will then select a material supply company, such as windows and flooring materials, as a government-funded construction company.

However, Defendant Lee Dong-dong and Lee Dong-dong, who appeared as a witness in this court, reversed the statement made by the investigative body at the prosecutor's office, and the said new house construction work was directly executed by managing and supervising the above construction work in Chuncheon at the end of each week, and Lee Dong-dong did not take part in the said new construction work. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Lee Dong-dong was awarded a contract for the new house construction work from Lee Dong-dong, and therefore, even though Lee Dong-dong was contracted for the construction work, it cannot be deemed that it did not incur damages due to its failure to receive profits or gave a bribe to Lee Dong-dong as much as the amount equivalent to its losses, and this ○ Dong-dong also stated to the purport that it cannot be deemed that it acquired property profits equivalent to its profits as a bribe.

In a case where the contents of the statement made at the investigation stage of the Defendants are inconsistent with each other, the credibility of the contents of the statement made at the investigation stage should not be easily acknowledged in light of the principle of public trial-oriented principle and the intent of the hearsay rule. Only where objective materials to support the contents of the statement exist and the credibility is sufficiently recognized, the credibility of the contents of the statement made at the public trial of the Defendants may be denied and the credibility of the contents of the statement made at the investigation stage may be acknowledged.

However, in the case of this case, the witness Lee ○, who worked as a witness at the time of the construction of the instant house, was present in the court of this case, and entered into a contract of construction in direct contact with the Defendant Lee ○, with the introduction of the Defendant Lee ○’s consent, and Defendant Lee ○ was instructed and supervised by the Defendant Lee ○, and Defendant Lee ○ was managing the construction site more frequently and on-site. Defendant Lee dong was viewed as the construction site only once every month except at the time of introduction. However, Defendant Lee dong stated to the effect that the construction cost was received from Defendant Lee ○-dong through Defendant Lee ○

As can be seen, there is testimony consistent with the contents of the Defendants’ statement at the investigation stage, while the circumstances acknowledged by evidence and evidence that conform to the Defendants’ statement at the investigation stage are consistent with the witness’s testimony and appraisal statement that the construction cost of the instant multi-family house will be estimated to approximately KRW 450 million, and the construction cost of the said multi-family house was approximately KRW 2,00,000 to KRW 2,60,000 per square year, and the investigation report that the construction cost of the said multi-family house was KRW 2,50,000 to KRW 2,00,000,000 per square year. Defendant Lee Dong-dong concluded the above multi-family house construction contract with the Do Office of Education established between the Gangwon-do Office of Education and the Gangwon-do Office of Education from around June 208, which was the time of the said multi-family house construction work, and Defendant Lee Jong-dong and Defendant Lee Jae-dong concluded the construction contract with the Gangwon-do Office of Education.

However, according to the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the statement made by the Defendants at the investigation stage only with the evidence and the circumstances alone.

① The appraisal of the construction cost of the instant multi-family house is the price calculated on the basis of the government-funded construction cost on the premise that the construction business operator was awarded a contract for the construction work. In the event that the instant multi-family house construction project is carried out by employing the parts directly as claimed, the said appraisal value shall be deemed the ordinary construction cost, and it is difficult to recognize that Defendant ○○ has newly built a house at a low cost. Unless it is recognized that the construction cost of the nearby multi-family house is the same as the construction method between the relevant construction cost of a house and the instant new house construction project, it is difficult to recognize that ○○, who is the subject of the instant

② Defendant Lee Dong-dong concluded a business agency contract on the condition of concluding a government-funded construction contract at the time when the instant new house construction work was in progress. After the completion of the said new house construction work, Defendant Lee Dong-dong moved into the Gangwon-do Office of Education after the personnel transfer to the Gangwon-do Office of Education, and thereafter Defendant Lee Dong-dong made an illegal solicitation regarding Defendant Lee Dong-dong’s selection of the construction company of Lee Dong-dong. Although there is doubt, this circumstance does not directly support the fact that Defendant Lee Dong-dong constitutes the offering of bribe and Defendant Lee Dong-dong’s acceptance of bribe.

As such, there is no objective evidence or circumstance to support the contents of the statement made at the investigation stage by the Defendants in the investigation stage, the credibility cannot be attached to the statement made at the above investigation stage contrary to the Defendants’ legal statement. The other evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Gangwon-do Office of Education accepted a bribe in relation to the duties of a public official supervising the construction of facilities in Gangwon-do Office of Education by taking advantage of the benefits equivalent to the construction cost saved by Defendant ○○ iron through the construction of a multi-family house in this case, and that the Defendant Lee Dong provided a bribe in connection with the duties of a public official by granting the above construction cost of KRW 22,30,000 for the saved construction cost to Defendant Lee Dong-dong, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged concerning the illegal actions after the acceptance of the bribe against Defendant Lee Jae-chul and the facts charged about the offering of the bribe to Defendant Lee Dong-dong constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Masung (Presiding Judge)

Sheed materials

T. T.T.T.

1) However, according to the sentencing guidelines table as of 2015, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by Defendant ○○, Park Jong-ok is a special key factor (criminal).

The recommended punishment is three to five years in prison due to the reason that the Criminal Administration Act is very poor.