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

(b) Subsequent to the acceptance of a bribe; and

C. Acceptance of bribe

D. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a) B

3.(a) C

4. D. E

Defendants

Gangnam-gu, Jeon Byung-ju, Hain-Jak, and Hain-Jaks

Attorney I, J (private ships for defendant A)

Attorney L (private ships for the defendant B)

JK Law Firm (private ships for defendant C)

JL, Attorney JL

Attorney JM (the national election for Defendant E)

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gohap262, 2014 Decided December 11, 2015

349(Joint Judgment) Judgment

June 10, 2016

All the judgment below against the Defendants are reversed. Defendant A is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, by imprisonment for five years, by fine for 70 million won, by imprisonment for Defendant C, by imprisonment for three years, by fine for 40 million won, and by imprisonment for two years, respectively. Defendant B and C fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 500,000 won into one day.

The amount of KRW 5250,00 from Defendant A, KRW 68250,00 from Defendant B, KRW 38,000 from Defendant C, and KRW 12,50,000 from Defendant E shall be collected respectively. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the charge of acceptance of bribe on November 5, 2012 shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant A did not accept a request from D for determination of a disability grade, and there was no fact that Defendant A received money or entertainment from D in relation to determination of a disability grade.

2) The AF, E’s police, the prosecution, and the court of original instance, whose contents are the statements in violation of the rules of evidence, are the statements of a medical specialist, and thus, admissibility of evidence can be acknowledged in cases where a person making the original statement is unable to make a statement. Since D appeared in the court of original instance and made a statement in the court of original instance but became unable to make a statement in the court of appeal, this does not constitute

3) Legal principles

Defendant A’s unlawful action after the acceptance of a bribe and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) do not constitute a blanket offense on the ground that there is no simplification or continuity of the criminal intent, and thus, seven of the unlawful action after the acceptance of a bribe and fourteen of the crimes of acceptance of a bribe have expired. Since the Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 14 of the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the lower judgment and the attached Tables 2 and 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 14 of the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the lower judgment are in a legal relation, it constitutes only the unlawful action after the acceptance

B. Defendant B (De facto Error) did not commit an unlawful act upon receiving a request from Defendant B for a determination of a disability grade, and did not receive money and valuables and entertainment.

C. Defendant C

1) Legal principles

Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied since the crime of acceptance of bribe by Defendant C constitutes concurrent crimes not a single comprehensive crime but a concurrent crime.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (the imprisonment of five years, the fine of 40 million won, the additional collection of 38 million won) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant E

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant E intended to have the BS listed in [Attachment 6] No. 26 List of the lower judgment raise the disability grade, and then transferred it to V, but thereafter, Defendant E concluded a new agreement with F and paid fees. As such, Defendant E excluded from the public offering relationship. Therefore, Defendant E is not liable for the above crime.

B) Since the fee was not allocated from Nos. 6 23, 26, 27 of the lower judgment’s [Attachment 6] Nos. 23, 26, 27 of the lower judgment, the amount additionally collected was erroneous.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant E (the imprisonment of three years, the additional collection of 12.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant A

1) Ex officio determination on changes in indictment

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor deleted ‘illegal action' from the name of the crime in the facts charged against the defendant A, deleted ‘Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act' in the applicable provisions of the Act, and received ‘the bribe' in the former part of Article 131(1) and ‘the act of misconduct in the course of performing his duties and received the bribe'. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment. However, the court below decided that each of the crimes in this part of the judgment of the defendant A and the remaining crimes in the judgment of the defendant A are concurrent crimes and concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment. Accordingly, the part against the defendant cannot be maintained. Nevertheless, since the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this

2) As to the assertion of mistake of facts

A) At the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s decision, D stated that Defendant A provided money and other valuables or entertainment as stated in the facts charged to the purport that it would enable disaster workers upon their request to receive the disability grade well.

B) However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

① The AF, who is the wife of D, provided a bribe to Defendant A by means of cash or golf and drinking, etc. in order to get a higher grade of disability at the police station, and in the process, he also stated that he also provided a bribe to Defendant D at the request of Defendant D.

② At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, E stated that there was a good rating for disaster workers who introduced D, and that E was considered to have paid money to the employees of the Corporation or the subjects of the contract.

③ From around 2003 to 2011, Y, who works as advisory doctor at the branch office of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, from around 2003 to around 201, Y, at an investigative agency and the court of original instance, Y, upon introduction of D from Defendant A around 2005, received a request from Defendant A to facilitate the examination of a disability grade for a specific patient, directly or through C, and received money of KRW 3 million in total from Defendant A around 3 times around 2007.

