A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), 2017No389

Full name of the crime and name of the ancillary crime: Acceptance of a third party)

(b) Offering of bribe;

1. A.

2.2.B

3.2. C.

Defendant A and Prosecutor

The transfer from the Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-il, Kim Chang-jin (prosecutions and public trials), Kim Jong-Un, Lee Jong-soo, and Lee Jae-won (public trial)

Law Firm Barun (Defendant A)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney O Jae-hun (for the defendant A)

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Silk-si, Silk-si, Sildong, and Dokwon

Law Firm Round (for Defendant C),

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Attorney Lee Lee-soo (for the defendant C)

Attorney Kim Jung-han (for the defendant C),

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gohap981, 2015 Decided January 13, 2017

1049(Joint), 2015Gohap1050(Joint) Judgment

November 2017, 15

All appeals filed by Defendant A and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles1 (Article 3 of the Criminal facts in the original judgment)

The court below found the defendant guilty of the following facts charged has committed a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as follows:

A) Whether to accept illegal solicitation and payment relations

(1) It cannot be deemed that there is a quid pro quo relationship between the Defendant’s performance of duties and the provision of external services opportunities to AA or AG (hereinafter “Z, etc.”) with respect to the resolution of the high-level limitation problem (hereinafter “instant problem”) in the investment volume of KRW 1,40,000,000,000, which was conducted from July 2008 by 1 to 2008 by 1, 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000).

(2) The Defendant only intended to do so when AC first to know the distance of Z, etc. on its own. At that time (round April 5, 2010, around June 7, 2010: hereinafter referred to as “Z and AA”), the instant problem was a situation in which it is definitely expected that the instant problem will be resolved legally and administratively through the administrative consultation and mediation of the Prime Minister Office Administrative Consultation and Conciliation Committee at the time when AB corporation was established (at around July 2010, the AH corporation was established at around December 2010). Moreover, the instant problem was a situation in which I temporarily accepted the proposal of the Ministry of National Defense at the time of the establishment of AB and AH. Accordingly, W’s request through the establishment of AB and AH merely connects the instant problem with the expectation that it would be possible to maintain a smooth relationship with the Defendant to receive the future.

(3) Even if I officers were to find a defendant continuously until the end of 2010, even though the problem of this case was definitely expected to be resolved legally and administratively, it is merely to report to the defendant, who is a member of the local constituency, on the progress or current status of the problem of this case, which is the pending issue of the local constituency, and it does not aim to request the defendant to help solve the problem of this case.

B) In light of the following common perception or understanding on illegal solicitation and quid pro quo relations, there was no common understanding or understanding as to the fact that the provision of I’s I’s 2, etc. to the Defendant and W was a quid pro quo for the execution of the Defendant’s duties in connection with the result of the instant problem.

(1) Not only was not aware of the existence of a company AB and AH, but also did not have received a report from W to the effect that W gave the Z, etc. an opportunity for I services to provide I services. This is due to W’s intent to maintain a smooth relationship with the Defendant and to accept the Defendant’s request even in the future by maintaining the smooth rental of P’s public and rental services, irrespective of the instant issue.

(2) The Defendant heard the pending explanation of the instant issue from the executives, such as V, and recognized that the instant issue is not a matter that could have been supported by himself/herself, rather than a matter that could have been supported by him/her. In addition, the Defendant did not know not only in detail whether AC recognizes the distance of the Z, etc. through I, but also did not have a significant interest in it, and did not receive specific reports on the progress from AC.

(3) AC did not recognize the above request by connecting it with the instant issue at the time it requested that it provide a distance to the Z, etc.. Even if AC was aware of the relationship between the provision of the daily distance to the Z, etc. on the part of I and the Defendant’s performance of duties with respect to the resolution of the instant issue, the content known by AC cannot immediately be directly determined by the recognition of the Defendant. In light of the seriousness of the instant issue and the content requested by AC to W, etc., the provision of the daily distance to the Z, etc. on the part of I would also be deemed as the consideration for the resolution of the instant issue.

(4) W was not in charge of the business related to the instant issue, and was unaware of the progress of the resolution of the instant issue, future plans, etc., and was never aware of the fact that I officers, including V, visited the Defendant for the first time after August 21, 2009 that I continued to find the Defendant and reported. Furthermore, I’s I’s I’s I’s I’s service business, which was ordered by AB or AH, had been in need of business adjustment at the time, was not unreasonably divided from the existing company and provided the business. Even if W was said to the effect that W would make a good request with reference to the instant issue, it is nothing more than a letter that is a customary person in charge of P’s rental business.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below against the defendant (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor,

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The court below found the Defendants not guilty of the following facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows:

A) Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery charge) related to the AD Company, and bribery to a third party (preliminary charge)

(1) Recognition of consideration for illegal solicitation

(A) The problem of this case is not around August 17, 2009, where the J-si Construction Suspension Order was issued, but around July 8, 2009, V, the managing director in charge of the investment planning of investment of facilities of I, visited the Navy Q by the Navy and requested the mitigation of the altitude restriction.

(B) AC’s D/C acquisition issues begin to be discussed again, and finally, at the time when the D/C’s transfer cycle was determined to AC, the statements in BH, AC, BX, Y, BY, BY, X’s investigative agency and court of the lower court were made at the time seven years have elapsed since the occurrence of the instant case occurred, so it is difficult to believe that they were made at the time when seven years have elapsed since the occurrence of the instant case, the time should be set by objective evidence and reasonable reasoning, rather than the statements of the said parties. In full view of the facts recognized by each content of the C/C KK Card usage (Evidence No. 323) and investigation report (Evidence No. 15) (Evidence No. 15) (Evidence No. 15), it is sufficiently recognized that B/Y’s contact with B/Z as having been made on August 209, 209, and that it is sufficiently recognized that B/Y is one of its own commercial parties, and that B/Y was directly ordered before or after the change of its mutual order.

(C) If so, the time when I confirmed that D’s share transfer from the I to AC on or around August 2009 is apparent that the issue of this case was made after July 2009, and therefore, it is recognized that the consideration is that I provided the defendant A with financial profit [the opportunity (the preliminary charge) that I received from D under the name of 1,180,286,190 won (the primary charge) or I’s domestic cargo maintenance (the preliminary charge) by giving D’s solicitation and transfer of D’s share in relation to the issue of this case to AC by the I.

(2) In light of the fact that Defendant A, who has common perception or understanding as to the quid pro quo of the performance of duties, is aware of the fact that Defendant A requested the matter of this case to him in a multilateral situation between I and I, it may be recognized that Defendant C was aware of the quid pro quo relationship between the issue of this case and the provision of this right to AC in light of the fact that Defendant C also solicits Defendant A through X, not an official reporter around October 2009, and instructs X to make a solicitation about the issue of this case and give rise to the transfer of D shares to AC.

B) Even though Defendant B did not participate in the solicitation of each of the offering of bribe by Defendant B (the factual error) on the part of Defendant B, insofar as Defendant B obtained a report from W and knew that Defendant B provided the Z, etc. with I’s external service interest rights to resolve the instant problem, it can be recognized that the provision of the above external service interest rights was a consideration for the execution of Defendant A’s duties. Moreover, W states that the provision of the above interest rights was made with Defendant B’s approval because it was not his own authority.

C) Violation of the Act on the AB and AH on the AB Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to each of the defendant AB corporations [the fact that the defendant was guilty in the primary charge (the part of acquittal in the grounds and the misapprehension

I A bribe granted to Z, etc. is not an intangible benefit, but an opportunity to guarantee a certain amount of benefits, so it is possible to calculate its profits. This is the total amount of money received from AB or AH in terms of benefits, performance money, dividends, etc.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that, upon receiving the illegal solicitation from the executives such as V, etc. to help them resume the construction by resolving the instant problem in connection with the duties of the National Assembly members, the Defendant: (a) let W of the Director of the P Administration, who knows such solicitation, provide Z and AB through AB or AH with a way to enable Z and AA or AG to perform warehouse management services or other main services; and (b) thereby allowing AB or AH to perform the said duties; and (c) thereby allowing him/her to obtain economic benefits as a bribe.

