2014Gohap587, 441 (Joint), 603 (Joint), 802 (Joint)

A. Acceptance of bribe

(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.;

D. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

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

(f) Fraud;

1. A.

2.b.e. B

3.(c)(d) C

4.f. D.

Degratorys, leuk-gus, Huncheon-jus, and west-gus (Public trial)

Law Firm E, Attorney F (Defendant A)

Law Firm G, Attorneys H, I (Defendant B)

Attorneys J, K Law Firm, Attorneys L (Defendant C)

Attorney M. (P. for Defendant D)

November 27, 2015

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor of one year and a fine of 48,00,000 won; Defendant C’s imprisonment with prison labor of one year and a fine of 40,000,000 won; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor of five years; and Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor of two years. If Defendant A and C fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above fines of 10,000 won shall be confined in the workhouse.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment with labor for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive for Defendant A and for Defendant D, the execution of the above imprisonment with labor for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive for Defendant A, and for Defendant D, 24,000,000 won from Defendant A and 20,000 won from Defendant C shall be collected respectively. Defendant A and C are ordered to pay each amount equivalent to the above fine and each additional collection charge for Defendant A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact of acceptance of bribe around April 26, 2008, around August 13, 2010 and around October 15, 2010, and around April 25, 2008 to April 26, 2008 of the instant facts charged, each of them is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal of Defendant C and B shall be publicly announced.

Criminal facts

On July 12, 2012, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months with prison labor at the Seoul High Court for the offering of a bribe, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 25, 2012, and on October 16, 2013, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Eastern District Court for one year and six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 20, 2013. Defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court for a crime of fraud on December 7, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 17, 2013.

2014Gohap441 - DefendantB, D

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. Fraud against the victim N around March 2010

Around March 2010, at the State PP office of 0808, Defendant B instructed Defendant D, who is the representative director of the State, to identify the person to purchase the restaurant operation right at the construction site, and Defendant D made a false statement to the effect that “The right to operate the restaurant would be transferred to the victim N as the head of Q Construction Site B (B) would transfer KRW 50,000,000 as the down payment.” However, the fact that the Defendants did not have any intention or ability to allow the victim to operate the restaurant at the construction site as the down payment because the Defendants did not definitely have been able to confirm the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.”

The Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above and received 50,000,000 won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of P on March 25, 2010, under the pretext of down payment of the restaurant operation right at the construction site.

(b) fraud against the victim N around 2010, 4.

On April 2010, 2010, Defendant B instructed Defendant D to identify a person who will purchase a restaurant operation right at the construction site, and Defendant D followed the victim N by B (B) B’s license to operate the restaurant at the S Rental apartment construction site built at the S Rental apartment construction site. In this context, Defendant D transferred the right to operate the restaurant as down payment. However, the Defendants did not have any intention or ability to operate the restaurant at the construction site because the Defendants did not definitely have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

The Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above, and received 30,000,000 won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of P on April 22, 2010, under the name of down payment of the restaurant operation right at the construction site.

(c) fraud against the victim N around November 2010

Around November 2010, at the office (the changed name of the P) located in 0 officetels 735, Defendant B instructed Defendant D to identify a person who will purchase the restaurant operation right at the construction site, and Defendant D sent the victim N the right to operate the restaurant (B) at the construction site of the U fishery product advancement processing complex constructed at the treatment construction site. The right to operate the restaurant will be transferred, and the right to operate the restaurant would be transferred to 10,000,000 won as down payment. However, the fact that the Defendants did not have any intention or ability to allow the victim to operate the restaurant at the construction site since the Defendants did not finally have been able to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

The Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above and received 10,000,000 won from the victims to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Bank of Korea (Gu P) in November 16, 2010, under the name of down payment of the restaurant operation right at the construction site.

2. Defendant B

A. Fraud against the victim V

On April 24, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of the Y apartment, so he would have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.” In fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to allow the victim to operate the restaurant at the construction site on the ground that the Defendant did not definitely receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 20,000,000 won from the victim to the corporate account in the name of (ju)W as the down payment of the cafeteria operating right at the construction site, and received from the victim totaling KRW 263,20,000 from September 16, 2010 to September 16, 2010.

(b) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

Around January 30, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The victim may grant the right to operate the restaurant at the AB construction site so that the victim may grant the right to operate the restaurant at the AB construction site.” However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to allow the victim to operate the restaurant at the construction site because the Defendant had not finally received the right to operate the restaurant at the AB construction site.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and received KRW 350,000,00 as the down payment of the restaurant operation right at the construction site from the victim; (b) and (c) from around that time to September 20, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 1,067,00,000 in total from the victim on 22 occasions, as described in the attached list of crimes (2).

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

On April 13, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, at a coffee shop located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu Seoul, would be entitled to operate the brin restaurant by using the indoor line, and the Defendant, at the AD Japan AE Gas Storage Site site, granted the right to operate the restaurant from the agricultural partnership that has the right to operate the restaurant at the 1,000,000 won.”

However, the fact that the defendant had no intention or ability to transfer the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site to the victim because he did not definitely receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10,00,000 from the victim for the consideration of the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site, and received KRW 1,00,000 from the NAF’s AF account from the victim for the consideration of the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site, as well as from around that time to May 23, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 568,00,000 in total over 11 times from that time, as described in the attached list of crimes (3).

3. Defendant D

Around May 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim N, “AG creation site restaurant operation right was granted to the victim N in accordance with the right to operate the AG creation site, and thus, it would have transferred KRW 50,000,000 under the name of the contract.” However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to grant the above victim the right to operate the AG construction site restaurant on the ground of the fact that the Defendant had finally accepted the right to operate the IG construction site site operation site.”

