2018Gohap860 A. Breach of trust

(b) Forgery of evidence;

(c) Offering of bribe;

(d) Use of forged evidence;

(e) Misappropriation;

F. Acceptance of bribe

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.b.(c) d. E. C

4. (f) D.

Prosecutions only (prosecutions) and prosecutions (public trials)

1. Defendant A: Law firm police officer (Attorney Lee Dong-ju and Justice Kim Dong-dong);

2. Defendant B: Attorneys Kim Jong-chul, and Kim Gag

3. Defendant C: Preliminary Law Firm (Attorney Kim Jae-soo in charge, Lee Jae-soo in charge).

4. Defendant D: Law firm citizen (at least an attorney-at-law in charge).

February 20, 2019

[Defendant A]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 160 hours.

15 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

[Defendant B]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

40 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

[Defendant C]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

One copy of the seized disbursement decision (No. 1441 of the pressure of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 2018) shall be confiscated from the accused.

[Defendant D]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of eight months and a fine of fourteen million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

7 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge.

Criminal facts

From 2012 to 2014, Defendant B served as the president of the FF District G Section G Section for Construction Works performed by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

Defendant A served as the president of the GJ site office in H private investment projects performed by E from around 2013 to around 2014.

Defendant D was responsible for the supervision of H private investment projects performed by E from the year of 2013 to the year of 2014.

Defendant C is the representative director of an I Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "IT"), J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "J"), K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "K"), and L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L"), which has been executed by E, performed construction works of G tools (subcontracts on July 12, 2012), M on-site (subcontracts on December 24, 2012), H private-public investment projects G tools (subcontracts on May 3, 2013), etc.

1. Defendant B

The defendant, while working as the Director of the "F District G Section for the Construction Project", was in charge of overall management of the construction project. In general management of the progress, process management, quality and safety management of the construction project, he/she performed it in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith. In relation to the selection of subcontractor, who participated in the construction site, there was a duty to comprehensively evaluate the fairness, quality, safety management, etc. of the subcontractor.

On August 7, 2012, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the representative C of I who was subcontracted with a soil work, etc. during the construction work, and received KRW 5 million in cash from that time to July 26, 2013, from that time, for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 5 million in cash on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the representative C of I who had been given a subcontract with a soil work, etc. during the construction work; and (c) received convenience in relation to the progress and inspection, weather inspection, payment, etc.; and (d) received a total of KRW 40 million from that time to July 26, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes (1).

As a result, the Defendant acquired property in return for the convenience of executing construction works or evaluating subcontractors.

2. Defendant A

The Defendant, while serving as the head of the GH private investment project site, was in charge of overall management of construction works. In general management of the progress, process management, quality, and safety management of construction works, he/she performed it in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, while performing duties of overall fair evaluation of fair, quality, safety management, etc. against subcontractors participating in the construction site in relation to the selection of subcontractors.

On June 21, 2013, at the office of the head of E site located in the adjoining construction site located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, 013, the Defendant received a total of KRW 150 million per 11 times in total, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (2) from the first representative C, who had been subcontracted for the said construction project, and had been given convenience in the progress and inspection of the construction project, inspection of the weather, payment of the flag, etc. from the said construction project, and at the time of the evaluation of the subcontractor, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation and received KRW 5 million in cash from October 28, 2014, for the same reasons as the guilty amount in the attached Table of Crimes (2).

As a result, the Defendant acquired property in return for the convenience of executing construction works or evaluating subcontractors.

3. Defendant D

As the head of the GH Investment Project Supervision Group, the Defendant had a duty to manage construction works in an appropriate manner in accordance with relevant statutes, standards, design documents, and other related documents, etc.

On July 17, 2013, the Defendant was issued KRW 2 million in cash from that time to February 12, 2014, as shown in the List of Crimes (3) in the attached Table, with a solicitation from the representative C to the effect that, at the supervision office of the head of the supervision office in the above construction site located in Gu-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, the Defendant received KRW 7 million in total on three occasions, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1), in total, from that time.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

4. Defendant C.

(a) Property in breach of trust;

피고인은 2013. 6. 21.경 위 제2항과 같이 경북 구미시 이에 있는 H 민자투자사업 G공구 E 현장소장 사무실에서, A에게 공사 편의 및 하도급업체 평가 편의 등과 관련된 부정한 청탁을 하고 현금 500만 원을 교부한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2014. 11. 14.경까지 사이에 같은 명목으로 별지 범죄일람표(4) 기재 유죄 인정 금액과 같이 총 43회에 걸쳐 A, P, Q, R, S, T, U에게 현금 합계 2억 300만 원 및 시가 411만 원 상당의 샤넬백을 교부하였다.3) 이로써 피고인은 건설공사의 시공 또는 하도급업체 평가 등에 대한 편의 제공과 관련하여 부정한 청탁을 하고 재물을 교부하였다.

(b) Offering of bribe;

Around July 17, 2013, the Defendant issued a bribe of KRW 7 million in total three times, as shown in the List of Offenses (3) attached hereto, from the time to February 12, 2014, at the office of the supervisor in the construction site located in the city of 0,00,000,000 won in cash, to the above D in relation to his/her duties, as described in the foregoing paragraph (3).