1) Whether the defendant received a solicitation in relation to the instant issue, and whether to recognize business relationship

A) Since I was in a position to suffer enormous economic loss in the event that it is impossible to resolve the instant problem as scheduled, I made efforts to resolve the instant problem under the direction of C president. As a part of this, I reported the instant problem to the Defendant on August 21, 2009, immediately after he was ordered to suspend the construction from J City, by V (the managing director in charge of I facility investment planning at the time) and W (the managing director at the time) who was in charge of P’s work related to the instant issue at the headquarters, and by W (the managing director at the time) who was in charge of P’s work related to the instant issue at the headquarters, and by W (the managing director at the time) who was in charge of P’s work related to the instant issue, and reported the instant issue to the Defendant on several occasions from the end of 2010.

B) At an investigative agency, V received the direction from the C president to set up and resolve countermeasures against the instant problem. Around August 21, 2009, I explained the instant issue. At the time, I explained only the situation, and I sent this fact, and I did not request specific requests. I reported the Defendant’s progress to the end of the month or the second month. At the end of the month, I reported to the effect that I reported to the effect that I would like to find the Defendant with IY and IY on two occasions, and I would like to find that I would not know that I would not know the Defendant’s regular affairs. I reported to the effect that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not know the Defendant’s regular affairs.

C) At the investigative agency, W gave advice to the members of the National Assembly located in the region related to the 0 factory problem to V. Since that advice was made, W, upon request from the head of the office of the district office in which the Defendant’s JJ office, set the hours of visit, and thereafter, I sought the Defendant along with V, around August 21, 2009, explained the instant issue to the Defendant. At the time, V was mainly aimed at recognizing the Defendant’s accurate understanding of the instant issue. At the time, the term “the instant problem ought to be resolved technically and cannot be resolved politically.” At that time, the Defendant sought the Defendant once together with V, and thereafter, the Defendant did not find the Defendant in relation to the instant issue.”

D) The president of the IY had been involved in the investigation agency by stating that “The problem of this case was not that he had been in charge from the beginning, but it was not sufficient to respond to V, which was in charge of the duties at the time of C around December 2009. During that process, he was only a member of the National Assembly NF Committee, a former member of BC, etc., and the defendant was found from V on December 2009, when he received a request from V to receive a delivery and explained that he would find the defendant. At that time, V was the same as the defendant at that time, and he was the first time. It was said that V was called “I was only before the defendant from the part of the defendant?” However, it was not clear that he did not know that he was a member of the National Assembly to the effect that he was not in charge of the flight problem at that time?

E)On December 21, 2009, the Director-General of Labor Out-of-the-Counter (or Office X) stated at an investigative agency that "the C Chairperson sought an explanation about the issue of this case" and that "I think that C was not in charge of the issue of this case but in charge of the work outside of the Republic of Korea" at the time, "I think that I would like to take the issue of this case". At the time, I stated that C was unable to properly report the confusion that "I would like to take part in the external activities of I would like to take part in the external activities."

F) On June 21, 2010, the Defendant requested the Ministry of National Defense to submit a report on the instant matter to the high-ranking public officials of the Ministry of National Defense and received a report on the instant matter from the public officials of the Ministry of National Defense.

G) On July 30, 2009, the Q Q former part, despite the request for mitigation of 1's height restriction, demanded the Jsi to restore the instant construction project to its original state, such as cancellation of construction permit, suspension of construction, removal of violated facilities, etc. On the other hand, around September 30, 2009, it continued to maintain a strong position of the Ministry of National Defense, such as refusing the request for consultation between J-si and I on the ground that this factory is not an illegal building, and demanding restoration to its original state at J-si on May 31, 2010. The Ministry of National Defense also could not resolve the instant problem by relaxing the restriction to the Prime Minister administrative consultation and mediation committee of the Prime Minister through J-si, and it was possible to review the position that it was possible to solve the illegality of the instant case by preparing measures to resolve the illegality of the instant construction project. Moreover, the National Assembly also criticized the attitude of the Ministry of National Defense to point out the pending issue of the instant construction project and criticize the attitude of the Ministry of National Defense.

H) Around June 2010, JJ applied for administrative consultation and coordination to the Prime Minister’s administrative consultation coordination committee with respect to the instant issue through the Prime Minister’s administrative consultation and coordination committee. On January 18, 2011, the Ministry of National Defense, J City, and I accepted the decision of coordination of the Prime Minister’s administrative consultation and coordination committee and completed the instant factory on March 201, 201, following the mitigation of altitude restriction.

I) As seen earlier, from August 21, 2009 to May 201, 2010, I continued to find the Defendant and reported the progress and pending issues related to the instant issue to the end of 2010, it was necessary for I to change and cooperate with the military forces with authority related to the mitigation of high restriction from the point of view of I. For this purpose, it appears that BE party’s SP as a member of the National Assembly in active duty service and BB’s friendship with a considerable political and social influence, and it is reasonable to view that I would not simply request the help of reporting the regional pending issues, but rather request the help to do so.

(j) In addition, the Defendant did not refuse I to continuously find himself/herself, but rather did not introduce members of the N Committee while continuing to contact with I, and around June 2010, the Defendant requested the Ministry of National Defense and received a business report related to the instant issue from the senior public officials of the Ministry of National Defense. Although the Defendant did not request I to perform specific and specific duties for resolving the instant issue from I executives, the Defendant also recognized that I executives continued to find himself/herself and reported the progress of the instant issue to I to help him/her to resolve the instant problem.

(k) Meanwhile, the Defendant had the authority to criticize and control the policies and actions of the administration as a member of the active duty as a member of the National Assembly at the time. ② The issue of this case was the most urgent issue of the large enterprise located in the Defendant’s local constituency. ③ In order to solve the problem of this case, it was necessary to persuade and cooperate with the government-related ministries, such as the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Defendant continued to introduce members of the N Committee to the I executives upon request from the I executives in relation to the result of the problem of this case. On June 2010, the Defendant was requested to the Ministry of National Defense and received a business report related to the problem of this case from the senior public officials of the Ministry of National Defense. In light of the above, the Defendant’s execution of duties related to the resolution of the problem of this case should be deemed to have a close relationship with the Defendant’s statutory and de facto authority, and it should not be deemed to have been affiliated with the N Committee by up to 208.

2) The Z from 2005 to 201, as the Secretary General of the BG Federation, the person in charge of the president of the BG Federation from 201 to 201, has tried to engage in an election campaign by the defendant by making the defendant participate in the events or events of the BG federation, or by requesting the defendant to support the believers of the inspection whenever a member of the National Assembly is elected. As a one-year period of the defendant's high school, the AI has been aware of it for a long time as the defendant had worked together at the time when the defendant works in BA, and has tried to engage in an election campaign by the defendant for each member of the National Assembly. AG is the fraud of the AI.

나) 피고인은 수사기관에서 "J은 불교가 센 지역이라 선거운동을 하는 과정에서 불교단체 회장인 Z을 만나게 되어 알게 되었다. Z은 원래 가구점을 운영했었는데 어려워서 불교 쪽 사람들이 수년 간 저에게 좀 도와주라는 부탁을 했었다. H대 총선을 위해 선거운동을 할 때부터 J의 스님들이 단체로 몰려와서 저와 AC에게 Z을 도와주지 않으면 선거 때 안 찍어주겠다는 식으로 협박 아닌 협박을 해서 저와 AC가 계속 미루고 있었는데, 언젠가 AC가 알아서 처리하겠다고 해서 제가 알아서 하라고 한 적이 있다. AI로부터도 평소에 경제적으로 어려우니 도와달라는 부탁을 계속 받고 있던 중에 AI가 제 선거운동 때 많이 도와 준 사람이라 제가 AC에게 AI를 좀 도와주라고 한 적이 있는데 그래서 아마 AC를 통해 AI가 AH을 운영하게 된 것 같다"고 진술하면서, AC에게 Z과 AI를 도와주라고 말한 적은 있지만 를 언급하면서 I를 통해서 Z과 AI를 도와주라고 말한 적은 없다고 진술하였으며, 원심 법정에서도 같은 취지로 주장하였다. 다) 그러나, ① AC는 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 피고인이 자신에게 I를 명시적으로 언급하면서 I를 통해 Z과 AI를 도와줄 것을 지시하였고, 그 과정에서 피고인의 고종사촌인 AA도 함께 도와줄 것을 지시하였다는 취지로 구체적으로 진술한 점, ② 피고인은 AC에게 Z과 AI를 도와줄 것을 지시하기 이전인 2008. 5.~6.경에도 I 출신으로 당시 자신의 정책특별보좌역을 담당하였던 BH에게 "니가 [출 신이니 I 관계자를 통해 AC가 먹고 살 수 있는 방법을 찾아봐라"는 취지로 지시한 적이 있었고, 이에 BH이 I 측에 AC를 도와달라는 취지로 부탁하여 AC가 I 측 관련 회사 (D)를 운영하게 되었었는데, 피고인은 AC에게 Z과 AI를 도와줄 것을 지시할 당시 AC가 위 회사를 운영하고 있다는 사실을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피고인은 수사기관에서 AC에게 를 언급하면서 I를 통해서 Z과 AI를 도와주라고 말한 적은 없다고 진술하면서도 AC가 I를 통해 도와주지 않겠냐는 짐작은 했다고 진술하였고, 또한 "정확한 시기는 기억나지 않지만 2010년 초경 AC가 Z과 관련된 일을 진행하던 중에 자신이 AC에게 'Z이 일을 할 수 있게 되면 AA이도 좀 찡가 주고 도와주면 좋겠다'고 말한 사실이 있으며, AA은 자신의 고종사촌 동생인데, AA이 처 AF 명의로 AB 지분권자로 참여한 사실도 알고 있다"고 진술한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 자신의 J 지역구사무소 사무소장인 AC에게 I를 언급하면서 I를 통해 과 AI를 도와줄 것을 지시하였고, 그 과정에서 피고인의 고종사촌인 AA도 함께 도와줄 것을 지시하였거나 적어도 Z 등을 도와주라는 자신의 지시를 받은 AC가 I를 통해 Z 등의 일거리를 알아볼 것이라는점을 잘 알고 있으면서도 이를 묵인함으로써 승낙한 것으로 인정할 수 있다.