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 50,000,000 won from the victim as consideration for the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site from the victim, under the name of 8, 2010, June 8, 2010, as well as the name of 50,000 won from the Agricultural Cooperative under the name of P.

1. Defendant A

From August 18, 2008 to August 17, 2011, the Defendant served as the head of S Management Headquarters, a public corporation, and took charge of the management of S's trillion staff, financial accounting management, marketing, management of rental housing, etc.

A. On August 24, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from the Defendant’s office located in AH upon the Defendant’s request from S, which was ordered by S, to arrange the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site from AB, a main apartment construction and an AI apartment construction site construction site, to receive the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site of AI apartment construction.

B. On October 20, 2009, the Defendant received the above request from the above B and received KRW 3 million in return. The Defendant received the above request from the above B and received KRW 3 million in return. On November 27, 2009, the Defendant received the above request from the above B and received KRW 3 million in return.

D. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in return for the above request from the above B at the above place.

E. On January 5, 2010, the Defendant received the above BO’s request and received KRW 3 million in return.

F. On January 29, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in return for the above request from the above B at the above place.

G. Around March 8, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in return for the above request from the above B at the above place.

H. On June 14, 2010, the Defendant received the above request from the above B and received KRW 3 million in return.

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official by the Local Public Enterprises Act, received a bribe of 24 million won in total in connection with his duties.

2. Defendant B

At the above time and place, the Defendant provided the Defendant A with a total of KRW 24 million over eight occasions as above.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a bribe to A who is deemed a public official by the Local Public Enterprises Act.

“2014Gohap603 - Defendant C, B

1. Defendant C

From January 1, 2009 to December 31, 201, the Defendant served as the president of the AJ who is a local public enterprise, and took overall charge of the construction and operation of X subways.

(1) On August 13, 2009, at AJ office located in AK, the Defendant received five million won upon the request of the AJ office to grant the right to operate a restaurant in the construction site of the subway AL subway construction site from AJer B, which is ordered by AJ, a restaurant B at the construction site.

(2) On January 21, 2010, the Defendant received five million won from the above AJ office at the construction site AJ office upon receipt of the above request from B, a restaurant beer B at the construction site.

(3) On May 13, 2010, the Defendant received five million won upon the above request from AM restaurant in AA, and from B, a cafeteriaer B in the construction site.

(4) Around June 14, 2010, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 20 million in total from a public official under the Local Public Enterprises Act, upon receipt of the above request from a restaurant beer B at the construction site. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is deemed a public official under the Local Public Enterprises Act, received a bribe of KRW 20 million in total regarding his/her duties.

2. Defendant B

At the same time and time as the above paragraph (1) above, the defendant delivered a bribe of KRW 20 million to the defendant C, as in the above paragraph (1).

2014 Highis8021 - Defendant B, D

Defendant B is the actual operator of WW Co., Ltd., and Defendant D is the director of the said company. Defendant B instructed at W Office No. 808, Apr. 7, 2006, 2006 that Defendant D would be aware of the persons to purchase the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site. Accordingly, around April 6, 2006, Defendant D would be entitled to the right to operate the restaurant at the site of the 916 apartment construction site located at AP in Jinnam-si, Jinnam-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Then, Defendant B received KRW 25 million from the injured couple of the said construction site as the price for the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site. On April 7, 2006, Defendant B received KRW 5 million from the injured couple as the price for the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

Then, around July 13, 2006 and around July 13, 2007, in lieu of the above new apartment construction site, the Gyeongnam-si would be entitled to operate the restaurant at the construction site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the

However, the Defendants did not definitely have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site, and there was no intention or ability to grant the victim couple the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired, as such, by deceiving the husband and wife of the victim, and by deceiving the husband and wife of the victim, acquired a total of KRW 70 million from the husband and wife.

Summary of Evidence

“2014, 441

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. The legal statement of the witness D, Z, N, V, and AC;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of Z, V, and AC;

1. Statement of N police statement;

1. A copy of account transactions;

1. Each investigation report (referred to as evidence Nos. 8, 15) 2014 Gohap587;

1. Defendant A and B’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's office protocol concerning the defendant A and B (including attached materials);

1. A report on investigation (S organization map and current status of the performance of duties);

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant C by the prosecution;

1. A CD in which the details of communications in B are recorded;

1. One CD (a copy of the details of financial transactions made by related persons B at the time of the 2011 War, and the details of financial transactions secured through the execution of the above warrant);

1. The fact that Defendant B made a call to Defendant C by covering a total of 179 times from August 3, 2009 to November 17, 2010

1. Each investigation report (referred to as 6, 16, 20, 31, 54, 57 Nos. 6, 16, 20, 31, 54, 57 of the evidence list);

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of witness D or AO;

1. Each copy of each content certification, each letter of payment;

1. Copies of cashier's checks, certificates of deposit, certificates of deposit, and certificates of deposits without passbook;

1. A letter of certification (a joint operation agreement);

1. Investigation reports and details of financial transactions, investigation reports (Submission of D additional data) and financial transaction records "criminal records on the market";

1. Defendant B: Criminal history of the case in 2014 high-priced441, resident inquiry results, and investigation report (Attachment to the judgment of the accused B's fraud case);

1. Defendant D: Criminal records of the case, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of resident inquiry;

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

○ Defendant A: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (Generally, Imprisonment with prison labor and fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Selection of Imprisonment and Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