(c) Forgery;

While the Defendant was performing the construction work performed under a subcontract as above, the dispute over E and the construction cost occurred due to the settlement of accidents that occurred at the M construction site, etc., and the Defendant was forced to complete all of the said three construction works around July 2015. In order to receive the construction cost from E, the Defendant sought to investigate into an investigation agency the money given to executives and employees of E and on-site supervision under the name of solicitation, such as provision of convenience related to construction work. However, as the account books, etc. having separately prepared the details of the delivery of the money were difficult to prove, the Defendant intended to prepare a false disbursement resolution and submit it to the investigation agency as he/she had prepared the disbursement resolution whenever he/she delivered cash.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant, at the first place of the headquarters located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, made a statement of “the date and time, amount, and the request statement prepared after December 2015, 2015, to the executives and employees, including WW, who are the chief director of the Public Works Project Headquarters for Interest, and to 13 persons, such as H private investment project supervisor D, etc., who arranged the other party to the payment of the money for solicitation,” and “the above request statement prepared after the first place of business, X and Y, who are the managing director, shall prepare a false disbursement resolution statement according to the request statement.

Accordingly, X prepared 40 copies of the disbursement resolution document stating the date of preparation as if it was prepared between December 23, 201 and September 11, 2013, as shown in the document No. 41-78 of the attached Table of Crimes (5) from around September 24, 2013 to the disbursement resolution form at the above I headquarters office around that time, and Y prepared 38 copies of the disbursement resolution document stating the date of preparation as if it was prepared between September 24, 201 to October 28, 2014.

As a result, the Defendant had X, X-Y E such as E, A, and D, and 13 on-site supervision as shown in the attached Form No. 5, which caused the Defendant to forgee evidence by preparing 78 copies of the disbursement resolution, which is evidence of the crime of breach of trust and acceptance of bribe case, retroactively from the date of preparation.

(d) Use of forged evidence;

On September 28, 2017, the Defendant submitted 78 copies of the forged disbursement resolution as seen above to the special investigation and investigation of violation of trust and acceptance of bribe for E executives and employees and on-site supervision, etc. in the special investigation and investigation of the headquarters of the National Police Agency located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, as the date indicated in the disbursement resolution.

Accordingly, the defendant used forged evidence on the case of taking property in breach of trust and acceptance of bribe against E executives and employees and 13 on-site supervision as shown in the attached list of crimes (5).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B and D’s respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and C

1. Each legal statement of the witness AA, AB, C, C, AC, D, D,E, Y, X, T, AF, and AG;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation as to Defendants and T

1. Each prosecutor's statement about AH, Y, AC, AI, and X;

1. Each police statement of the Y, AC, AI, AJ, AD, AK, AL, AM, AO, and AH;

1. AP and X statements;

1. 내사보고(피혐의자 등 인적사항 특정), 내사보고(지출결의서, 차량업무일지 사진 첨부), 내사보고(2.대상자 B의 금품수수에 대한 지출 결의서 등 관련자료), 내사보고(8. 대상자 T의 금품수수에 대한 지출 결의서 등 관련자료), 내사보고(10. 대상자 D의 금품수수에 대한 지출 결의서 등 관련자료), 내사보고(I 대표 C의 진술경위 및 기성금 분쟁에 대한 자료 첨부), 내사보고(E 내부문건 및 W 등 금품 수수 언론보도 관련), 수사보고(압수물분석 및 E 전 감사실 AJ 진술 관련), 수사보고(I 관련 하도급 계약서 첨부), 수사보고[I 등 등기부등본 및 AQ 기업정보 출력물 첨부], 수사보고[C, B, A, W, E 직원 S 등 가족관계증명서 첨부], 수사보고[E(주)의 불공정 하도급 행위 제재 보도자료 첨부], 수사보고[I(주) 공사비 미지급 관련 서류명세서 등 첨부, 수사보고[E(주)와 (주)의 건설공사 (하)도급 계약서 첨부], 수사보고[피의자 C이 P 등 9명에게 교부한 금원 출처 등 확인], 수사보고[E(주) 국내 하도급계약 및 실행예산 관련 직무권한 규정 첨부], 수사보고[E(주) 회사원 AH으로부터 제출 받은 I(주) 관련 건설공사 (하)도급계약서 등 자료 첨부], 수사보고[피의자 B 범죄사실 관련 C 제출자료 첨부], 수사보고[2017. 9. 21. 경찰 제출 파일리스트 사진 첨부], 수사보고[AB와 AR의 카카오톡 메시지 내용 확인], 수사보고[Z 경위 추가 자료제출 요구 내역 첨부], 수사보고[C이 수사기관 등에 제출한 자료 첨부], 수사보고[실제 지출결의서, 사후 지출결의서 및 차량 운행일지 일자별 정리표 첨부], 수사보고[증거위조 관련 사건진행경과표 첨부], 수사보고[경찰의 X 미조사 관련 당시 X I(주) 근무 확인], 수사보고[통화내역 분석 결과 보고, 수사보고[C의 청와대 제출 민원서류 첨부], 수사보고[I(주) CO T의 처에게 교부한 샤넬백 구매 영수증 첨부], 수사보고[(주) C과 E(주) U의 저녁식사 관련 카드매출표 첨부], 수사보고[(주) 사장 C이 E(주) 현장소장 A의 외상값 대납 관련 사실 확인], 수사보고[(주) AI이 P에게 교부한 금품의 출처 확인, 수사보고[I(주) C이 제출한 F 택지 G공구 현장 비다짐 관련 서류 첨부], 수사보고[M 공사에서 추가 공사비 관련 (주) 공문 등 첨부], 수사보고(AB 스마트폰의 '네이버 캘린더 앱' 데이터 분석)