④ At the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below, around 2007, C also stated that the chief of the department stated that the counsel who reviewed the disability grade by receiving the name of the person eligible for compensation from the Defendant A was friendly, and that the chief of the department stated that he would be friendly.

⑤ Defendant A also knew at the prosecution that, after having become aware of D around 2005, there were many cases of golf or drinking, D had been borne at the same expense, and D had been aware that it was a person who would receive money from affected patients and would have higher the disability grade of affected patients. Upon D’s request, Defendant A asked Y to undergo an examination of the disability grade of affected workers at least several times.

④ Defendant D requested Defendant D to find out his wife around early 2014, which was an economic difficulty due to the bonds, etc., and requested Defendant A to help them economically.

TOD allows the disaster workers listed in the attached Table 1 to receive disability benefits at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation V branch, as follows, and received compensation therefor:

○ AL received KRW 50,958,080 as two-year advance payment of disability supplementary pension benefits around November 9, 2005, and around November 15, 2005. D received KRW 25,000,000,000,000 around November 15, 2005. AM received KRW 7,000 around December 16, 2005, and received KRW 20,000,000,000,000. AM received KRW 7,000 around December 16, 2005, and received KRW 20,000,000 through E. In return, D received KRW 20,000,000 through E.

around April 19, 2006, ○ H received KRW 32,587,140 as the two-year advance payment of disability supplementary pension around April 20, 2006. D received KRW 15 million around December 2005, and KRW 15 million through E around April 21, 2006. An AI received the Grade 6 disability grade around April 25, 2006, and received KRW 49,727,350 as the two-year advance payment of disability supplementary pension benefits on that day, around April 26, 2006. In return, D received additional KRW 2,300,000 through E around April 26, 2006, and 300,000,000 won.

○ AO received KRW 42,691,530 as the two-year advance payment of disability supplementary pension benefits on December 21, 2006, following the determination of grade 7 around December 14, 2006. D received KRW 38 million through E around December 21, 2006.

○ CY received KRW 24,697,210 as two-year advance payment of disability compensation annuity on April 19, 2007, following the determination of disability grade 7 around April 19, 2007. D received KRW 26,200,000 on December 26, 2005 and KRW 5 million on August 18, 2006.

around December 6, 2007, ○G received disability compensation annuities every month after receiving the determination of grade 7 around December 6, 2007. D received, as a consideration, KRW 17 million through E around July 21, 2006, KRW 10 million on August 10, 2006, KRW 10 million on August 10, 2006, and KRW 10 million on October 17, 2007.

8. A business pocket book prepared by the AJ (AJ:D) which works as a mast in a entertainment entertainment drinking house around 2006, states that D 2 diseases per two weeks together with three entertainment reception reception reception guards on March 24, 2006, three entertainment reception guards on March 30, 2006, two two entertainment reception guards on June 7, 2006, two entertainment reception reception guards on June 28, 2006, and two entertainment reception guards on June 28, 2006, and three entertainment reception guards on August 28, 2006, together with three entertainment reception guards on August 28, 2006.

C) The statement of D is supported by the above circumstances, and even though D’s memory is somewhat correct in detail, it is generally consistent and concrete, and it is highly reliable. Therefore, it is recognized that Defendant A received money, valuables, or entertainment from the affected workers in relation to the determination of the disability grade as shown in the attached Table 1 at the time when Defendant A worked in the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s branch office, and that Defendant A received KRW 500,000 from D around November 5, 2012, and that Defendant A received money, valuables, or entertainment in relation to the determination of the disability grade of the affected workers as described in

3) The statements made in the AF, E police, and the prosecutor's office with the contents of D's statement as to the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence fall under the hearsay statement, but the defendant A consented to it as evidence. The statements made in the E's original judgment constitutes a case where the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement as it was made after D's death, and all of the above statements are admissible as evidence. Accordingly, the defendant A's assertion

4) As to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles:

A) In the event that a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period of time with respect to a single and continuous comprehensive crime, each of the crimes shall be deemed a single comprehensive crime. If a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period of time with respect to a single and continuous crime, and if the damage law is the same as the profit of the same crime, the one who received the money extends over a considerable period of time, and even if there is a considerable period of time at the date of receiving the money, each of the crimes shall be deemed a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4940, Jan. 21, 2000).