○ Defendant B: Article 133(1) of each Criminal Act; Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (the offering of a bribe, the offering of a bribe by each accepted person); Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act; Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including each victim 2 and AC; each victim’s fraud); Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud of the victim’s V; comprehensively, the adoption of imprisonment

○ Defendant C: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (Generally, Imprisonment with prison labor and fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Selection of Imprisonment and Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

○ Defendant D: Articles 347(1) and 30 of each Criminal Act (a) (around March 2010 for the victim N, around April 2010, around November 2010 for the victim N, fraud to the victimN, the victim's fraud to the husband and wife, the choice of imprisonment, the choice of imprisonment) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (around June 8, 2010 for the victim N, and choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant B: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (mutual between the crimes of the above and the offering of bribe for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

○ Defendant D: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (trade between the above crimes and the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the Z of the Victims with the largest penalty and penalty]

○ Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated increase in the amount of concurrent crimes prescribed in fraud against a victim, N., and AO couple)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant A and C: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant A, C, and D: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing each of the following subparagraphs):

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant A and C: The latter part of Article 134 of each Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant A and C: Determination on the assertion of Defendant C and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The assertion regarding acceptance of bribe

(1) At around 15:50 on August 13, 2009, Defendant C, at the AJ president office, awarded a letter of commission to a new external member of the personnel committee. From 16:00, the personnel committee was held to accept a bribe.

(2) According to the vehicle operation log on the AJ president, Defendant C was not in the above office around 15:40 to 16:40 of Jan. 21, 2010, and around 14:0 to 14:50 of Jun. 14, 2010, asserting that he had delivered a bribe at the AJ office.

(3) Prosecutions have visited AJ or AM restaurant on the basis of the location of the base station of B's Handphones used by B, but the base station located in B's 'AS' and 'AT' is not a base station having jurisdiction over AJ or AM restaurant.

(4) On the other hand, B continued to have a telephone conversation to the extent that the Defendant could not engage in any other activity at the time, and the base station for the sending of the telephone is also continuing to move, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant C was only the Defendant C at the time.

(b) Claim on business relationship and compensation;

In this part of the facts charged, "AJ's request for help and delivery to allow the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site of the subway 1 line AL subway that is ordered by "AJ" to receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of the subway" is stated in consideration of the offering of a bribe. However, at the construction site of the subway, there is no right to operate the restaurant at the site of the subway

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion regarding acceptance of bribe

(1) Acceptance of money and valuables on August 13, 2009

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, Defendant C was fully recognized at the AJ office located in AK around August 13, 2009 and received KRW 5 million from B.

① On August 13, 2009, around 13:31, 200, B confirmed that the call with Defendant C was in the vicinity of AS (the location of the base station) from 15:50 to 16:43 to 17:51 on the same day, and AJ is located in the surrounding AU.

② On August 13, 2009, B withdrawn five million won from the post office account (Account Number: AV) in one’s name between 14:07 and 14:28.

On the other hand, B consistently states that “AW calls with Defendant C from August 13, 2009 to August 13:31, 2009, and withdrawal of KRW 4 million from AX post office using automated machines from around 14:07 to 14:27, the President of AJ office located at around 15:50 to 30,000.” On the other hand, B stated that “The withdrawal of KRW 5 million was made on August 13, 2009, and was partially different from the original withdrawal amount at the 300,000 won on the date of the trial. However, considering that B’s aforementioned similar behavior was repeated from the time of the instant case, and that there was no reasonable withdrawal from the said 30,000,000 won on the date of the instant trial, the said part of the facts charged could have been rejected from the said 30,000,000 won to the date of the instant trial.

⑤ In addition, Defendant C stated that Defendant C was given KRW 3 million each time when Defendant C was in the X-Executive Market, rather than giving the amount to Defendant C, and that Defendant C was given KRW 5 million each time after the AJ president was in the position of the AJ president, which is likely to lower the amount.

(6) A base station that transmits a mobile phone may change its location to each time the sending of a mobile phone does not change, and the scope of jurisdiction of a base station is changed to 200 m or 4 km according to the number of telephone subscribers in each base station and its surrounding environment, etc.

7) On the other hand, B stated that the investigative agency and this court stated that Defendant C provided KRW 5 million to Defendant C at around August 13, 2009, " around 15:50,000." However, since the date and time of offering a bribe was specified as " around August 13, 2009," whether Defendant C received a bribe from Defendant C should be determined on the basis of the facts stated in the above facts charged. Therefore, even if B was in motion around 15:50 on August 13, 2009, or Defendant C granted a letter of appointment to a new and an assistant member at the meeting room around 16:43:17:51 on the same day, as seen earlier, even if it was confirmed that Defendant C had near the meeting room at around 16:51 on the same day, Defendant C cannot be deemed as having received a bribe from B around August 13, 2009.

(2) Acceptance of bribe around January 21, 2010

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, Defendant C was fully recognized at the AJ office located in AK around January 21, 2010 and received KRW 5 million from B.

① On January 21, 2010, at around 14:52 and around 15:32, B confirmed that the call with Defendant C was in the vicinity of AS (the location of the base station) from around 15:49 to 17:53 on the same day. As seen earlier, AJ is located in AU, which is its surrounding AY base station (at the time between Defendant C from around 15:49 to 17:53, the phone calls were received from the AY base station. However, considering the distance between the two base stations based on AJ, and the time interval using both base stations, this appears to be a change in the base station caused by a signal relay area).

② On January 21, 2010, B withdrawn KRW 3 million from the post office account (Account Number: AV) in one’s name between January 21, 2010 and 15:06.