1. -반기보고서, -E 주식회사 등기부등본, - I 주식회사 등기부등본 발췌, -지출결의서, 차량운행일지 사진, 이 E에 진정한 진정서, -I에 대한 E 내부문건 및 언론도보, -I 계좌거래내역, 각 차량 일일업무일지, 차량견적서, 입금표, 문자메시지, 수사협조의뢰(자동차등록원부 사본 요청) 및 회신서, 가족관계증명서(A), FAS 예상질의 응답(I 관련), - AS-AT 위원 I 관련 질의, -E 조직도, 각 I 현안보고, -E 측 주요 참고인조사 취지 및 진술요지, 차량 일일업무일지 및 지출결의서, 당직근무표 및 문자메시지, -건설공사하도급계약서(H 민자투자사업 G공구), -I, J(주), AU(주), (주)AV, L(주) 등기부등본 1부, -(주)I, J(주), AU(주), (주)AV, L(주) AQ 기업 정보조회 출력물 1부, -I(주)의 2012년 및 2013년의 금전출납부상 불명확한 자금지출 내역, -I(주)의 2012년 및 2013년 금전출납부 사본, -C, B, A, E 직원 S, P, Q, R, T, U, AW, D의 가족관계증명서 각 1부, 문자메시지 출력물 1부, 사진대지 1부, -F 지구 조성공사 G공구 현장소장 AX 명의 확인서 1부, I 현안보고 1부, 소장(피고 I) 1부, 보증금 청구자료 등 1부, - 이체처리결과 건별 상세조회 각 1부, -거래처원장(2014. 1. 1.~2014. 12. 31.) 1부, -I(주) 자금지불 내역 1부, - 거래처 원장(2013. 1. 1.~2013. 12. 31.) 1부, -H 사업 G공구 위치도 1부, -H 사업 제6차 변경 공사도급 계약서 1부, -I(주) X 작성 문서 1부, 보완사항 1부, -W 문자 1부, -I(주) C 작성문서 1부, - AY 보도자료(2018.3.13. 배포) 1부, -I(주) 하도급 계약 정산요청 문서 1부, 위조 합의서 사본 1부, -세금계산명세서 1부, -임목폐기물 상차 및 운반, 폐콘크리트 상차 및 운반 각 1부, - 내역별 거래명세표 1부, - 건설공사하도급계약서 중 일반조건의 변조 내용 1부, 건설공사하도급계약서 중 특수조건의 변조 내용 1부, - 현안보고 1부, -E 품의서 1부, -F지구 조성공사(G공구) 건설공사(하)도급계약서 11부, -H 민자투자사업(G공구) 건설공사(하)도급계약서 7부, -인사기록카드 사본 1부, - 일자별 계좌 거래내역 1부, - 지급결의서 및 자금지불내역 1부, -계좌거래내역 1부, -일일업무일지(차량일지) 1부, -일자별 계좌 거래내역 1부, -지급결의서 및 자금지불내역 1부, 계좌거래내역 1부, 일일업무일지(차량일지) 1부, E(주) 직무권한 규정 사본 1부, -LH 감독관 재직 현황, E(주) 외주시스템 출력물 각 1부, 환경평가기준 관련 신인도 평가 1부, -F 택지 G공구 현장 현장 품질, 안전점검 보고서 1부, -F 택지 G공구 현장 B 연월차 내역, 환경 관련 공문 등 각 1부, -C 제출 자료 1부, -이메일 출력물 1부, - AB 휴대전화 포렌직 이미징 결과 중 AR와 카카오톡 대화 출력물 1부, 메모지 2부, -C이 제출한 자료 내역 1부, -'15. 12. 9.자 진술서 표지 1부, '16. 2. 23.자 진술서 및 첨부자료 각 1부, '17. 9. 21. 무렵 제출 자료 각 1부, - 일자별 정리표 1부, -증거위조 관련 사건진행경과표 1부, -AB 네이버 캘린더 일정 출력물 1부, -X 작성 업무일지 사본 1부, 통화 내역 1부, -C의 청와대 제출 민원서류 1부, 구매영수증(카드매출표) 1부, 구매영수증(카드매출표) 1부, 입출금 거래내역조회 18부, -I(주) 금전출납부 18부, -F 택지 G공구 현장 비다짐 관련 서류 1부, -추가 공사비 청구의 건 I(주) 공문 1부, - 설계변경 및 추가공사비 청구 건 회신 E(주) 공문 1부, -추가공사비 요청건 검토결과 1부, 지출결의서, 계좌 거래내역, 차량운행일지, 각 하도급계약서, AB 휴대폰 포렌식 자료 CD 1매, 각 네이버 캘린더, '네이버 캘린더 앱'의 DB 및 뷰어프로그램 저장 CD 1개, DB 데이터 확인 방법, 판결문(2018고합985)