3) In light of the following circumstances, as long as the execution of duties by the defendant related to the resolution of the problem in this case is related to the provision of daily distance on the part of the defendant 2, etc. to the first side of the 2, etc., the request that the defendant received from the I officer to the effect that the defendant will help solve the problem in this case constitutes "illegal solicitation in the crime of bribery to a third party." It can be recognized that the head of the P and the head of the P and the head of the P and the head of the P and the head of the P and the head of the Gu who participated in the provision of daily distance on the part of the defendant and the I executive officer with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant's solicitation against the defendant was well known, there was a common understanding or understanding

A) The time when the defendant demanded that the Z, etc. be provided on the part of the I.

(1) On July 6, 2010, Z and AA established AB, and around that time entered into a warehouse management service contract with I and performed the duties of outsourced services for warehouse management. AG established AH on December 15, 2010, and entered into a waiting measurement service contract with P and performed the duties of main services outside the standby measurement.

(2) At the investigation agency and the court of the court below, AC received the direction from the defendant that "Z may receive the work from I" before two to three months prior to the establishment of AB, and thereafter, AA also received the direction from the defendant that "Z will not mixed with AD, and there is no weak value between AD and AD." In the case of AG, which is a fraud of AI, I would like to be difficult for the defendant to get a "AI vessel" from the defendant 2 to three months prior to the establishment of AH, so I would like to find it difficult to get a "AI vessel."

(3) At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, W of the P administration stated that the defendant should help the person who is Z and the defendant will be given the notice that he will be Z, and that he will be able to make a good decision if he will do so, and that he will be given a good decision after AC received a request from AC, and that the defendant would be able to receive one more of the defendants. At the time, AC did not request the Z, and it again received the above request.

(4) The Director B received a report from the investigative agency that “A person who assisted the Defendant’s work” from W around April 5, 2010, and requested that the person who could be allowed to be allowed to be allowed to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be

(5) 피고인은 수사기관에서 "정확한 시기는 기억나지 않지만 2010년 초경 AC가 Z과 관련된 일을 진행하던 중에 AC에게 '이 일을 할 수 있게 되면 AA이도 좀 찡가 주고 도와주면 좋겠다'고 말한 사실이 있다"고 진술하였다.

(6) In light of the above circumstances, the time when the Defendant directed AC to help the Z through I while referring I to I is around April 5, 2010, which was 2-3 months prior to the establishment of AB, and the time when the Z instructs AC to help the AB along with the Z before July 2010, which was established by the ZB, and the time when the Z instructs AC to establish AB to help the AI, and to enter into a service contract between AB and to provide services, or between June 7, 2010 and June 7, 2010.

B) The progress, etc. of the instant issue before and after the time when the Defendant requested to provide the whole distance of Z, etc. on the part of the I

(1) The point at which the Defendant ordered AC to assist the Z through I is around April 5, 2010. The former sentence of Q Q and Ministry of National Defense in the Navy continued to have a strong position on the instant issue by demanding BC to re-examine the measures for recovery of the illegality and re-examine the instant case by relaxing the restriction through relaxing the restriction to the Prime Minister Office Administrative Consultation and Conciliation Committee by June 2010, through J City.

(2) The time when the defendant ordered AA and I to help AC through I is established when he applied for the administrative consultation and mediation to the Prime Minister's administrative consultation and mediation committee on June 7, 2010, which was immediately before or after the J city, but the above administrative consultation and mediation is established when he accepts the mediation decision with the Ministry of National Defense. Thus, just because the defendant applied for the administrative consultation and mediation, it cannot be concluded that the previous position of the military on the instant issue was changed or that the instant problem is definitely expected to be resolved legally and administratively through the administrative consultation mediation. In fact, the administrative consultation and mediation committee of the Prime Minister made a mediation decision regarding the instant issue on January 18, 201, and around that time, the problem of high restriction was resolved by accepting the above mediation decision by the Ministry of National Defense, I and J City.

(3) At the time when the Defendant instructed AC to assist the Z etc., on the one hand, the Defendant was constantly receiving reports on the progress and pending issues related to the instant issue from one executive officer, and was constantly receiving a request to the effect that it would assist in solving the high-level restriction problem.

(4) At an investigative agency’s request, V made a statement to the effect that “I report to the Defendant almost every month, except that I would have been found to be a member’s room until the end of 2010.” After reading the report related to the instant issue (Evidence Nos. 138 through 142), I appears to have been written by the Prime Minister on May 20, 2010 to have been written from May 28, 2010 to May 28, 2010 (Evidence No. 138), and on November 5, 2010 to have been written by the Prime Minister on June 18, 201, Defendant V appears to have been written at 16th anniversary of the fact that I reported to the effect that I would have been prepared by the Prime Minister on June 24, 201 (Evidence No. 139), and that I would have been continuously written by the Prime Minister on the No. 10654, Dec. 16, 2010>

(5) On June 21, 2010 and June 21, 201, after I applied for the administrative consultation and mediation to the Prime Minister Office Administrative Consultation and Conciliation Committee through J-si, the Defendant requested the Ministry of National Defense and received a report on the work related to the instant issue from the public officials of the Ministry of National Defense.

(6) In light of the above circumstances, even from April 5, 2010 to June 7, 2010 where the Defendant directed AC to assist the Z, etc. through I, the instant problem still remains unclear, and from I, it was a serious and urgent issue, and from the point of view I, there was a need for a transition and cooperation with the military forces with the authority to mitigate high level restrictions. In order to resolve high level restrictions, it was necessary to understand and cooperate with the government-related ministries, such as the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, through J City, to support the resolution of the instant problem. Moreover, I can find that I continued to find the Defendant until the end of 2010 after having applied for the administrative consultation coordination to the Administrative Consultation and Conciliation Committee through J City to the effect that I tried to resolve high level restrictions problems while reporting the progress and pending issues related to the instant problem.

C) Illegal solicitation and quid pro quo relations, and common perception, understanding, etc. on them.

(1) As seen earlier, at the time when the Defendant requested the I to provide the distance of Z, etc. on the part of the I via AC, on the one hand, the Defendant was constantly receiving the request from the I executives to the effect that the Defendant would assist in solving the problem of this case after receiving a report on the progress and pending issues related to the problem of this case.

(2) At the time of the progress or discontinuance of the instant construction, W was not only the head of the P administration at the time of the commencement or discontinuance of the construction, but also the I had been aware of not only the fact that the instant problem was a serious pending issue at the time of receiving the Defendant’s request through AC to provide daily distance on the Z, etc., but also the fact that I continued to request the Defendant to help and help resolve the instant problem, as I would like to find the Defendant through AC’s main line on August 21, 2009, immediately after I received the order to suspend the construction of the instant case.