As to this, B consistently states to the effect that “A shall make phone calls from January 21, 2010 to January 14:52, 2010, and from around 15:04 to 15:06, in addition to the cash amount of KRW 2 million in possession after withdrawing KRW 3 million from AZ of the National Bank from around 15:00 to around 15:06, B has given it to Defendant C at the president of AJ in AK at around 15:49.”

④ According to the vehicle operation log of the AJ on January 21, 2010, Defendant C entered BA and entered BB from January 21, 2010 to January 16:40, Defendant C alleged that the said Defendant was not at the AJ at the time. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant C did not have been at the said time for the purpose of the above document prepared for the operation and management of the vehicle. Moreover, even based on the above operation log, Defendant C returned to AJ at around 16:40, considering that Defendant C was in the vicinity of AJ from January 21, 2010, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C did not have only B at the AJ office around January 21, 2010.

⑤ In addition, the fact that Defendant C received KRW 3 million from B from the investigative agency to the third trial date is recognized, there is no special circumstance to reject the credibility of the confession, or there is no reasonable ground to reverse it, and in light of B’s method of payment of bribe, etc., there seems to be little possibility that B will face the amount. According to the facts charged in this part, it is necessary to determine whether to accept bribe on the basis of “ around January 21, 2010.”

(3) Acceptance of bribe around May 13, 2010

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, Defendant C was fully recognized as having received KRW 5 million from B at a AM restaurant located in AA around May 13, 2010.

(1) On May 13, 2010, B is confirmed that at around 17:06, at around 18:30, Defendant C made each call with Defendant C and it was in the vicinity of AT (the location of the base station) from around 18:21 to around 20:27 of the same day, and there is AM restaurant in the surrounding A.

B on May 13, 2010, between 18:15 and 18:19, withdrawn 3.8 million won from the post office account (Account Number: AV) in one’s name.

③ On May 13, 2010, B consistently states that “A from May 13, 2010 to this court, around 17:06, to Defendant C and mobile phone calls, as well as KRW 1.2 million in cash after withdrawal of KRW 3.8 million from corporate bank BD around 18:15, B entered the AM restaurant located in AA at around 18:30.”

④ In addition, the fact that Defendant C received KRW 3 million from B from the investigative agency to the third trial date is recognized, there is no reasonable ground to reverse the age of the above confession, in light of the following: (a) it appears that there is little possibility that B will hedge the amount in light of B’s method of payment of bribe; and (b) the scope of jurisdiction of the base station is changed from 200 meters to 4 kilometers according to various circumstances.

(4) Acceptance of bribe around June 14, 2010

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, Defendant C was fully recognized at the AJ office located in AK around June 14, 2010 and received KRW 5 million from B.

① On June 14, 2010, around 13:36, 2010, B confirmed that the call with Defendant C was in the vicinity of AS (the location of the base station) from 14:37 to 14:48 on the same day, and as seen earlier, AJ is located in the surrounding AU.

② On June 14, 2010, from around 13:52 to 13:54, B withdrawn KRW 3 million from the post office account (Account Number: AV) in one’s name.

③ On June 14, 2010, B consistently stated to the effect that “B, from the investigative agency to the court, called Defendant C by posting a telephone with office from BE, and then withdrawing KRW 3 million from BF of the National Bank from the National Bank from around 13:52 to 13:54, B, the president of the AJ office located in AK, around 14:37, gave it to Defendant C at around 14:37.”

④ According to the vehicle operation log of the AJ on June 14, 2010, Defendant C entered BA and entered BG from around 14:00 to around 14:50, June 14, 2010. However, as seen earlier, Defendant C’s conduct-off on the ground of the said vehicle operation log was difficult to excule easily, and Defendant C returned to AJ around 14:50, even based on the said vehicle operation log, it cannot be deemed that Defendant C did not only B at the AJ office around 2010 and June 14, 2010. In addition, Defendant C accepted the above fact that Defendant C received KRW 3 million from B from the investigative agency to before the third trial date; Defendant C’s rejection of the credibility of the confession; or there is a possibility of changing the scope of payment of B’s mobile phone at least 4 meters due to changes in the scope of payment to B’s jurisdiction, etc. as seen earlier.

B. Determination on the assertion on business relationship and consideration

(1) Relevant legal principles

Bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of money and valuables received because the fairness of performance of duties, trust in society, and the impossibility of the act of performance of duties is protected by the law, and there is no need to make a solicitation or unlawful act in relation to the duties, and it is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in relation to the duties, and each act of performance of duties and a quid pro quo.

A public official’s act of performance of duties is not necessary, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties. In addition, whether a public official’s act of performance of duties constitutes a bribe is an unfair benefit with a quid pro quo relationship, must be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duty, the relationship between the public official and the provider of the profit, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of profit and the circumstance and time of giving and receiving the profit, and whether the bribery is fair in the performance of duties and the social trust and the purchase of the profit. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is the process of performance of duties and the public interest in the society, whether the public official’s receipt of the benefit is doubtful of fairness in the performance of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4204, Apr. 27, 2007). In addition, the term “duty” includes not only a public official’s duty under the law, but also an act of practice or practice under its jurisdiction, or an act of assistance or influence (see Supreme Court Decision).