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A and B: Each of the former Criminal Code (Amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) Article 357(1) (generally, the Supreme Court Decision 2007(1))

B. Defendant C: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a), 357(2), and 357(1) (a) of the former Criminal Act (a comprehensive application of the provision of a bribe), Articles 155(1), 31(1) of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive application of the provision of a bribe), 155(1), and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 155(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 155(1) (a) of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant D: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (generality and imprisonment), Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Concurrent Imposition of Fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment for offering of a bribe, which is the most severe punishment and the nature of the crime)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

A. Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

B. Defendant D: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Social service order;

Defendant A, B, and D: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

1. Confiscation;

Defendant C: Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

(a) Defendant A and B: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act;

B. Defendant D: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, B, and D: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant A (Defense Counsel)’s assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the Defendant received KRW 20 million from C on January 15, 2014, among profits generated by not purchasing sand from C on or around January 15, 2014, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust, since there is no request from C to use the sand buried at the construction site of this case, and there is no on-site reclamation sand is not owned by E, and even if the Defendant received money from the sand value, it does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust.

2. Determination

A. Of the requirements for the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act, “illegal solicitation” is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the degree of gratuitous breach of trust, and is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining this, the contents of solicitation and the amount of consideration related thereto, forms, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be comprehensively considered, and the solicitation does not necessarily require explicit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11784, Feb. 24, 2011).

B. ① According to the E Regulations on Subcontract in Korea (amended by July 1, 201), the site director may select a subcontractor regardless of whether the registered entity is a registered entity. E’s selection of a subcontractor is based on a competitive tendering procedure. In the case of a bid with a price of not more than 300 million won, the site director may exercise the right to directly select or recommend the subcontractor. ② Under the above provisions, E’s evaluation of the subcontractor’s two times per year (the first half and second half) and give priority to the tender office, and if the Defendant did not receive the above consideration, it is difficult to view that there was a significant difference in the value of E’s evaluation of the construction site to the effect that it was not a 70% or less of the total horizontal point, and that E’s evaluation of the price of 20% or less of the total price of the construction site was not a 60% or less of the price of the construction site.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

(c) Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months, and Defendant D: Imprisonment with labor for not more than five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (at least KRW 100,00) of Property in Breach of Trust

[Special Ne-Lietator] Reduction element: A person who requested the handling of the affairs of the victim (person who requested the handling of the affairs)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of one year and six months to three years

B. Defendant B

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (at least 30 million won, less than 50 million won) of Acceptance of Misappropriation

[Special Ne-Lietator] Reduction element: A person who requested the handling of the affairs of the victim (person who requested the handling of the affairs)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year

C. Defendant C

(a) Basic crime: An act of aiding and abetting evidence; and

[Determination of Penalty] Type 1 of the Destruction of Evidence (Recepting of Evidence) that is concealed by the destruction of evidence

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Teachers for the Commander

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10-3 years of imprisonment

2. Second offense: An offense of uttering of forged evidence; and

[Determination of Penalty] Type 1 of the Destruction of Evidence and Evidence (Recepting of Evidence)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Teachers for the Commander

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10-3 years of imprisonment

3. Third crime: The crime of giving property in breach of trust; and

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least KRW 100,00)

【Special Escopics for Reductions: Voluntary Self-denunciations or Internal Non- Complaints

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year

4) Scope of recommending punishment based on the criteria for handling multiple crimes: 10-4 months and 10-4 months [in the case of concurrent crimes with three or more concurrent crimes, the maximum limit of punishment for each basic crime (three years) shall be added to 1/2 (1/6 months) and 1/3 (4 months];

D. Defendant D.

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 of Acceptance of Bribery (less than one million won)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 4 months to 1 year

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

(b) Defendant B: Two years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year;

(c) Defendant C: Three years of a stay of execution of one year and six months;

D. Defendant D: (a) The following circumstances are taken into account: (b) the 8-month suspended sentence of imprisonment and the 14 million won fine; (c) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, growth process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the factors of various sentencing specified in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing guidelines, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account.

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

Defendant A and B received a large amount of money from the subcontractor I for a long time by taking advantage of the status as a field director with substantial decision-making authority on the evaluation of the subcontractor. It is necessary to punish Defendant A and B for eradicating the risk that it may lead to bad construction due to the cause of an unreasonable reduction of construction cost arising from such subcontracted construction.

C. Defendant A asserts that the amount received exceeds KRW 100 million, among them, the amount of KRW 20 million is not received in return for an illegal solicitation, or that it does not constitute a crime due to the lack of loss to the company, and it is doubtful whether the mistake is divided by a petition.

Defendant C issued 200 million won to 7 on-site employees of E, a prime contractor, in return for a large amount of solicitation exceeding KRW 200 million, and the head of the on-site supervision group issued a bribe to him/her, and the head of the on-site supervision group made I staff X and Y forged evidence and submitted forged evidence to the investigation agency. Around 190, Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment with labor for the crime of forging and uttering private documents, etc., and was sentenced to a fine of six times.