(3) W was well aware of these circumstances, upon acceptance of the Defendant’s request through AC, and offered the Z, etc. with an opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of the services by giving the Z, etc. aB or AH to perform the services.

(4) As such, in the event that the Defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, has been continuously receiving the above request from the I executives, demands that the Defendant provide one-way distance to his side or relative, etc., and W, knowing such circumstances, would be sufficient to doubt the fairness of the execution of duties from the general society.

(5) Even if the Defendant’s statement was based on the Defendant’s investigative agency and the court of the court below’s trial, the Defendant continued to receive request from AC to assist Z and AI in solving the instant problem. However, as the Defendant continued to receive the request from I’s executives for the help and help to resolve the instant problem, the Defendant requested I to provide a distance on the front line, etc.

(6) 또한 피고인은 수사기관에서 "AC가 Z과 관련된 일을 진행하던 중에 자신이 AC에게 'Z이 일을 할 수 있게 되면 AA이도 좀 찡가 주고 도와주면 좋겠다'고 말한 사실이 있고, AA은 자신의 고종사촌 동생인데, AA이 처 AF 명의로 AB 지분권자로 참여한 사실도 알고 있다"고 진술하였는바, 피고인은 그와 관련된 I 내부의 구체적인 절차나 자세한 사정까지는 몰랐다고 하더라도 자신의 Z 등에 대한 일거리 제공 요구를 I측에서 들어준 사실은 알고 있었던 것으로 보인다.

(7) AB, etc. established by the Z, etc. without experience in performing the previous duties by removing part of the outsourcing services from companies (AE and AJ) which were normally performing I’s work, and W, even though not only was the major pending issues at the time of the instant problem, but also was well aware of the fact that I’s request was made by the Defendant to resolve the instant problem, it cannot be deemed that W, a member of the active duty service, who is a member of the National Assembly located in the district in K where I’s area, was merely a motive irrelevant to it, and that W, a member of the National Assembly in active duty service, would be in favor of the Defendant in connection with the future one’s work, accepting the Defendant’s demand and allowing him to perform the external service in a way that is unreasonable as above.

(8) 실제로 W은 수사기관 및 원심 법정에서 "자신이 AC로부터 AB, AH의 외 주용역 수주와 관련한 부탁을 받을 당시 AC에게 여러 차례에 걸쳐 피고인에게 이 사건 문제가 잘 해결될 수 있게 도와달라고 부탁드려 달라고 이야기 했고, B 소장에게 AC로부터 부탁받은 경위를 보고하면서도 '이 사건 문제가 현안으로 걸려 있는 상황이니 부탁을 들어주어야 될 것 같다'는 취지로 보고를 하였으며, 이 사건 문제를 해결하기 위해서 피고인 측의 요구를 들어줘야 되겠다는 생각도 하였다"고 진술하였다. AC도 수사기관 및 원심 법정에서 "W으로부터 이 사건 문제와 관련하여 피고인에게 잘 말해 달라는 부탁을 받았고, 이에 자신이 피고인에게 '0 공장 그 문제 (부탁)합디다'라고 하면서 W의 부탁을 전달해주기도 하였으며, 자신의 말을 들은 피고인이 '이 양반들이 이제 답답해 놨구나'라고 말한 것이 기억난다"고 진술하였다.

(9) In addition, in the investigation agency B, “the problem of this case was the first concern within the AS group.” It stated that “I cannot take the first demand because W sent the Defendant’s request to the Defendant and explained the reasons for the request to resolve the problem of this case to him.” The Defendant’s request to the Defendant was reported to the effect that I would not take the first demand. From the point of view, I did not seem to have been resolved when I knew that I would have been aware of the fact that I would have received the report of this case to the effect that I would not have been able to receive help from the Defendant, and that I would have been aware of the fact that I would have received the report of this case to the effect that I would not have been able to resolve the problem of this case. Furthermore, I would have been aware of the fact that I would have received the report of this case to the effect that I would have been an immediate superior at the time of the request to the effect that I would have received the report of this case from the Defendant.”

(10) Common perception and understanding on the fact that giving the Z, etc. an opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of the duties in P is a consideration for the performance of the duties in the Defendant’s, and that it is sufficient that there is common existence between the Defendant and the Defendant, who received an unlawful solicitation in connection with the performance of the duties in question, and the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request, have provided an opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of the duties in P at the Defendant’s request, even if not an I made such a solicitation. Furthermore, the recognition and understanding on the above quid pro quo relations between the I and the I officers who participated in the provision of money and valuables in the performance of duties in return for the performance of duties in question to a third party is not necessarily necessary.

(11) In full view of the circumstances above, even though the defendant did not request the first executive officer who was requested by the defendant to provide the distance to the Z, etc. directly with respect to the problem of this case, the defendant was sufficiently aware that the first executive officer of this case, who was requested by the defendant to provide the distance to the Z, etc., was related to the resolution of the problem of this case, as long as the defendant requested the first executive officer of this case through AC to provide the distance by 2, etc. under the circumstance that the former executive officer of this case was continuously requested by the defendant in connection with the problem of this case, and during that process, the first executive officer of this case, who was requested by AC to provide the daily distance to the Z, etc., was in receipt of the request by the defendant to provide the distance to the Z, etc., and the second executive officer of this case, who received the request by the defendant through AC, did not provide the financial benefits to the defendant for resolution of the problem of this case by requesting the third executive officer of this case to provide the service.

Therefore, as long as the defendant's execution of duties related to the resolution of the problem of this case is related to the first provision of distance to 2, etc. on the part of the defendant's execution of duties related to the resolution of the problem of this case, so long as the defendant's request to the effect that he would help solve the problem of this case from the first executive officer, at least since the time when the defendant requested W through AC to provide daily distance to the Z, it can be seen as "illegal solicitation" in the crime of giving and receiving third-party brain drugs (it can be deemed that from the time of the above change into "illegal solicitation" even if the previous solicitation did not have a quid pro quo relationship), it is possible to offer 2, etc. an opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of duties in P to give the opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of duties in P to the fact that the first executive officer has a relationship with the defendant's execution of duties in favor of the defendant. It can be said that there was common perception or understanding between W and the defendant.

B. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court along with the circumstances determined by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that there was a common understanding or understanding between W and the Defendant, who participated in the Z, etc. in providing opportunities to obtain economic benefits through the performance of P services in favor of the Defendant with respect to the fact that I executives provided the opportunity to obtain economic benefits through the performance of the P services in favor of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is in relation to the duties of a member of the National Assembly.

In receipt of an illegal solicitation from executives of V, etc. to the effect that the construction can be resumed by resolving the problem of this case, it may be recognized that the head of the P Administration, who is aware of such solicitation, provides the Z, etc. with the opportunity to obtain economic benefits therefrom, as a bribe, by allowing the head of the P Administration, who knows such solicitation, to perform the P administration services.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there was a mistake of fact or a misunderstanding of legal principles. The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles

1) The Defendant’s defense counsel asserts to the effect that: (a) executives, such as V, continuously found the Defendant in connection with the instant issue; (b) no request was made with respect to the resolution of the instant issue while continuing to find the Defendant; and (c) merely reported the instant regional pending issues; (d) at the time, the instant issue [in an urgent and serious pending issue; (b) the Defendant was a member of the SP who was a member of the National Assembly at the SP; (c) was engaged in political and social influence that was friendly to BB at the time; and (d) simply for the purpose of reporting the progress of the instant issue to the Defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly located in the local constituency located in I, other than the managing director or the IY president, who is the person in charge of the instant issue, to X, who is the head of I’s office outside of the instant I’s labor affairs, which is not related to the instant issue, it seems unnecessary to find the Defendant’s report of the number and timing of reports by I executives; and (c) the Defendant’s expectation to be reasonable and expect to resolve the Defendant’s role.

2) In addition, even if the execution of duties subject to solicitation is not illegal or unreasonable, if a solicitation is made to connect the relevant performance of duties with a certain consideration relationship and to deliver a price for the performance of duties, it constitutes an intentional or unjust solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7503, Sept. 8, 2011). Thus, it is sufficient to deem that one officer’s request that the Defendant resolve the issue that would not have been resolved under the original legal and administrative influence by using the Defendant’s political and social influence rather than requesting the Defendant to resolve it by taking advantage of the Defendant’s political and administrative influence. However, as part of the lawful performance of duties as a member of the National Assembly as a local constituency, it is sufficient to create a public opinion with regard to the instant issue so that the instant issue can be resolved well and that the proceeding can be smoothly conducted in the future, and as long as there is a delivery of the price for the performance of duties by connecting with a consideration relationship, it can be deemed that the third party acceptance is a solicitation.