(2) Determination

The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court. ① Since the investigation agency, B provided Defendant C with the request of Defendant C to grant the right to operate a restaurant at the AL construction site, which is ordered by the AJ, until this court, with money to Defendant C, and consistently stated to the effect that “at the time Defendant C was present, the site director, such as Hyundai Construction, Han Jin Heavy Industries, Koul Construction, and Consideration Development, etc., through Defendant C.” ( ②) B submitted to the investigation agency the name of the site director B H and 1 of Han Heavy Industries, who performed the construction work for the extension of XV 1 line extension of 2 construction sections, and the name of the site director BH and 1 line extension of 1 line construction sections, between the end of 209 and the beginning of 2010, and between the beginning of 2010 and beginning of 3 times, the actual influence of Defendant JJ’s decision-making and the status of the president at the time of exercising the right to use a subway as the president.

Considering the fact that: (a) even if the subway Corporation was at the time, the number of employees, including the contractor and the subcontractor, and the long-term construction period, etc., it was determined that the circumstances for operating a restaurant were sufficiently established; and (b) Defendant C’s money received from Defendant C was not deemed to have been delivered to Defendant C without any purpose, in full view of the fact that: (c) the money received from Defendant C received from Defendant C was difficult to be deemed to have been given to Defendant C without any purpose; (d) the money received from Defendant C received from Defendant C in return for assisting Defendant C to be granted the right to operate a restaurant at the site of a subway AL subway construction site, which is ordered by AJ

It is reasonable to see that it is "."

Therefore, Defendant C and his defense counsel’s assertion on this part is without merit. Determination on Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Absence of deception

(1) Defendant B was entitled to operate a restaurant by means of funds raised from those who want to operate a restaurant at the construction site through members, such as BJ and D. According to the above operating method, Defendant B received the investment from investors first, and paid the said money, and there is no money to receive the investment after the right to operate the restaurant was clearly accepted, and there is no risk that investors are unable to receive the right to operate the restaurant at all times.

(2) In addition to the above Defendant B’s business method, in light of Defendant B’s career or actual acceptance of orders, etc., Defendant B’s intent or ability to receive a restaurant operation right at the construction site is sufficient. Thus, even if a domestic investor was unable to receive a restaurant operation right at the construction site due to a sudden breakdown, Defendant B could not be deemed to have enticed investors with regard to the receipt of a restaurant operation right at the construction site. In particular, Defendant B and the construction site, which had been a business relationship with Defendant B, had been sufficiently aware of the aforementioned circumstances.

(b) The assertion regarding the act of deception;

(1) D is not a mere employee but a partner inviting investors, as in BJ, etc., and Defendant B did not say that D was definitely authorized to operate a restaurant at a specific construction site, nor did it know that D made any speech to N, N, and AO couple and received an investment amount.

(2) The money that V transferred from April 2008 to June 2008 to the (ju) W’s account is only in accordance with D’s instructions. Defendant B was not aware of this, and the remaining amount is irrelevant to the owner of the restaurant operation right at the construction site of AW film theaters or BK construction site.

(3) The Z only includes claims against BJ and BL arising out of Defendant B with respect to the owner of the restaurant operation right at the construction site in the past, and Defendant B completed the settlement of the financial relationship with Z by discharging the BM, which is the dynamics of Z, at around November 2010.

(4) The opening of a restaurant at the AE Gas Storage Site construction site located in AD in Boan City is too late. The request for replacement was made by Defendant B, which was only replaced by a restaurant operation right at the site of the Incheon BN apartment construction site, and in particular, KRW 300,000,000 transferred by AC to the AF’s account on April 13, 2012, not the money received by Defendant B.

2. Determination,

A. Joint criminal conduct between Defendant B and D

(1) Relevant legal principles

In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. If the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, a person who does not directly participate in the conduct is held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal’s act even if he/she did not engage in the conduct. Therefore, even if he/she did not know the method of deception in detail, the conspiracy cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 201).

(2) Fraud against the victim N

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① Defendant B has overall control over its management as the chairperson who operates five corporations, such as (ju), (ju), BP, (ju), W, QB, etc., and D has operated the above corporation as the representative director of (ju) P. ② Defendant B and D ordered Defendant B to invite buyers if it is possible to hold the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site through the cost of the construction site by high-ranking public officials, executive officers, and the construction site, and Defendant B and D transferred the right to use the above restaurant to 0,000 won to 0,000 won to 10,000,000,000 won to 20,000,000 won to 20,000,000 won to 20,000,000 won to 2,00,000,000 won to 3,00,000,000 won to 2,00,000.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence to deem that N was aware of the fact that the above restaurant business license could not be granted, and even if Defendant B did not individually know N, considering the fact that D recruited buyers of the restaurant operation license according to Defendant B’s instructions, there is a combination between Defendant B and D with intent to realize a crime in order or implicitly through Defendant B and D.

(3) The fraud of the victimN or AO

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, as seen earlier, Defendant B and D were instructed to invite buyers to a certain extent if the number of owners of the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site through the street, etc., and performed their business by inviting buyers when D became an owner of the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site. ② Defendant B was notified from April 6, 2006 to D of the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site at the construction site at the Jinju-si, the construction site at the large city, the construction site at the construction site at the large city, the construction site at the Ulsan-gun-gun, the construction site at the construction site at the Ulsan-gun, and the site at the construction site of the apartment site at the Ulsan-gun, and Defendant B and his accomplice were entitled to receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site at the Seoul-gun, and Defendant B and his accomplice were not allowed to receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site in order from April 7, 2006 to September 1, 207.