Defendant D received money and valuables from I, a subcontractor, in the position of the head of the supervision group to manage and supervise the construction to ensure that the construction is implemented appropriately in accordance with the law.

【Free Circumstances】

Defendant A recognizes the facts of the instant crime as a substitute, and the rest of the Defendants show the attitude of recognizing and reflecting their mistake. Defendant A, B, and D did not actively demand money and valuables or perform their duties unlawfully in return for receiving money and valuables, and need to consider equity with the sentence imposed on other employees who received money and valuables in the same name as the instant case. Defendant A does not want punishment against Defendant A and B. Defendant A was sentenced twice a fine due to a violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Defendant B was sentenced twice a fine due to a violation of the Drinking Water Conservation Act and a violation of the same Act. Defendant C was sentenced two times a fine due to a violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act and a violation of the same Act. Defendant C was not subject to criminal punishment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act around 1988, and Defendant D did not have any history of criminal punishment except that imposed a fine of KRW 100,000. Defendant C is an old age and health.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged

As stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment, the Defendant received a total of KRW 2.5 million over 13 times as stated in the separate sheet of crime (2) from June 6, 2013 to October 28, 2014, as stated in the separate sheet of crime (2). The problematic part is the ① amount exceeding KRW 5,60,000,000, which is found guilty (total KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000 won) and ② amount exceeding KRW 2,4,8,000,000, which is found guilty among the amounts (total KRW 2,00,000,000).

B. Determination as to [Attachment 5] 5, 6, 7] Nos. 5, 7

C and AB, etc. stated that the amount paid to the Defendant is KRW 100 million in total. On the other hand, the Defendant argued that the Defendant was only KRW 20 million out of KRW 30 million listed in [Attachment Table 7] Nos. 7 of the List of Offenses (2) and KRW 30 million. However, in light of the following circumstances, there is doubt that the Defendant was or may have been demanded by the Defendant or T. However, it is insufficient to view that the submission of evidence by the prosecutor alone was proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant received money in excess of the amount recognized by the Defendant.

(i) the basic facts

① The Defendant, a special purpose corporation, is the ordering authority, and is in charge of the work to manage H private investment project G tools (hereinafter referred to as “G sections”) while serving as the site director of the H private investment project G sections (hereinafter referred to as “G sections”), located in the Busan regional land management authority, and the G sections were divided into three sections (BA sections, BB sections, and BC sections). E was conducted on April 15, 2013, and the site site site consultation on B sections among the G sections was conducted on the bidding conducted on April 19, 2013. In the bidding conducted on the 19th of the same month, the subcontractor was subcontracted on May 13, 2013, and subcontracted on May 13, 2013. Meanwhile, the Busan regional land management authority, which was the supervisory authority, concluded a contract for supervisory services with the BE companies, and the D sections was entrusted to the supervisory authority.

During the construction of the G Section B, the selection of subcontractors for BF, BG, and BH construction and the subcontractor for soil and sand transport work on the BI site is delayed, and this part of this work is entrusted to the contractor. The I entered into a contract with AF, a local equipment business entity, upon introduction by the BJ of the civil petition department, for dump trucks and other equipment necessary for soil and sand transport work.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

③ From September to October 10, 2013 to enter the BF file works into the above drawings, E commenced the ground-breaking work in the part A, and around September 10, 2013. Since the above BK, BL, BM, BN, and BO land on both sides was leased from May 2013 to be used as a tree-style ground, E was farmland at the time of lease, and thus, E continued to perform the ground-breaking and ground-breaking work simultaneously for drainage.

④ While sand transported by the 4 major river basin in the field of the bend, the bend, the part, and the part of the bend, was buried, the sand transported by the 4 major river basin was known that the AF, a local equipment business entity, was involved in the sand transport work in the past 4 major river basin, was aware of the fact of reclamation. E determined that there was no problem as a result of the quality inspection of sand buried in the above area (hereinafter referred to as “field sand”) through the head of the on-site supervision group D, thereby allowing I and the BP business entity who was subcontracted (hereinafter referred to as “BP”) to use the field sand in the sand bending construction.

2) From this court around April 2013, AB stated to the effect that, from this court’s tender around April 2013, the EF used field sand, changed part of the benefit therefrom, and that, after that, I would like to say that the AF would have been informed of her on-site sand. However, T and AF stated to the effect that “the sand was discovered in the process of making an air-going bridge file approach to carry out the BF bridge in this court,” according to the E Construction Day (Evidence No. 2) on G Section, it is difficult to conclude that sand transportation had started on November 29, 2013, that it was moved to BF around December 7, 2013, and that the AB would have been using her on-site sand to carry out her on-site construction, and that it was difficult to conclude that sand transportation had been moved to BF around 2013, because of the fact that she had been using on-site sand at around 2013.

3) At the time of entering into a subcontract for H construction work, C. 1 stated to the effect that “On-the-spot sand was used on the 3G 10-site site,” and that “On-the-spot sand was used on the 10-site, and that the Defendant would have been using on-site sand at the time of the 10-site construction work,” and that “On-the-spot sand would not have been used on-site construction work.” On-the-spot sand would not have been used on-site construction work but should not have been used on-site construction work after the 10-site construction work.” On the other hand, there is no question that “On-the-spot construction work would have been used on-site construction work,” and that “On-the-spot sand will not have been used on-site construction work.” On-the-spot sand would have to have been used on-site construction work before the 10-site construction work.” However, there is no question that sand will have been used on-site construction work.