3) In such circumstances, the Defendant requested AC to provide the distance of Z, etc. on the part of I twice through AC. In light of the importance of the instant issue, which is the pending issue at the time, the Defendant appears to have been unable to easily refuse the Defendant’s request in W and B on the part of I, and the Defendant could not easily refuse the request at his request in connection with the instant issue.

4) In addition, even if the Defendant requested WT, who is the vice president of P through the neighboring AC, rather than directly requesting the executives of I, such as V who sought her own, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the executives of I as the other party rather than recognizing the individual executives of V or W as the other party. Therefore, it seems that the Defendant did not separately recognize WT, etc. for which she sought her own request through V or AC.

5) In the court of the first instance, W explained to the effect that “AC was a major issue at the time of the instant issue,” and that “AC was the Defendant’s request for the provision of interest coupons, and provided AB, etc. interest to the Defendant’s side under the recognition that it would be better to assist various civil petitions including the instant issue, not only the instant issue, but also to assist the Defendant.” In light of the above statement, W did not have an active intent to provide the Z, etc. with an opportunity to assist in resolving the instant issue by giving the Defendant’s request, rather than having provided the Z, etc. with an opportunity to assist in resolving the instant issue, W did not appear to have been aware that the instant issue was a serious pending issue at the time of the instant issue and that the Defendant would have been able to assist or in the future with respect to the instant issue at the time, so it was not possible to refuse the Defendant’s request, and solely on such basis, it could not be seen that there was an opportunity for the executives to provide the opportunity to provide the Z, etc. with the opportunity to resolve the instant issue.

6) Meanwhile, on July 2010, the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the proposal of the Ministry of National Defense was provisionally accepted and that the problem of this case in the future would have been anticipated to be completed legally and administratively. However, in consideration of the complexity of the problem of this case and the seriousness of the case, it is difficult to conclude that the resolution of the problem of this case in the future has become virtually final and conclusive at the time of the I, and that it was no longer necessary to assist the defendant. In addition, since the I appears to be very important not only in the establishment of the conciliation but also in the time of the formation of the conciliation (the prompt resumption of the construction of this case was considered as important from the point of view of I), it is difficult to view that there was any change in the situation that I excluded or removed the existing solicitation of the defendant on the part of the I at that time).

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the facts charged around brains) related to Defendant A, and bribery to a third party (the fact that the facts charged are preliminary charges, and the fact that the offering of a bribe by Defendant C (the misunderstanding of legal principles

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone provided A an opportunity for BI to take over D’s equity interest to AC, an external service company, according to the approval of the Defendant C, etc., for the resolution of the instant problem, and further, it was difficult to conclude that there was a common perception or understanding between the Defendant A and the Defendant C, etc. with respect to the fact that giving the opportunity to take over D equity interest to AC was a consideration for the execution of the said duties.

A) The relationship between Defendant A and AC, and BH

(1) Defendant A had been working in the office of the head of the organization or the head of the district office in Defendant A’s J local constituency for a period of 24 years from around the E year in which Defendant A had been in office as a member of the National Assembly to G year, and provided considerable assistance in the management or election campaign of Defendant A’s local constituency, and when Defendant A was landed to J as a local constituency, Defendant A had a certain period of time and performed duties directly.

(2) On June 1995, BH won elected as a member of the Do Council and held office until 1998. On June 2002, 2002,CC was elected as a member of the Do Council and held office until 2006. At the election of the member of the Do Council implemented in the CD year, Defendant A was elected as a member of the Do Council, and Defendant A was in charge of the special election for the policies of Defendant A after Defendant A was elected as a member of the Do Council.

(3) BH admitted to the BE Party in around 2002 to leave the Do Council members election, and started to store a kind of relationship with AC from around 2002, and thereafter, BH left a kind of Do Council member with BE and became a kind of Do Council member and became a kind of Do Council member.

(4) Meanwhile, from around 2005, BH owned 35% of the shares of CE Co., Ltd., one of the I collaborative companies, and worked as vice president of the said company. CE was a company raising annual sales of 11 billion won from I, and AC was aware that it was operating the said company while holding the shares of CE, one of the BHI collaborative companies.

B) Courses, etc. until D is established on November 20, 2008

(1) On May 6, 2008, at the same place with BH and AC, Defendant A instructed BH to the effect that “I would find a method of drinking and drinking” through a person with I’s origin, and around that time, BH was refused upon the request of BH to the effect that I would help AC through I collaborative company after notifying Y that I would have been the vice president at that time. At that time, B H requested BH to the effect that I would like to help AC through I collaborative company if I would have become aware of Y again, BH would have requested BI’s collaborative company, an I affiliate, and Y would have tried to receive AC through BI’s collaborative company. At that time, BO was reported to the effect that I had requested BO to the effect that I would have tried to talk about BX’s president at that time.

(2) After that, Y called “BX president,” and called “BH’s request,” around June 2008, Y sought a request from AC to operate BI’s collaborative entity, and subsequently, conducted a specific consultation on how AC would operate BI’s collaborative entity. As a result of the consultation, the type and size of outsourcing services to be received from BI (BI’s cargo repair services, etc.) and the method of operating the collaborative entity (BI’s cargo repair services, etc.) (AC and BI’s joint operation of collaborative entity) (aC and BI’s employees) were determined. Meanwhile, BX reported the above consultation with BH to Y and obtained approval.

(3) After the conclusion of the consultation with BX, BH informed AC of the details of the consultation and the sales volume of the company to be established as the collaborative company of BI, but it was noted that AC participated in the establishment of BI’s collaborative company on the grounds that sales volume is small. Until now, BZ established D, a collaborative company of BI, which was planned to be jointly operated with AC, according to the initial consultation, on November 20, 2008 after withdrawal of BI, and D performed the above external services from around December 208.

(4) On the other hand, even if based on this part of the facts charged, the point of time when the issue of acquiring the D's equity interest of AC began to be re-established from May 6, 2008 to November 20, 2008, where B has established D from May 2008 to November 20, when the issue of acquiring the D's equity interest of AC began to be re-established.

(1) In order to discuss the issue of transferring D's shares to AC in an investigative agency, BY trading, and CK’s use of the corporate card is confirmed that CK settled KRW 80,000 from the CM using the corporation card. BY, CK confirmed the use of the said corporate card at an investigative agency, and stated that CY, in order to discuss the issue of transferring D's shares to DAC on September 11, 2009, the BY is memoryed from the "CM" to discuss the issue of transferring the shares to BC according to the direction of the BX president.

(2) The BZ stated at the investigative agency that “The document prepared and kept the evidence list No. 16) of D’s present situation and its future plan should be reported to the public, i.e., taking the BY regular course of business and the CK head in the CM at the time.” In light of the content of the document on the pending issues of this case, the time when the document on the pending issues of this case was prepared appears to be around August 2009.

(3) BY stated in the court of the court below that "BY contact BZ around August 2009 and met the BZ on September 11, 2009, and it was 9 months since the business trip was made at that time." In fact, BY was female in each China from August 10, 2009 to August 15, 2009, and from August 25, 2009 to August 28, 2009, the point at which BY instructed BY to report AC's share acquisition to BY after consultation with BY will be the point at which it was made at that time and at that time to communicate BY's share acquisition to BY at that time, and it will be the point at which BY will be the point at which BY will again communicate BY's share acquisition to BY at that time.

(4) ① The time when BX stated that BX would take over D shares again from the investigative agency to the court of original trial was 2/4th quarter of 2009, and ② BY stated that BY will take over D shares after consultation with BZ in relation to the issue of acquiring D shares from BX, but the investigative agency stated that BY will take over the shares in the first half of 2009, but the court of original instance will take the same effect at the second half of 2/4th of 2009, while the court of original instance stated that BX will take over the shares in the second half of 209.3rd of 2-3 months to 2009, the time when BY was ordered to take over the shares in the second half of 209.3rd of 206.2nd of 3rd of 200.3rd of 206.