In this case, the money and valuables or entertainment received by Defendant A from the above Defendant was exchanged to the effect that the above Defendant was given due consideration to the disaster workers who were requested by D in relation to the decision-making work of the disability grade as the chief of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's branch office, and thus, the above Defendant's act of accepting the bribe constitutes a single and continuous crime and constitutes a single comprehensive crime because it constitutes a case where the same kind of crime is committed repeatedly for a certain period and the legal benefits are the same. Furthermore, insofar as the above crime constitutes a comprehensive crime, the statute of limitations has not expired. This part of Defendant A

B) Even if Defendant A received money from the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service on December 28, 2007, as to the business relationship with respect to the receipt of money and valuables on December 28, 2007, around January 2008, prior to the leave of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s V branch office on December 28, 2007, Defendant A cannot be said to have no business relationship so long as he received the money in relation to the determination of the disability grade of the affected workers.

C) As to the duty relationship of receiving money and valuables on November 5, 2012, Defendant A served as the head of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation branch at the time of receiving the said money and valuables, Defendant A was mainly involved in the determination of the disability grade at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation V branch. However, based on all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that D requested Defendant A to make a decision on the disability grade at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s branch, or that Defendant A received the said money in relation to the duty at the time of working at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s branch.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is with merit.

B. Defendant B

1) Ex officio determination on changes in indictment

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor deleted ‘illegal action' from the name of the crime in the facts charged against Defendant B, deleted ‘Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act' in the applicable provisions of the Acts, and received ‘the acceptance of a bribe' in the latter part of paragraph (2). Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below on Defendant B cannot be maintained as it is. Nevertheless, Defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court.

2) As to the assertion of mistake of facts

A) At the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s decision, D stated that Defendant B provided money and other valuables or entertainment as stated in the facts charged to the effect that the disaster workers upon their request would be able to receive the disability grade well.

B) However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts are recognized:

① The AF, the wife of D, stated that D offered a bribe to Defendant B at the police station, and that Defendant B was also at a cash intervals of KRW 10 million for a month in which the installment of the passenger car was passed by Defendant B.

② At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, E stated that there was a good rating for disaster workers who introduced D, and that E was considered to have paid money to the employees of the Corporation or the subjects of the contract.

③ At the police station, AP received orders from Defendant B to promptly deal with the determination of disability grade of specific disaster workers on several occasions, and stated that it was necessary to review it in detail and approve it.

④ At the prosecutor’s office, AA made a request to Y, an advisory doctor, with Defendant B’s instruction, and Defendant B made a statement that it was possible for Defendant B to promptly deal with a specific disaster worker and immediately write down approval.

Y at an investigative agency and a court of original instance, Defendant B stated that it was asked by its subordinate staff, such as AA, to easily examine the disability of the disaster workers.

④ Defendant B stated that, at the police around April 2008, Defendant D came to know of Defendant D, Defendant B provided meals or drinks several times, and at a golf course, Defendant B provided golf to the degree of five to six times.

On the beginning of the beginning of 2014, Defendant D asked Defendant B to find out his wife and help the Defendant B in money.

8. D shall, at the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service V branch offices listed in attached Table 2, cause disaster workers to receive disability benefits as follows, and receive compensation therefor:

OV received class 6’s disability grade around April 29, 2008, and received KRW 36,058,710 as an advance payment of the disability compensation annuity for two-year period. D received KRW 34 million around April 29, 2008.

O Q received disability compensation annuities every month after being determined at the disability grade of Grade VII around May 8, 2008. D, in return, received KRW 5 million around March 2008, and KRW 4 million in total as of May 2008, including KRW 5 million around May 8, 2008, and KRW 9 million in police.

OY received 60,637,500 won as a lump sum payment for disability compensation, after having been determined by the V branch office around August 19, 2009 at the grade of disability, and received 60,637,500 won as a lump sum payment for disability compensation. D received KRW 30 million around August 20, 2009.

○ AX received KRW 86,783,630 as the lump-sum disability compensation payment, after having been determined at the grade of Grade 6 around September 30, 2009, and received KRW 86,783,630 as the lump-sum disability compensation. D, as a result, received KRW 30,000,000 via E around October 1, 2009. On or around December 23, 2009, A was determined at the disability grade of Grade 7 and was paid KRW 98,240,29 as the lump-sum disability compensation. D received KRW 18,000,000 through E around December 23, 2009.

○○U received KRW 53,961,600 as a lump-sum disability compensation payment, after having been determined at the grade of Grade 7 around January 20, 2010, and received KRW 53,961,600 as a result of lump-sum disability compensation. D received KRW 28,00,000 through E around January 21, 2010.

○ AR received KRW 96,847,520 as the lump-sum disability compensation payment, following the determination of grade 7 around February 24, 2010, and received KRW 96,847,520 as the lump-sum disability compensation. D, as a result, received KRW 30,000,000 from V branch offices around February 24, 2010. D received KRW 55,093,99 as the lump-sum payment for disability compensation, and received KRW 55,00,00 as the lump-sum payment for disability compensation. D received KRW 27,00,000 through E around June 17, 2010.