4) In this court, AB stated in the purport that “T should make a report on the matters related to sand to the head of the supervision group D in BP, and that “T should make a change in the design when using field sand.” However, in the case of a general construction work, a change in the design may be necessary due to the reduction of cost in the cost of sand purchase, sand transport cost, etc. However, in the case of SOC project, which is the field sand, such as the G construction work, the contract is entered into on a total basis and the construction cost shall not be increased or decreased due to the change in the local conditions, so even if the construction cost is actually reduced by using field sand, it is difficult to deem that there is a reason requiring a change in the design).

5) In light of the following circumstances, C’s relevant statements are not reliable.

① As to the background leading up to giving money to the Defendant under the pretext of sand value C, the Defendant directly delivered KRW 30 million on October 14, 2013, KRW 30 million on December 1, 2013, KRW 22,40 million on December 22, 2013, and KRW 30,000 on the H on the spot. Finally, on December 22, 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was aware of the sand value,” and the Defendant stated to the effect that it was 10:30,000 won on October 14, 2014, KRW 30,000 on December 13, 2014, KRW 10,000 on October 14, 2014, KRW 2013:30,000 on October 14, 2014, KRW 301,000 on December 13, 2014.

② On December 1, 2013, C stated that the prosecutor directly delivered KRW 30 million to the Defendant on December 1, 2013, and that he/she directly delivered KRW 30 million to the Defendant on December 1, 2013, but the Defendant reversed the statement that he/she had been placed in the H site office in the state where there is no defect in the H site office because he/she left golf (29 pages, 3578 pages).

③ 2013. 12. 18.자 4,000만 원[별지 범죄일람표(2) 순번 6]과 관련하여 C은 검찰에서, 2013. 12. 22.에 위 돈을 지급했다고 진술했으나, 2013. 12. 18.이 일요일이고 4,000만 원 출금 날짜가 2013. 12. 18.이므로 2013. 12. 18.을 잘못 진술한 것이 아니냐는 검찰 질문에 대하여 별다른 설명 없이 맞다는 취지로 진술을 번복하였는바, C은 지출결의서, 일일운행일지, 계좌거래내역, 일정표 등 다른 증거 도움 없이는 당시 상황을 제대로 기억 못 하는 것으로 보인다. 또한 C은 자신의 휴대전화에 2013. 12. 16.자 일정으로 기록된 '모래 3000개' 부분7)이 2013. 12. 18. 건넨 4,000만 원의 증거라고 진술하였으나, 날짜가 맞지 않고, 금액 역시 '모래 3000개'로 기재되어 있어 실제로 건넸다는 4,000만 원과 차이가 있는데, 이에 대하여 C은 '다른 사람들이 모래 4,000개로 이해할 것 같아서 위장으로 기재한 것 같다'고 진술하였으나 지출결의서처럼 경리직원에 의한 노출가능성이 있는 회사 장부도 아닌 개인 휴대전화 일정을 다른 사람람이 보고 오해할 것을 우려하여 위장으로 기재하였다는 C의 진술은 쉽게 납득되지 않는다.