B. Defendant B’s sole crime

(1) Fraud of the victim V

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① Defendant B received KRW 60 million in total from the account in the name of Defendant B, BR, and B, around April 24, 2008, at the construction site of Y apartment, around June 12, 2008, at the construction site of AW, and around January 12, 2010, BK’s right to operate the restaurant, so it would be intended to transfer it. It is reasonable to view that Defendant B received KRW 60 million in the name of B, B, and B through the account in the name of B, and B, and received KRW 2320,000,00 in total from 26 times, and that Defendant B could not provide it to V with the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of the above 200,000 won, ② Defendant B could not be deemed as having obtained the right to use the restaurant in the name of Defendant B and the right to use it in the name of the above 600,000.

(2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim 2

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, even though Defendant B did not definitely receive the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site, around January 30, 2009, the AB construction site, after the BT market on February 13, 2009, and the construction site on March 27, 2009, the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site of an AI main apartment on March 27, 2009, it can be fully recognized that Defendant B received KRW 1,067,00,000 in total 22 times as shown in the attached Table of Crimes.

On the other hand, even if Defendant B paid KRW 662,00,000,000, which is the birth of Z around November 201, 2010, to Defendant B, it is nothing more than the situation after the fraud, and considering the amount of money that Defendant B gave to Defendant B, the degree of profits arising from the operation of the restaurant, and the details of the horses made by Defendant B to Defendant B, the Z is believed only to be able to be able to be able to receive the right to operate the restaurant through the Z, and it does not seem that Defendant B paid the above money to Defendant B and his defense counsel, and thus, this part of the claim is rejected.

(3) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim AC

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court: ① (a) around April 13, 2012, Defendant B signed a joint restaurant operation agreement with 85 local residents on the AE Gas Base Construction Site; and (b) Defendant B received the right to operate the restaurant from the above farming association corporation with the right to operate the restaurant at the AE Gas Base Construction Site; (c) on April 13, 2012, AC concluded a contract with Defendant B to acquire the above restaurant operation right and transferred the above restaurant operation right to KRW 490,000 to Defendant B by May 10, 2010; (d) it was reasonable to recognize that the above public corporation and the above public corporation did not acquire the right to operate the restaurant at the AE Base at the 200,000,000 won, and (e) it was not known that Defendant B and the above public corporation and the public corporation and the public corporation and the public corporation and the public corporation and the public corporation, and (e) it did not acquire the right to operate the restaurant at the AE site.

Meanwhile, Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted that the amount of KRW 300 million that AC remitted to AF was not the money they received. However, in light of the fact that AC appears to have no reason to remit a large amount of money that is KRW 300 million to AF of the Young Farming Corporation, and that AF has remitted KRW 200 million to BU operated by Defendant B on June 7, 2012, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B received the said money, and therefore, Defendant B’s assertion on this part is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for one month to five years, fine of 48 million won to 120 million won;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years to 45 years;

C. Defendant C: Imprisonment for one month to five years, fine of 40 million won to KRW 100 million;

(d) Defendant D: Imprisonment of one month to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommended types based on the sentencing criteria; and

A. Defendant A

(1) Scope of recommendations

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, 10 million won or more but less than 30 million won (Type 2) (Special Convicts), Return of Bribery prior to the commencement of an investigation (Mitigations)

[General Convicted Persons] Voluntary Maternity (Mitigations)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from 8 months to 2 years (Mitigations)

(2) Whether to suspend the execution

[General Reference Grounds] Return of Bribery before the commencement of an investigation, and a long-term work (esteem)

B. Defendant C.

(1) Scope of recommendations

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, 10 million won or more but less than 30 million won (Type 2) (Special Convicts), Return of Bribery prior to the commencement of an investigation (Mitigations)

[General Sentencing] No history of criminal punishment (requirements for Mitigation)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from 8 months to 2 years (Mitigations)

(2) Whether to suspend the execution

[General Reference Grounds] Return of Bribery before the commencement of an investigation, and a long-term work (esteem)

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: One year of imprisonment, a fine not exceeding 48 million won, and two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment;

1) Since each crime in the judgment of Defendant B is a concurrent crime between the offering of a bribe for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the crime in the judgment of Defendant D is a concurrent crime between the crime of fraud for which the judgment becomes final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply to Defendant B and D. The crime in this case by Defendant A is strictly punished considering that the above Defendant received a bribe of KRW 24 million in total eight times from August 24, 2009 to June 14, 2009 upon the request of Defendant B, who is a brosher for arranging the right to operate the restaurant while the above Defendant was employed as the S management headquarters, to allow him to receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site ordered by the above Corporation from August 24, 2009 to June 14, 200.

However, since Defendant A made confessions of all the crimes of this case from the investigation stage to its depth, there is no record of criminal punishment except for those sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act around 1997, since he was appointed as a public official around 1971, he seems to have donated to the State and local governments for about 40 years since he was appointed as a public official. In light of the contents of the solicitation of this case, the degree of business relationship is relatively high, return money exceeding the number of bribe received before the commencement of the investigation to B, the amount of social attention is obvious, and the health of the defendant is not good, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime.

