A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

While the Defendant was working in relation to real estate development projects, the Defendant, along with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”)’s representative director F, who purchased the Youngwon D D D (hereinafter referred to as “E”), had a duty to select a design firm related to the projects promoted by E as the vice president from around April 2015, and had a duty to select a design firm related to the projects promoted by E according to fair procedures.

Nevertheless, around March 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested by the president of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) in the design strategic division I to order H to receive design services for “G new construction works”; and (b) on April 2, 2015, the Defendant had E enter into a contract for J new construction works design services in an amount of KRW 1.3 billion for total contract deposit.

After September 2016, the Defendant received KRW 40 million from I in return for receiving such design services in the I’s car located on the roads near the station in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in exchange for illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Copies of the statement made by the prosecution to K;

1. Copy of the protocol concerning interrogation of suspects of L by the prosecution;

1. Statement made with regard to I (including the A's statement part);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reserve funds;

1. Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act is highly likely to be criticized in that the defendant, for the reason of sentencing, has promoted personal benefits in selecting a designer in connection with the project.

The above behavior of Defendant Appellant provides the design firm with wrong causes that give priority to the offering of rebates for receiving stocks rather than focusing on securing the partial design competitiveness in relation to the construction work.

However, the defendant recognized the crime and erred.