④ 2014. 1. 15.자 3,000만 원[별지 범죄일람표(2) 순번 7]과 관련하여, C은 검찰 제6회 피의자신문 전까지는 2013. 10. 14.에 돈을 건넸다고 진술하였는데, 2013. 10. 14.자 3,000만 원에 대한 지출결의서 적요란에는 '대표이사 현금 및 가필로 'F 현장 쓰레기 처리비'로 적혀 있는바, 이처럼 H 현장과 무관한 지출결의서를 근거로 피고인에게 3,000만 원을 전달하였다고 진술한 경위가 이해되지 않는다. 또한 C은 검찰 제5회 피의자신문 전까지는 2014. 1. 15.에 피고인에게 금원을 전달하였다는 진술을 전혀 하지 않다가, 검찰 제5회 피의자신문에서 자신의 휴대전화를 검찰에 임의제출하였고, 그 자리에서 C이 2014. 1. 15. 13:40경 피고인에게 '소장님 책상 오른쪽 상단서랍에 시험용 모래 2,000개 봉투에 보관해 놓았습니다'는 취지의 문자메시지를 발송한 것이 확인되자 이것이 어떤 의미인지 묻는 질문에 대하여 '현장소장실에 피고인이 없을 때 모래대금 2,000만 원을 책상 서랍에 넣어 두었다는 뜻이다'는 취지로 진술하였고(증거기록 2553쪽), 검찰 제6회 피의자신문에서 위 문자메시지뿐 아니라 C의 휴대전화에 저장된 2014. 1. 15.자 일정에 '모래 2000개, BS 200, BT 100, BU 100개, H, BV, C 출장'이 기재된 것이 확인되자 이에 대하여 "여기 모래 2,000개도 같은 의미로 피고인에게 모래값 2,000만 원을 주었다는 것이다. 'BS 200'은 E의 현장사무소 공사부장인 AA에게 200만 원을 주었다는 것이고, 'BT 100'은 1의 현장사무소 BW 부소장에게 격려금 100만 원을 준 것이고, 'BU 100'은 I의 현장사무소 AG 소장에게 격려금 100만 원을 준 것이다. BV은 제 아들인 AB이다"는 취지로 진술하였으며(증거기록 3575쪽), 그 후 검찰에서 I의 자금지불내역 자료에 따르면, 2014. 1. 15. C 개인계좌에서 H 현장 계좌로 2,500만 원을 송금하고 AC 부장이 C에게 '사장님 준비 완료했습니다'는 취지의 문자메시지를 발송한 것과 관련하여 2014. 1. 15. 2,500만 원을 H 현장 계좌로 송금한 다음 AC가 현금을 찾아서 준비한 것을 피고인에게 교부한 것이 맞는지 물어보자 C은 "그렇다. 사실 저는 피고인에게 모래값 2,000만 원뿐만 아니라 설계변경 등 경비 명목으로 1,000만 원을 더 준 것으로 기억한다. 제가 평소에 갖고 있는 현금도 있었고, 2014. 1. 14. 'F 모래 및 폐기물' 600만 원이라고 기재된 내역이 있는데, F에는 모래값이 들어간 것이 없으므로 그 부분도 피고인에게 모래값을 준 것을 그렇게 기재한 것이다"는 취지로 진술하였다(증거기록 3576쪽), 이처럼 C은 2018. 3. 28. 이루어진 검찰 제5회 피의 자신문 전까지는 피고인에게 금원을 전달한 날짜가 2014. 1. 15.이라고는 진술하지 않다가, 검찰이 C의 휴대전화 문자메시지를 근거로 2014. 1. 15.에 2,000만 원을 지급한 것이 아니냐고 질문하자 비로소 2014. 1. 15.에 모래값으로 2,000만 원을 지급하였고 설계변경비 등 명목으로 1,000만 원을 더 지급하여 합계 3,000만 원을 지급하였다고 하면서, 2013. 10, 14. 에는 피고인에게 돈을 지급하지 않았다는 취지로 진술을 번복하였다.

⑤ From among M site works subcontracted from this E, C invested KRW 6.5 billion in the cost of restoring the wall collapse accident that occurred on August 12, 2013. While the cause of the collapse accident occurred several times, E refuses to comply with the unjust demand of E to bear the full amount of restoration construction cost, E asserts that E unilaterally terminated the contract by suspending or delaying payment of construction cost to four sites of subcontracted construction work including the above construction work. On November 2015, E filed a complaint against E Twitpo, which included the contents of delivering money to E or supervising parties, etc. with the Prime Minister, and the investigation of this case was commenced. The developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the investigation agency of the instant case, the amount of KRW 140 million in excess of KRW 16,000,00,000, and the amount of 16,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which were stated in the prosecutor’s order, but it is difficult to conclude the criminal facts.

C. Determination as to [Attachment 2] Nos. 2, 4, 8, and 12

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant received money exceeding KRW 5 million out of each of the KRW 10 million listed in the separate sheet of crimes (2), 4, 8, and 12.

1) As to KRW 10 million on July 17, 2013 (Attached Crime List 2)

① At this court, C stated to the effect that “The head of the T-Site T-site Work Team at E-Sites, including the Defendant and B, delivered the amount of KRW 5 million each time.” The head of the T-site Work Team at E-Sites stated to the effect that “The amount of KRW 2 million was deducted from the paid-in and paid-in money to T,” and the investigative agency also made a statement to the effect that “T would have received KRW 3 million each time of the paid-in and paid-in money to T, 1 million each time.” On January 2014, the second day of the year, May, 200, children’s day, 7th day, 8th day, and 1 million won each time, and 3 million won each time, but there was no fact that 3.5 million won each time it received KRW 5 million each time (Evidence evidence records, 5152,5153 pages), but 3 million each time it did not receive 3.5 million won each time.

However, while C, while C, at the time of a holiday or leave, made a statement to T that three million won should be reported to T, on July 17, 2013, at the time of a holiday or leave, C made a statement that the grant of 2 million won should be made (Evidence No. 5149 of the record). When delivering the same amount to the defendant working at the same H site and T on the same day to the defendant and T, the defendant gives 10 million won more than 5 million won a week at the ordinary meeting for a holiday or leave, and T gives 2 million won a statement to T, such as a written statement, it is inconsistent with C's statement that there was a difference between the amount before and after the holiday and the amount before and after the vacation.8)

② On July 17, 2013, 2013, No. 1999, NB made up of NB, NB v. H, as H, NB v. H. H. H. H. H. H H H H H, stating that NB’s president “W B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B, and that “B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B,” and according to the above NV v. DV’s Mat, C merely appears to have delivered KRW 5 million to the Defendant, the remainder E and supervision of his employees, and there is no clear content that it could have delivered KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

③ On July 17, 2013, KRW 4 million from the IDF bank account, KRW 3 million from JDF bank account (Account Number BY), KRW 3 million from KDF bank account, and KRW 3 million from KDF bank account, respectively, in the disbursement resolution, the statement is written as follows: “T”, “T”, “A 3 million won in the remarks column,” and “L”, and it is confirmed that the statement was written as “H on-site” (Evidence No. 3262-3268 of the evidence record), and that the above disbursement resolution was written as if it were not submitted to the Defendant on-site and it was not confirmed that there was no evidence that there was no actual provision of LD’s account from the above on-site to the Defendant, and that it was not confirmed that there was no evidence that there was no actual provision of LD’s account to the Defendant on-site supervision.