④ Around January 15, 2009, Defendant B purchased a franchise-free car by means of obtaining a loan from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and paid 1,178,877 won (1,237,644 won as of February 25, 2009) in installments on the 25th day of each month from February 2009 to October 2009, Defendant B paid the remainder of the installment on November 25, 2009.

(10) At the police and the prosecution, around March 2009, A stated that, with Defendant B and D, they drink alcohol in the studal harassment near JN, and that they drink alcohol in the studal harassment once more on or around June 2009. At the police station, AS, who served as the head of office at the EJ entertainment drinking house, she stated that Defendant B d drink alcohol together with A and from March 2009 to June 2009, and that the drinking value was fully borne by D.

① On March 2010, at the police station, AP stated that the studio dF dF dF was dice together with Defendant B and D.

C) The statement of D is supported by the above circumstances, and even though the memory of D is somewhat incorrect in detail, it is generally consistent and concrete, and there is credibility. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit, since it is recognized that Defendant B received money or entertainment as shown in the attached Table 2 in relation to the determination of the disability grade of the affected workers at the time when Defendant B worked in the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service’s branch office, as shown in the attached Table 2.

C. Defendant C

1) Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant C did not submit the statement of grounds of appeal within the period for submitting the legitimate grounds of appeal, and there are no grounds for ex officio investigation on this part, and it cannot be determined as to the grounds for appeal alleged in the grounds for appeal filed by the above Defendant in the above period and the subsequent appellate brief (However, in this case, the money received by Defendant C D in this case is exchanged to the above Defendant with the purport that the above Defendant would be given due consideration to the disaster workers requested by D in relation to the duty to determine the disability grade in charge as the Vice Minister for the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Branch, and therefore, the above Defendant’s acceptance of bribery constitutes a single and continuous criminal act for a certain period under the same type

2) Ex officio determination of sentencing

As seen earlier, Defendant C did not submit the grounds of appeal within the lawful period for submission of the grounds of appeal.

However, in examining the sentencing ex officio, Defendant C received money and entertainment by requesting D to assist disaster workers in determining the disability grade, while taking charge of the affairs related to the determination of the disability grade as the deputy head of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Branch V branch. This is highly likely to be subject to criticism by impairing the fairness of performing the duties related to the industrial accident compensation of employees of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service and the general trust of the society about the inequality. In addition, the amount of money and valuables received exceeds 38 million won over 6 times, and the amount of money and valuables received is also reasonable.

However, it seems that there is no case where the disability grade of the disaster workers who received request from D actually determined unfairly, Defendant C has been repented and reflected in the crime of this case, Defendant C has faithfully worked for a considerable period of time with the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and Defendant C has no criminal history, etc. are favorable to the above Defendant.

In addition, considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including Defendant C’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, etc., the punishment of the Defendant determined by the lower court is somewhat inappropriate. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant C among the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

D. Defendant E

1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Even if the Defendant conspired with other accomplices to commit a part of the crime, and went away from the accomplice relationship after committing the crime, the remaining accomplices are also liable for the crime as a co-principal insofar as they did not prevent the other accomplices from committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9927, Jan. 13, 201). In the instant case, even if Defendant E transferred BS to V, and Defendant E newly agreed to the F and fee agreement with one of the co-offenders, insofar as Defendant E did not prevent the other accomplices from committing the crime, the entire criminal liability is borne as a co-principal. This part of Defendant E’s assertion is without merit.

B) As to the assertion of error in collection

The lower court did not additionally collect the amount received from the BT, BS, and BZ listed in the Nos. 6 List 23, 26, 27, from the Defendant E, and therefore, the Defendant E’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Defendant E, in collusion with D, received approximately KRW 980,000,000 on 30 occasions under the pretext of having the employee in charge of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare receive an increase in the disability grade in collusion with D, etc. In such an offense, it is highly likely to be subject to criticism that it would prejudice the general public’s trust in relation to the fairness and non-purchase of the duties pertaining to the industrial accident compensation of the employees of the

However, the crime of this case led by D and the degree of participation of Defendant E is not much significant, the amount of profit of Defendant E caused by the crime of this case is about KRW 100 million, the amount of profit of Defendant E is divided into one’s own crime and reflects it, and the fact that Defendant E does not have any particular criminal history other than that sentenced twice by a fine is considered as favorable to the above Defendant.