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment for 5 years;

The crime of offering of a bribe among the crimes in this case committed by Defendant B, upon the request of the said Defendant to help the said Defendant receive the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site, provided the sum of KRW 24 million to A, who is the head of SJ headquarters, and the sum of KRW 20 million to C, who is the president of AJ, four times. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud, by deceiving the said Defendant to transfer the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site jointly or independently with D, and by deceiving the victim N, V, Z, AC,N, and AO, the sum of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000

In light of the following: (a) the crime of offering of a bribe in each of the instant cases has seriously impaired the public confidence in the integrity and fairness of duties of the S and AJ executives and employees; (b) the method of offering a bribe by Defendant B; and (c) the circumstances after the crime was committed; (c) the specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and the amount of damage caused by fraud exceeds 2 billion won; and (d) the amount of damage caused by the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud was committed against multiple victims for a long time, it is inevitable to punish

However, in light of the fact that Defendant B made a confession and reflect on the crime of offering of a bribe, the degree of duty relationship is relatively not high in light of the contents of the solicitation, and the fact that there is a favorable condition for the crime of offering a bribe that has become final and conclusive at the same time as the case of the crime of offering a bribe is to be considered, together with the consideration of various sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s health, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, circumstances, means, and consequence of the instant crime. Defendant C: (a) the instant crime of this case committed by Defendant C with imprisonment for a year, a fine of KRW 40 million, and a stay of execution of imprisonment for a two-year period, which was ordered by the said Defendant who was employed as the president at the construction site B, with the request of the said Defendant to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site ordered by the said Corporation from August 13, 2009 to June 14, 2010.

However, it seems that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the first time, was donated to the State and local governments for a short period of time after being appointed as a public official, in light of the contents of the solicitation of this case, the degree of duty relationship is relatively high, in light of the contents of the solicitation of this case, the return of money exceeding the amount of bribe received before the commencement of investigation to B, social attention is clear, and the fact that B does not have the right to operate a restaurant at the subway construction site actually ordered by AJ, and the above defendant's age, health status, personality and behavior, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, means and consequence, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the order in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, including the above defendant's age, health status, personality and behavior, family relationship,

D. Defendant D: (a) The instant crime committed by Defendant D with two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, by deceiving that the said Defendant would transfer the right to operate a restaurant in the construction site jointly or solely with B, and by deceiving N, N, and AO a total of KRW 210 million; and (b) taking account of the fraud amount exceeds KRW 200,000,000, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant.

However, under favorable circumstances such as the recognition and confession of all of the instant crimes, and the fact that multiple crimes appear to have been committed by the instructions of the employees of B, etc., the principle of equity with the case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time, together with the fact that the defendant’s health, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and result of the instant crimes, etc., shall be determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the defendant’s health, character

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant C

A. Summary of the facts charged

From October 1, 2007 to December 29, 2008, the Defendant served as the X-public market, and supported the X-market, and was in charge of overall general administration such as planning, budget, transportation, environment, construction authorization and permission.

From April 25, 2008 to April 26, 2008, at the BV coffee shop in AA, the Defendant received 30 million won from the construction site BW construction site B and BX upon the Defendant’s request to receive the right to operate the restaurant in the BW construction site and BX in the construction site B.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of KRW 30 million in relation to his duties.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① from the bank account (Account Number: BY) of WW (Account Number) to April 24, 2008, the amount of KRW 250,050,000 was withdrawn. ② From the investigation agency to April 24, 2008, B received KRW 25,000 from the daily house in the CA by requesting the withdrawal of cash to D on April 24, 2008, and then received KRW 25,00,000 from the daily house in the CA. This day was not delivered to Defendant C on April 25 or April 26, 200, and then delivered KRW 5,000 to Defendant C on April 26, 200.

However, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be judged as the interest of the defendant. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is insufficient to view that the above conviction alone has been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① According to the financial transaction information provided by the Bank to this Court, 25 million won out of 25 million won deposited from the Korean bank account on April 24, 2008, 2008 was withdrawn by a cashier’s check, and it can be confirmed that the said self-check check was replaced by the Daejeon Branch of the Bank of Korea and Daejeon Branch of the Bank of Korea on April 25, 2008. This delivered 30 million won to Defendant C in cash on April 25, 2008 or April 26, 2008. This is clearly inconsistent with D’s statement and April 24, 2008.

In the U.S. B., it appears that the cash was granted only to senior public officials including Defendant C, construction order office, construction officer, employee, etc. of the contractor, etc., and even according to social norms, it does not seem that the record had been given a bribe to Defendant C by using a cashier’s check with the record.

③ From April 25, 2008 to April 26, 2008, B stated that a bribe was given to Defendant C at the morning. On April 25, 2008, 10:00, X-si extraordinary session plenary session was held at X-si, and April 26, 208:00, at the time, the Saturdays pending issue meeting held by Defendant C, which was the executive branch of the X-si, was likely to have been held in the X-si office building.

④ In addition to the statement in B, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C or B was at the BV coffee shop located in AA around April 25, 2008 or April 26, 2000.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this subordinate judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

2. Defendant C’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act around August 13, 2010

A. Summary of the facts charged

On August 13, 2010, the Defendant was issued KRW 10 million under the pretext that, at the CD coffee shop in Songpa-gu Seoul, the Defendant arranged to receive a license through the CE president, etc. deemed a public official, who is a public official, of the modern construction site CF construction site that CE orders from a restaurant B at the construction site.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the affairs handled by the public officials.

B. Determination

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, at around 13:18, 2010, B withdrawn KRW 30 million from its post office account (Account Number:) on August 13, 2010; ② CG and Defendant C calls one another in the vicinity of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan CH(location) around 16:55 and 16:57 on the same day; ③ around 18:35 of the same day, B was nearby the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CI (location in the base station); ④ From this court to this court, B made a consistent statement to the effect that, at the same time, CG and Defendant C were 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 dedicated at the site of construction and at the site of Hyundai Construction; and, at the same time, CG 100G and its shop.