(5) However, the issue of this case was not raised only when around August 17, 2009 when the JJ received the order for the discontinuance of work from the JJ, and even according to this part of the facts charged, since the first time when the I found the defendant A and asked the defendant A to help him to accept the issue of this case, it cannot be ruled out that the time when the AC told BH to accept the D shares by changing mind to BH, the time when BH delivered it to BX, the time when BX transferred the intention of AC from BH and reported it to BY after consultation with B, all of the time when I instructed I to report the D shares acquisition issue of this case, or I's executive to find the defendant A before I asked the defendant A to do so.

D) The time of determining to transfer D Shares to AC, etc.

(1) AX accepted all the conditions agreed upon by BH in 2008 and confirmed that AC intended to acquire D shares, and received approval from BY, and ordered BY to report details, including the share relationship between B and AC, to BY. After which BY delivered BY instructions to BZ, BY agreed on detailed matters, such as the share ratio, share acquisition price, benefits, and the method of operation of the company.

(2) At the initial Defendant’s request, D was a company established for the purpose of joint operation through consultation between BH and BX, and around November 2008, BZ established and operated D was bound to transfer D shares in its possession to AC (no circumstance was found that BZ expressed its dissatisfaction in relation thereto). BX also stated that BH had accepted the conditions of transfer when BH again found in the court of original instance in 2009.

(3) In fact, AC intended to accept all the terms and conditions initially presented by BX in 2008 and accepted D shares, and there is no change in the terms and conditions when AC actually accepted D shares.

(4) In light of the above circumstances, the issue of AC’s D equity participation is merely one of the following conditions: (a) AC’s original condition presented by BX rather than that it was newly promoted by expressing its intention to re-acquisition D equity through BH in 2008; (b) AC accepted all the conditions presented in relation to BXD equity participation in 2008 through BH in 2008; (c) AC accepted all the conditions presented in relation to BXD equity participation; and accordingly, (d) after reporting the above fact to BY after obtaining approval, it was decided that BY transferred D equity interest to BY in 209; (c) BX decided that it was related to the transfer of equity interest to BY in 209; and (d) it is reasonable to deem that BY had no specific relationship with BY prior to the instant order or decision that it was related to the transfer of equity interest to BY in 209.

(5) After the BX decided to transfer D shares to AC, there was a somewhat time gap between AC and its actual acquisition of D shares. However, this is merely because the time spent in the process of consultation on detailed matters between B and AC and the time spent in the re-acquisition of D shares from other holders of the right, and there is no other circumstance that AC had any new circumstance that may hinder the acquisition of D shares.

E) The content in which Defendant A was involved and the recognition of Defendant A when AC acquires D shares.

(1) Around May 6, 2008, Defendant A instructed BH to the purport that he/she would find a method of drinking and eating through I, and there is no circumstance that AC actually ordered BH to give an additional instruction with respect to the initial order until December 2009, by which he/she acquired D shares.

(2) At around May 6, 2008, AC’s acquisition of D shares was conducted upon Defendant A’s request from the vice president of IY and BIX president, and it was conducted through specific consultation with them. There is no specific circumstance that Defendant A was directly in contact with the personnel related to I or BI and was involved in the process of AC’s acceptance of D shares.

(3) From May to December 6, 2008, from May 2008 to December 2, 2009, Defendant A had not been specifically aware of the specific contents of the days occurred in the process of acquiring D shares from AC in the process of acquiring D shares, and the type and scale of outsourcing services that AC acquired from BI, and whether the economic benefits that AC would have received as benefits, dividends, etc. were to a certain extent.

(4) The final and conclusive time when the transfer of D shares to AC is determined by ordering BY to report details, including the share relationship between BZ and AC, and Defendant A to transfer D shares cannot be ruled out that Defendant A could have delivered I executives of the I in connection with the instant issue. In addition, Defendant A received reports on progress, etc. related to the instant issue from August 21, 2009 to the end of 2010 from W, V, X, and Y, which are I executives, on several occasions, and there were no comments from I about the instant issue from August 21 to the end of 2010.

(5) In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant A was aware that the Party A could have received D shares at the time when it was asked by the I to perform a duty for resolving the instant problem from the point of view of the fact that it was a price for such duty act.

F) The content in which Defendant C was involved and the recognition of Defendant C when AC accepts D shares.

(1) At an investigative agency, Y made a report to the Defendant C at the time of receipt of a report that “BX wants to participate again, and then made a verbal report to the Defendant C at the time of receipt of the report. Although the accurate contents are not memory, at the time of Defendant C’s receipt of a request from the Defendant A, the assistant to help Defendant A to participate in the election of Defendant C was not consistent with the condition that I would have attempted to do so. However, it would be better to further promote the election of Defendant C, and Defendant C would have been said to do so. In addition, Y made a statement to the effect that “BX would have received again a proposal that BH would have rejected again,” and that it would have been promoted as the previous proposal. At the time of receipt of the written answer submitted by Defendant A by the Defendant A, I reported that Defendant C would not have been aware that it was a matter that it would have been involved, and that the report was also reported to the previous Chairperson, and that the report was made to the Defendant CO at the time of the change in the report.”

(2) At an investigative agency, X received instructions from Defendant C, the president of the I to “BI, who will be in progress with respect to AC.” The time when the instructions were received is considered to be around May 6, 2009 to be from May 2 to 6, 2009. Since then, BI made a call to BY Standing, and at the time, BI made a statement to the effect that “I had already known about the issue of giving out-of-the-spot services to AC, and thus, I would like to know how to give out-the-spot services.” At the court of the lower court, X made a statement to the same effect, and stated that “I made a phone call to BY after receiving the above instructions from Defendant C, which was already given to BI at the time, was understood in the process of dividing conversations as having already been given to AC. In light of the above contents of X’s statement, AX appears to have already been given to BY prior to being given the instructions to BY prior to the issuance of the instructions to BY.

(3) BY stated in the court below that “AC’s call on the share transfer issue is after receiving direction from BX on AC’s share transfer issue. As such, it was difficult to communicate with X due to the fact that A had already been told about D from BX, and that X had already been aware of the receipt of direction from NX president at that time,” and made a statement consistent with X’s above investigation agency and the court below’s statement.

(4) In light of the above statement of Y, X, and Y, Defendant C received a report from Y on the participation of AC BI collaborative companies, and became the first time, and Defendant C instructed X to “BI to engage in external affairs related to AC.” The time when X calls to BY due to the issue of AC BI outsourcing services according to Defendant C’s instructions, and the time when X calls to BY due to the issue of BY’s external affairs, after reporting the above fact to Y, and reporting it to BY after obtaining the president’s approval, and ordering BY to report details, including the relationship between BY and AC, to transfer D shares.

(5) The time when the BX orders the BY to report the details, including the share relationship between BZ and AC to the BY, and the final and conclusive decision is made by the Defendant AC to transfer the D share to the BY, cannot be ruled out. In light of the fact that X calls to BY as a matter of the AC’s external services-related issue according to the Defendant C’s instructions, if X calls to BY as a matter of the AC’s external services, it was already determined to transfer the D share to AC within the BI, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant C ordered the BY to “BA” to take charge of the external affairs related to the AC even if it was ordered by the Defendant A to do so.

(6) In light of the above circumstances, Defendant C merely received a report from Y on the participation of AC BI collaborative companies, and merely appears to have ordered AC-related matters to the effect that it is not enough, and Defendant C recognizes that it was offered as compensation for Defendant A’s above job performance at the time when Defendant A requested the act of performing his duties to solve the problem of this case through I’s executive officers. Rather, it is difficult to view Defendant A’s first demand through BH to identify AC’s daily distance to AC; the time when BIX president decided to transfer D shares to AC; the time when the issue of this case occurred; the time when I asked Defendant A to find the issue of this case; the time of each of the above before and after the issue of this case; and the time when each of the above parties offered the opportunity to take over shares to AC based on Defendant C’s expectation and the degree of the opportunity to take over shares to AD’s active duty, etc. as at the time the issue of this case was known as the time of Defendant CI’s approval.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to acknowledge that BI provided AC an opportunity to take over the shares of BI under the approval of the defendant C and other parties. Furthermore, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a common understanding or understanding between the defendant A and the defendant C with respect to the fact that giving AC an opportunity to take over the shares is a consideration for the above job performance. The judgment of the court below to this purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles. The prosecutor’s assertion in this part is without merit.