In addition, considering the circumstances revealed in the instant argument, such as Defendant E’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed on Defendant E is somewhat unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant E’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant A, B, and C has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and part of the appeal by the defendant A is justified, and since the appeal by the defendant E is justified, the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence against the Defendants is as shown in each corresponding column of the lower judgment, except for the revision of the facts constituting an offense against Defendant A and B as follows. As such, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Defendant A

Defendant A worked as the chief of compensation department from August 16, 2005 to January 29, 2008 at the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service’s branch offices, and took charge of the affairs pertaining to the determination of the disability grade of affected workers and the payment of compensation, etc. Defendant A received request from D, which was known through X, the employee of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service around August 2005, to ensure that the disability grade of affected workers can be well determined. In this regard, Defendant A received money, valuables, or entertainment worth KRW 5,250,00 in total from D over 15 times from November 16, 2005 to December 28, 2007.

Accordingly, Defendant A received a bribe in relation to his duties as a person who is deemed a public official.

2. Defendant B

From January 30, 208 to September 5, 2010, Defendant B served as the chief of compensation department at the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service’s branch, and took charge of the business affairs regarding the determination of the disability grade of the affected workers and the payment of compensation to the affected workers. Defendant B received a request from D who became aware of X around January 2008 to assist and deliver it so that the disability grade of the affected workers can be well determined. In this regard, Defendant B received money and valuables or entertainment worth KRW 6,8250,00 in total from D over 13 times from April 30, 2008 to June 18, 2010 as shown in the attached Table 2. Accordingly, Defendant B received a bribe in relation to his duties as a public official.

Application of Statutes

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

○ Defendant A: Article 2(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) [The upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years pursuant to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)], Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 24 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10210, Oct. 15, 2010);

○ Defendant B: Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the upper limit of punishment shall be 15 years pursuant to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act), Article 2(2) (Concurrent imposition of fines with regard to the part of paragraphs 3 through 13 of the attached Table 2), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 24 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Overall)

○ Defendant C: Article 2(1)3 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Concurrent Imposition of Fines); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 24 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Overall Control)

(d) Defendant E: Article 111(1) and (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 24 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (generally, choice of imprisonment);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B and C: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Code;

1. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant B, C);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant A, B, and C: Article 134 of each Criminal Act

○ Defendant E: Reasons for sentencing Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Defendant A

○ Decision on the Sentencing Criteria: The range of recommended types 4 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won) of the Bribery Crime Group: 5 years to 7 years (basic area).

○○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The instant crime was committed by Defendant A at the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Branch, working as the compensation manager, and received money or entertainment from D upon request by the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service to ensure that the disability grade of the affected workers may be well determined. This is highly likely to be subject to criticism that it would impair the fairness and public trust in the performance of duties concerning the industrial accident compensation of employees of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and the nature of the instant crime is very bad. The amount of money or valuables received by Defendant A reaches approximately KRW 52 million over 15 times every two years.

It seems that the disability grade of the disaster workers who were requested by D was actually determined unfairly. Defendant A has worked in good faith at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation for a long time and has no record of crime.

○ Other circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

2. Defendant B

○ Decision on the Sentencing Criteria: The scope of recommended types 4 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won) of the bribe crime group: 5 years to 7 years (basic area) of imprisonment.

The instant crime was committed upon the request of Defendant B, while serving as the chief of compensation in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation V branch, and received money, valuables, or entertainment from D upon the request of Defendant B so that the disability grade of the affected workers may be well determined. This is highly likely to be criticized as impairing the general public’s trust in relation to the fairness and uncertainty of the performance of duties concerning the industrial accident compensation of the employees of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation. The amount of money, valuables, etc. received by Defendant B reaches approximately KRW 68 million over 13 times for two years.

It seems that the disability grade of the disaster workers requested by D was not actually determined unfairly. Defendant B has worked in good faith for a considerable period of time at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and there is no record of crime except for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

○ Other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in light of the overall circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A served as the head of the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Branch from March 2012 to November 201, 2013. Defendant A received KRW 500,000 in cash from D in relation to the determination of the disability grade of the disaster workers at the club of the golf club in the Jeju Island, which will be scar, around November 5, 2012. Accordingly, Defendant A deemed as a public official and accepted a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

2. Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as stated in Article 2-1(a)(4)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

The presiding judge and the lowest judge;

Judge Bargnmark

Judges Chang Sung

(a) Determination of types*: Type 3 (not less than 30 million won, but not more than 50 million won) of acceptance of bribe from a criminal group;

Scope of Recommendation: Imprisonment of three to five years (basic areas);

2. Determination of types*: Acceptance of money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation and good offices of crime groups violating the Attorney-at-Law Act;

Scope of Recommendation: Imprisonment of two to four years (basic areas)