However, as seen earlier, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a conviction that is true beyond a reasonable doubt. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is insufficient to deem that the above fact alone was insufficient to prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On August 13, 2010, the CE president’s husband’s husband and wife married at the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu CL hotel. According to the C.I and CN’s statements, Defendant C appeared to have been in the CM hotel at least 19:00 on the same day, and at least it appears to have been in the CM hotel at least 19:00 on the same day. Defendant C appears to have been in the CG hotel around August 13, 2010. However, even after examining all evidence, including CG’s monetary records, there was no evidence to deem that Defendant C had been in the CD hotel between 16:555 and 19:00 on the same day.

CG only stated in this Court on August 13, 2010 that it was not memoryd with a CD hotel, and the CO driving the vehicle of B on the same day also stated that it is not memoryd between B and CD hotel on the same day. In addition, since B’s house was located in the Songpa-gu Seoul CP, it is difficult to readily conclude that B went to the CD hotel solely on the ground that B was located near the Songpa-gu Seoul CI (base station location) around 18:35 on the same day.

④ From August 13, 2010, around 18:03, CG appears to have been in the vicinity of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Q (base station location). Considering that Defendant CG was a short time of departure, it is difficult to view that Defendant C had returned from the above CG to the CD hotel after approximately 1 hour to approximately 19:00,000, and then arrived at the CM hotel. As of the 6 CM hotel, Kimpo Airport was located in the west by Han River, and the CD hotel was located in the east River. Considering such factors as the location of such CM hotel, Kimpo Airport, CD hotel, and CD hotel, as well as the geographical and time distance between each other, it is difficult to view that Defendant CG had re-entered from the above CM hotel to the CD hotel after the lapse of 1 hour and 19:00,000, and that it is also inconsistent with social norms that B would be a bribe for the president’s request for referral to CE, the president, and offer convenience to Defendant CM.

(6) Defendant C appears to have granted the KTX development right in the Seoul Station around August 13, 2010 after the head of the above marriage hall. In light of this, the above Defendant appears not to go to the CD hotel or to go to B even after the marriage ceremony, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

3. Defendant C’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act around October 15, 2010

A. Summary of the facts charged

Around October 15, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the CS Frequency Center in CCR, under the pretext of arranging the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site of Chuncheon CT Complex, through the CU, which is a public official, at the construction site of Switzerland CT Complex. Accordingly, the Defendant received money and valuables on the pretext of soliciting or arranging the public official’s affairs.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether to receive money or not, the Defendant denied the receipt of money, and provided money in the absence of objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money. In order to acknowledge a guilty on the sole basis of a person’s statement, the said person’s statement must be admissible as evidence, as well as credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, in a case where the credibility of the statement is denied as a result of an examination on whether the statement made by the person who asserts to have provided money over several occasions is reliable, the credibility of the statement that provided money over several times should be deemed to have been considerably weak. Thus, even if objective circumstances, etc. were not revealed in the remaining part of the statement, recognizing the remaining money solely on the ground of the statement made by the person who alleged to have provided money over several times, should be deemed as not allowing the acceptance of money in principle. Furthermore, if the remaining part of the statement is able to be accepted on a reasonable basis, it should be determined that there are sufficient grounds to dismiss the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du1081).

(2) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts were revealed: ① around 9:00 on October 15, 2010, B withdrawn KRW 600,000 from the Nong Bank account (Account Number: CX) in the name of CV (De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto De facto) that it managed; ② Defendant C calls with Defendant C on October 15, 2010; ③ around 19:46 on the same day, CY (base State Location); ③ From this court’s investigation agency to this court, Defendant C was able to be granted a restaurant license at the construction site of CTT TU; and, on October 15, 2010, Defendant C had consistently withdrawn KRW 100,000,000, 300,000, 300,000.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, in the case of the instant case where there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money, as seen earlier, insofar as the statement made by B, which provided money to the Defendant around April 26, 2008 and around August 13, 2010, was contrary to objective circumstances and thus rejected its credibility, it is difficult to believe that the statement made by B on this part of the facts charged is difficult without permission unless there are special circumstances. Furthermore, considering the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the record, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the statement made by B on this part of the facts charged was sufficiently supported by other objective evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On October 15, 2010, around 18:07, Defendant C was boarding the subway station, and getting off the subway station around 18:20. In light of this, the above Defendant appears to have been trying to go to his house located in AA at that time, and there is no evidence to prove that the above Defendant went to the CSS frequency located in AA at that time.

② At around October 15, 2010, around 19:46, B appears to have been nearby CY (the location of a base station). However, it is difficult to readily conclude that B went to the CS cluster at the time solely based on the above facts alone, because there exists a considerable distance between the said place and CS frequency.

③ At around 09:00 on October 15, 2010, B made a statement that the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of CV was given KRW 6 million and that it was given to Defendant C. However, it is difficult to readily understand that the cash to be given was withdrawn at a low 09:00 and that it was not in possession of one day a day, and that the remaining 4 million won of the remainder of the grant was not disclosed at all.

(1) Since the Chuncheon CT Complex project was not yet selected as a pilot of the construction around October 15, 2010, it is difficult to deem that B requested the mediation of the right to operate the cafeteria at the time of the construction to Defendant C.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

4. The summary of the charge of offering a bribe on or around April 25, 2008 to April 26, 2008 is as follows: (a) Defendant B offered a bribe to the head of X-Executive branch, such as Defendant B’s 1-A of the part not guilty; and (b) this constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in Article 1-B of the part not guilty; (c) Defendant B rendered a judgment not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (d) the summary of this part’s judgment is publicly announced in accordance with

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Geung-dilution

Judgment of the Supreme Court