A) The prosecutor asserts that the issue of this case was unsatisfyed by the public prosecutor at around August 17, 2009 when he visited Qu from the former part of Qu in the Navy before and around July 8, 2009, and that the time when I decided to transfer D's shares to AC is around August 2009. It is difficult to view that V had consulted with the former part of Qu in the Navy on July 8, 2009 that the issue of this case was first known as an important issue of I, but it is difficult to find that I had not known the seriousness of the situation before the time, and that I had not been aware that there was a serious possibility that I would not have been able to receive D's shares before and after the 8th of July 2009, since it was difficult to find that there was a new issue, such as the time when I made a statement about the issue of this case to the public prosecutor before and after the 20th of August 17, 2009.

C) On the other hand, around May 208, the Defendant demanded AC’s daily distance to BI through BI (including BI) on the part of BI. Since June 2008, the Defendant decided that BH and BI jointly operate the cooperative, with the type and size of outsourcing services to be received from BI through consultation, and D, which is the partner of BI scheduled to jointly operate, was established on November 2008, 2008, ② it is difficult to view that BC would have to take over the shares again after the lapse of several months, and it is difficult to view that BI would have to take over the shares for the first time through consultation with BI on the part of the officer of BI on the part of BI, and that it is difficult to find out the possibility that BI would have to take over the shares for the first time between B and B, and that it would have been difficult to find the possibility that I would have been directly involved in the transfer of the shares between B and B, and that it would have been difficult to find the possibility that I would have been aware that I would have been directly known.

D) Also, as the lower court determined as appropriate, it seems that the issue of AC’s D equity participation is merely clear that AC’s intention to acquire D equity by accepting the conditions presented by AC at the latest, rather than by expressing that AC would accept D equity again after its rejection.

Considering the above point, Defendant C received a report on AC’s D equity participation from Y and approved it separately, and it is difficult to see that X provided a new benefit for AC’s acquisition of D equity interest at the request of Defendant A. As such, it is difficult for Defendant A to conclude the quid pro quo relationship with AC based on this time. Even if the quid pro quo relationship is determined based on this time, it cannot be ruled out that Defendant A could have delivered an I’s officers with regard to the instant issue, as seen earlier, since Defendant A’s duty related to the resolution of the instant issue and the quid pro quo relationship with AC’s acquisition of D equity cannot be recognized.

B. The offering of each of the bribe by Defendant B (the factual error)

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges against the Defendant, on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was a person who had the opportunity to obtain economic benefits from the Z, etc. by granting a final approval of the conclusion of the above service agreement or the waiting measurement service agreement between Z, AB, and AH established by A and AG upon the demand of the A, for the purpose of concluding the service agreement for warehouse management in P and the waiting measurement service agreement in P, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was the Defendant with the opportunity to obtain economic benefits from the Z, etc.

A) Whether the Defendant was involved in A’s solicitation or solicitation in connection with the instant issue

(1) 피고인은 I가 2009. 8. 17. J시로부터 이 사건 공사에 대한 중지명령을 받음으로써 이 사건 문제가 불거졌을 당시 P 선강 담당 부소장으로 근무하고 있었고, 그 후 2010. 3.경 P 소장으로 승진하여 2013. 3.경까지 P 소장으로 근무하였다. (2) 피고인은 P 소장으로 부임한 직후 두 차례에 걸쳐 P 행정부소장인 W으로부터 "A 측으로부터 A을 도와준 사람에게 일거리를 제공하기 위하여 P 내 용역사업 일부를 달라는 요구가 들어왔다"는 취지의 보고를 받았다. 위와 같은 보고를 받았을 당시의 상황 등에 관하여 피고인은 수사기관에서 "2010. 4.~5.경 W으로부터 'A의 일을 도와준 사람이 있는데, 그 사람에게 조그만 일감이라도 줄 수 있느냐는 부탁이 A 측으로부터 들어왔는데 어떻게 해야 하느냐'는 보고를 받았다. 그래서 제가 W에게 '그게 과연 가능하냐'고 물었고, 신중하게 진행하라고 지시하였던 것으로 기억한다. 자신이 W에게 '그게 과연 가능하냐'라고 물으니, W이 '제가 한 번 검토해 보겠습니다'라고 말하였다. W이 위와 같이 A 측의 요구사항을 전달하고 그 경위를 설명하면서 'I 측에서도 A에게 이 사건 문제 해결을 부탁한 상태이기 때문에 그 쪽 요구를 들어주지 않을 수 없다'고 하였다. 사실 저도 그런 문제에 있어서 깐깐한 사람인데 W에게 가능하면 진행해보라는 취지로 말했던 것이다. W이 수시로 진행상황을 보고하지는 않았고, 이후 A 측의 요구를 해결하였을 때 저에게 해결되었다는 보고만 하였다. 그런데 W이 위와 같이 하나 해결이 되었다는 말을 하면서 하나 더 있다고 말을 했다. 기가 막혀서 말을 하지 않았다. 저희 입장에서는 거절하기 곤란하고 문제가 있을지도 모르는 민원을 겨우 해결하였다고 생각했는데, 또 다시 무리한 요구를 하니까 기분이 많이 좋지 않았다. 그래서 W이 보고를 하는데도 제가 대꾸를 하지 않았고, W이 '제가 알아서 하겠습니 다'라고 말을 하였다. 마찬가지로 당시 저희가 A으로부터 0 공장 문제에 대해서 도움을 받아야할 처지라 거절할 수는 없었지만 W이 깔끔하게 일을 처리하지 못하는 것 같아서 '네(W)가 다시 요구를 받아왔으면 네가 알아서 하라'는 취지로 별 대답을 하지 않았고, W도 그렇게 알아들었을 것이다. 그 후 W으로부터 최종적으로 다 해결이 되었다는 보고를 받았다. 당시 W으로부터 어느 정도 용역 물량을 어느 업체 누구에게 주었다는 보고를 받았는데, 자신은 일단 해결이 되었다는 것에 집중해서 상세한 상황까지 주의 깊게 듣지는 않았다. W으로부터 A 측의 처음 민원이 해결되었지만 추가 건이 있다는 취지의 보고는 2010. 6. 또는 2010. 7. 초순경에 받은 것으로 기억하고, 최종 보고는 2010. 12. 초순경에 받은 것으로 기억한다."고 진술하였다.

(3) In light of the Defendant’s detailed statement in the above investigation agency, the Defendant was aware that the instant problem was a serious pending issue at the time of receiving a report to the effect that, in order to provide daily distance from the Party A to the person who assisted A, the Defendant came to know that it was a situation in which, in the process of receiving the aforementioned report from W, the Defendant was requesting for the resolution of the instant problem, at the time of receiving the report from W.

(4) However, at the time of the request of the Defendant, the Defendant did not appear to have been present or contacted for other reasons as well as for the instant matter A, and ② Even under this part of the facts charged, the Defendant directly solicited A to find out the instant matter is the president of the IY, V regular business, X regular business, and the Director of the Government, and those who ordered A to make a solicitation are also indicated as C, and ③ as mentioned above, the Defendant was the superior of the Defendant except W, and the Defendant did not appear to have been present or to have been asked for the selection of the service company within the PS. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not know that there was a request from the above superior to the Defendant for the above fact that the Defendant did not appear to have been present or to have been present in the PS in the process of the instant issue, and that there was no reason to see that the Defendant did not have been present or to have been present in the PS in the process of the instant case.

(5) In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the executives of I asked A to solve the problem of this case in excess of simply recognizing the fact that I would have been requesting A to do so. It is difficult to deem that I participated in the solicitation through communication or combination with the executives of I directly engaged in or soliciting A in connection with the problem of this case in connection with the issue of this case. Rather, in the process of receiving a report from W that the Defendant demanded a daily provision from A, the Defendant was aware that I was a situation in which I had requested A to resolve the problem of this case through the executives of I, and that I would not have been aware that I would have tried to resolve the problem of this case by requesting A during that period.

B) Whether the Defendant approved the provision of a distance to the Z etc.