2) As to the KRW 10 million on September 10, 2013 (Attached Crime List (2) Nos. 4)

① From around 14:09 on September 14, 2013, it is confirmed that KRW 10 million was withdrawn from the IDF bank account (Evidence No. 3273-3274) and a written disbursement resolution is not confirmed (Evidence No. 3274). C paid KRW 3 million to supervisory D on September 11, 2013. However, at an investigation agency’s investigation agency on the source of money, it appears that it was sufficient to deliver money to D on September 11, 2013 (Evidence No. 3501) and that D paid money to D on September 10, 2013.

② Although C, at the time of a life-saving or leave, C made a statement to the effect that, on September 5, 2013, T shall grant the right to report KRW 2 million to T, it is inconsistent with C’s statement that, as seen earlier, the said statement is to grant the right to report the amount of KRW 2 million to each other (Evidence No. 5149).

3) On February 24, 2014, KRW 10 million (attached Form 2 List of Offenses (2) 8)

I. On February 24, 2014, KRW 12:58,00,00 from the DF bank account to H site account; KRW 13,00,000 was transferred to H site account; KRW H on-site advance payment in the expenditure resolution, and KRW H on-site advance payment and land compensation in the column (Evidence No. 3293-3295 of the record) was confirmed to have been written (Evidence No. 3293 of the record). “On-site advance payment in cash” in this court did not appear to have been made by transferring it to the on-site advance payment account from the IF bank account, but it was stated to the effect that “on-site advance payment in cash is used for any other purpose than the pre-site advance payment in cash,” but it was stated to the effect that “on-site advance payment in cash was made for any other purpose than the pre-site advance payment in accordance with C’s order. However, on February 24, 2014, it appears to have not been made a statement to the effect that it was made.

4) As to the KRW 10 million on July 2, 2014 (Attached Crime List (2) Nos. 12)

From the IDF bank account on July 1, 2014, around 14:52, 8 million won, from the DF bank account under the J’s name, 14:5.5 million won is withdrawn, respectively, from the DF bank account on the same day, and from the DF bank account on the same day, 14:5.5 million won is withdrawn, 'waste disposal expenses', 'waste disposal expenses', 'T', 8 million won, 'in remarks column, 'T', 'waste disposal expenses', 5 million won, 'J', 'in remarks column' (314-318 pages of evidence records). The statement of '80,000 won out of 2 copies of the above disbursement resolution statement, '80,000 won,' and '80,000 won, from the right side column of the CF bank account, the statement of '10,000 won,' which appears to be attached to C.

2. Defendant C.

As seen above, it is insufficient to view that the defendant has proved without any reasonable doubt that he/she provided money exceeding the amount recognized in the criminal facts in the judgment after making an illegal solicitation to A.

3. Conclusion

Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the amount exceeding KRW 20 million, out of KRW 30 million listed in the [Attachment 5-6] Nos. 56 of the indictments against Defendant A and KRW 20 million listed in the [Attachment 2] Nos. 2, 4, 8, and 12, and the amount exceeding KRW 5 million in each of the 10 million listed in the 1,000,000 won listed in the 50,000 won in each of the charges against Defendant C, and the amount listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 5 and 6, and 2,4,8, and 12 of the 30,000 won listed in the 70,000 won listed in the 50,000 won in each of 1,00,000 won listed in the 30,000 won in each of the charges against Defendant C is not guilty of the crime of breach of trust, since there is no proof of a crime of breach of trust.

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) The indictment was made up of KRW 15 million, but this was corrected as KRW 7 million on the date of October 17, 2018, as it was written in writing.

2) Although the prosecution had included 40,000 won in the first charge of violation of trust against B in this part, the prosecution applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the partial amount was withdrawn on November 7, 2018, and this court permitted this on November 13, 2018 (the expiration of the statute of limitations).

3) P, Q, R, S, T, and U were indicted by Seoul Central District Court 2018 Gohap985 and were sentenced to suspended execution or fine on January 17, 2019.

4) The pole filled up underground refers to the pole attached to the ground, and the upper half part of which connects the structure, which is used as part of the bridge of a floating bridge, such as a structure and a bridge, or a bridge of a floating bridge.

5) As one of the machinery for foundation works, piling or artificial posts mean machinery and their accessories;

6) At the time of E, the head of the public service team T and the management team leader AE stated to the same effect in this Court.

7) The products are recorded as “the 300 sand, 500, B Q 400, BR 200.”

8) T에 대한 서울중앙지방법원 2019, 117. 선고 2018고합985 판결에서는 2013. 7.경부터 2014. 8.경까지 EH 현장사무실에서 현금 200만 원씩 10회를 받고, 2014. 3.경 인천 연수구 소재 아파트에서 시가 411만 원 상당의 샤넬백과 현금 100만 원을 받은 사실을 인정하였다.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.