(1) Since March 2008, W had been in charge of P’s large-scale and rental duties while serving as the Director of P Administration. The process of resolving the civil affairs of P’s CV high-pollution civil petitions, etc. was supported by AC, which is the head of the office of the JJ district office, in the process of resolving the civil affairs of P’s JV high-pollution civil affairs, which led to the patri

(2) At around April 5, 2010 and around July 2010, W demanded from AC to the effect that “When a person who is obliged to get a member of the National Assembly, should be equipped with a thickness, it would be possible to make him/her go from I, and what would be?” At that time, W requested that the P, the Director of P, “A, requested that some of the P services in order to provide a daily distance to the person who helps A from the side,” and that “A, there was a demand to change part of P services in order to provide a daily distance.”

(3) The defendant received a report from W that he received a request from W to make a statement about the measures taken by him, etc., as seen earlier at the investigative agency, and W was also written in the court of original instance on the contrary that "IC received a request for the first daily distance provision from A, and reported it to the defendant," and exchanged each other's opinions on whether or not the defendant would have to do so," and since there are no methods for both low-income persons, I would like to report the research and make a statement again after IC. After then IC received a request for the second daily distance provision, I would report it to the defendant even if I would have reported it to the defendant, and I would like to make a statement again. At that time, I would like to review it again without obtaining the defendant's approval, and there was no instruction that "I would have reported it to the defendant that I would have made a report on it to the non-resident service, etc., and I would have the authority to make a statement to the defendant to the non-resident as a member of the National Assembly."

(4) W reported to the Defendant that the above request was made from A through AC, but thereafter, W made a decision and process without the involvement of the Defendant as to how to accept the above request from A and what kind of outsourcing services are to be reduced to a certain extent, and only after the final report to the Defendant.

(5) P, which the Defendant’s work as the warden, is not a separate legal entity, but one of the places of business producing the products in the carbon field. Accordingly, the conclusion of a service contract between the outsourcing service company and the outsourcing service company with respect to the services in P, would be concluded in the name of I. According to the guidelines for the management of the services in the P and the standards for the approval of the outsourcing service contract. According to the guidelines for the management of the services in the P and the standards for prior approval of the outsourcing service contract, in the case of the services in the P at the time of the Defendant’s work as the director of P, the outsourcing service

(6) In fact, around July 2010, AB entered into a warehouse management services contract or atmosphere measurement services contract with P on or around December 2010, AB, and AH entered into each of the above services contract with P on the basis that each annual service amount does not exceed five billion won, and the final approval was made by WP deputy Director, and the Defendant did not have obtained approval on the conclusion of each of the above services contract, and the Defendant had the authority to grant external services to Z, etc. even without the approval of the Defendant who is the P on the part of the court below. In general, AB and AH, the head of the administration office, for up to three billion won, may be dealt with by the decision of the court below. According to the provision, the head of the department below the class AB and AH, who is the head of the administration office, should be elected, and even if the name of the executive officer would not have been able to take charge of these special matters, he made a statement to complete the above treatment."

(7) In light of the above circumstances, the defendant received a report from W to the effect that he received a daily request from A to help A to help A, and that he resolved the above request from A, and the above report made by W to the defendant is not based on the defendant's specific direction or approval, but rather on the premise that W merely received a daily request from A to provide a daily distance, and it seems to be close to a report at the level of hearing or winning a superior's opinion before determining the issue within his competence, with sharing information to inform the defendant that he finally resolved the problem within his competence. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant received the above report from W and ordered or approved W to accept a daily request from A to provide a daily distance from A. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that W received a request through AC and concluded a service contract with AB or H within its scope of authority without obtaining specific direction or approval from the defendant.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① there are no circumstances to deem that the defendant participated in or had a substantial influence on the conclusion of the service contract with AB, etc. established by the defendant, ② the final decision-making authority to conclude the above service contract is W, even if the defendant received a report from W on the execution of the above service contract, it is difficult to evaluate that the report is premised on the defendant’s specific instruction or approval; ③ W has the authority to decide the outsourcing, etc. on the above service contract, ③ W has the authority to provide ideas and decisions on the above service contract, and both were made at the court of the first instance, and only reported to the defendant only at the time. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to recognize that the defendant directly solicited A in connection with the problem of this case, or that the defendant did not obtain the defendant’s participation through contact or communication with other I's officers, and further, it is difficult to conclude that AB had an economic opportunity to conclude the aforementioned facts with AB due to its demand and its final judgment.

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined AB, i.e., (1) AB, and AB established AB around July 2010 with the capital of 50 million won; (2) AB established AH around December 2010 with the capital of 50 million won; and (3) AB received some of the off-site warehouse management services performed in AE from around July 2010 with the payment of 12 vehicles and equipment necessary for AE’s out-of-house management services; and (4) CB paid 200 million won to AE for the purpose of taking over the said services under the agreement between 10 billion won and 20 billion won for each of the above services performed by the former KH’s employees; and (5) AB did not receive some of the off-site measuring services performed in AJ from around 12, 2010 to 20 million won for the purpose of performing the said services.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the records and evidence of this case, it is reasonable to view that the bribe offered by the Z, etc. to the Z, etc. in the course of operating AB through H is an intangible benefit such as an opportunity to obtain economic benefits by performing I outsourcing services, not an aggregate amount of money received as payment, etc., but an opportunity for 2, etc. to obtain economic benefits. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. The prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

4. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor

The defendant, a member of the National Assembly, who is a local constituency for K in which I is located, was asked from the I officers to help the head of the P Administration through AC, which is one of his side members, so that he may request the head of the P Administration through AC to perform the duties of management of the P warehouse in the P or the duties of air measurement, thereby allowing him to obtain economic benefits through the performance of the duties of the above services.

Such a crime is committed by having I give a bribe to a third party by neglecting the duty of integrity under the Constitution of a member of the National Assembly and abusing the position of a member of the National Assembly, and by inducing I to give a bribe to a third party. As a result, the trust of the people with respect to fairness, integrity, and integrity in the performance of duties of a member of the National Assembly is seriously damaged, and thus, the nature of the crime is bad. The defendant, who was given an opportunity to perform duties in the external area from the I as a result of the instant crime, obtained a large amount of economic benefits for a long time. Nevertheless, the defendant did not appear to have committed the instant crime until the trial, and did not appear to have a genuine attitude against AC, etc., by denying the instant crime until the trial.

However, in relation to the crime of this case, the defendant is against his wrong behavior, and the execution of his duties related to the resolution of the problem of this case is illegal and unfair.It is difficult to see that the defendant actually performed his duties in relation to the resolution of the problem of this case. There is no circumstance to see that the defendant performed his duties in violation of laws and practices in relation to the resolution of the problem of this case. The defendant has performed his long-term parliamentary activities with good faith, such as holding the FF to the National Assembly of the HH, and serving to BK as a member of the SP, and the crime of this case should take into account equity with the crime of violation of the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act at the same time as the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act which is related to the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the instant case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in the first instance court compared to the lower court, compared to the lower court, the aforementioned circumstances are considered in full view of all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable. The Defendant and the prosecutor’

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be appointed and appointed concurrently.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Park Sung-sung

1) ① The defense counsel of the defendant stated in the facts charged that the court below made an illegal solicitation without due process of amendment to indictment.

'B' instead of ‘B', as ‘I executives such as V', and as ‘W' instead of ‘B' stated in the facts charged for the offering of a bribe, respectively.

Recognizing that it was contrary to the legal principles as to Amendments to Bill of Indictment, the fifth trial period in the trial.

In Japan ( September 13, 2017), the above argument was explicitly withdrawn.

(2) In addition, the defense counsel of the defendant shall file a statement of grounds for appeal on February 28, 2017, and ① Whether illegal solicitation and consideration relations are recognized, and

Whether there is a common perception of the quid pro quo relationship, and the defendant continues to be related to the high-level restriction of the factory.

B. Whether the defendant has been requested to provide the whole distance of Z, etc. on the part of the I, and the position of the defendant of the penalty of violation

On September 13, 2017, there was a ground for appeal of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to non-relatedness. However, on September 5, 2017

on the date of the hearing, the court withdrawn other arguments for mistake of facts except for the facts related to the consideration relationship.

Since the scope of this section is not clear, ① Whether to recognize illegal solicitation and a quid pro quo relationship, and the quid pro quo relationship

The grounds for appeal concerning the existence of a common perception are shown to be maintained as they are, and other appeals are lodged.

It is reasonable to see that the reason is withdrawn. On the other hand, even if ex officio examination is conducted on the Republic of Korea, B.O., and grounds for appeal.

A thorough examination of the facts and circumstances found by the lower court in light of the records and evidence of this case;

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.