Defendant

Madnasium

Law Firm Roice, Attorneys White-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

80,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The Defendant is a person who is serving the 14th and 16th National Assembly members and is in office as the 17th National Assembly member. From July 2002 to May 2004, the Defendant is working as the chairman of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee during the 16th National Assembly term from around July 2002 to around May 2004, and is in charge of representing the Committee, arranging its intentions, maintaining order, and supervising its affairs. Where there is a legislative proposal belonging to the affairs of the competent ministries of the Culture and Tourism Committee, such as the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Government Information Agency, the Defendant shall proceed with the explanation of the proposing, the review and report of the expert members, the examination of alternative discussions, construction and arguments, and the vote, and where there is any disagreement among the expert members of the Committee or the council members of the Committee on the proposed bill, he shall refer it to the legislative review subcommittee, and

1. Following the request of Nonindicted 203. from August 21, 2003 to December 31, 201, the Defendant’s 22th revision of the Act on the Support of the 22nd World Cup (hereinafter “the Act on the Support of the 22nd Amendment”) which was enacted to support the said 10th revision of the Act from the 20th revision of the Act. The Defendant was selected as the second business operator of the outdoor advertisements of the 20th revision of the Act on the Support of the 20th Amendment of the Act on the 10th Amendment of the Act on the 10th Amendment of the Act on the 20th Amendment of the Act on the 1st Amendment of the 20th Amendment of the Act on the 20th Amendment of the Act on the 1st Amendment of the said Act on the 20th Amendment of the Act on the 10th Amendment of the Act on the 10th Amendment of the Act on the 2nd Amendment of the said Act on the 10th Amendment of the 2nd Amendment.

On February 2004, Nonindicted 1 heard the phrase “I wish to do the case of Nonindicted 2” from Nonindicted 1 and consented thereto, and around that time, Nonindicted 4, an assistant of the Defendant, at Nonindicted 1’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, received a bribe of KRW 50 million in connection with the duties of the member of the National Assembly who is a public official, and received KRW 50 million in cash delivered by Nonindicted 1 on behalf of Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 4, the assistant of the Defendant, at Nonindicted 1’s office located in Gangnam-gu,

2. Every person shall, when he receives political funds, contribute to a supporters' association and deliver political fund receipts in the way prescribed by the Political Funds Act, although he is entitled to receive such contributions;

On March 8, 2004, at the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, the political fund receipts were not issued, and the above non-indicted 1 received 30 million won as political funds necessary for the election campaign of the National Assembly members and received political funds in a way that is not prescribed by the Political Fund Act.

1. Statements that conform to the facts stated in this Court in part;

1. Each statement that partially conforms to the facts set forth in this Court by Nonindicted 2, 1, 4, and 3 of the witness

1. Statement of each protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the facts as stated in the judgment, and statement of the facts in the protocol of interrogation of the accused non-indicted 9

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 2, 7, 4, 10, 3, 11, and 12 of the prosecutor’s protocol of statement, each statement of Nonindicted 2, 7, 4, 10, 3, 11, and 12 of the prosecutor’s protocol of statement, and each statement that conforms to the facts as indicated in the judgment (Provided, That this part of the protocol of statement dated February 21, 2005 against Nonindicted 2 and the protocol of statement of February 23, 2005 denying the substantial authenticity

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the investigation report bound in investigation records [the confirmation of the details of support payments and copies of the statement of donations (19-38 pages), appending a copy of accounting records, etc. reported by the defendant on the front line (74-765 pages), and the (ju) the representative director Nonindicted 2 of the former Red Co., Ltd., who was non-indicted 2, made on the front line to the defendant members of the Council, in filing a report on reorganization of funds on checks paid for political support

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

The point of acceptance of bribe: Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act.

Article 30 (1) of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7191, Mar. 12, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Joint Penalty)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes to the extent that the sum of the long-term punishments of the crimes above two crimes prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are heavier in the Judgment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of circumstances, etc. described in the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (3) of the former Political Funds Act

1. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The defense counsel of the defendant asserts that, in writing and oral statement prior to the date of the second trial, ① the crime in this case is Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the address of the defendant is irregular, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction as stipulated in Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. ② although the bribery case against Non-Indicted 2 and the Political Fund Act violation case against Non-Indicted 1 were prosecuted in this court, the case was not prosecuted together with this case and it was not consolidated with this case, and each of the above cases was already sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance and is no longer pending in this court, so it does not recognize the consolidated jurisdiction of the related case as stipulated in Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it is necessary to render

2. Determination

According to the records of this case, the defendant's assertion that the crime of this case and the defendant's domicile, residence, or present location are not within the jurisdiction of this court, but the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged of this case is about the offering of bribe to non-indicted 2 who was prosecuted in this court on the same day of this case, and the violation of the Political Funds Act among the facts charged of this case is about the defendant's violation of the Political Funds Act against non-indicted 1 who was prosecuted in this court on the same day of this case and about the "crimes jointly committed" under Article 11 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the same Act provides that "where several cases with different territorial jurisdiction are involved, the court with jurisdiction over one of the related cases may have jurisdiction over other cases." Thus, it is clear that the court with territorial jurisdiction over one of the related cases has jurisdiction over the related cases.

Therefore, with respect to the requirements for recognition of jurisdiction as a related case under Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is necessary to continue the jurisdiction of the health department and related cases in the same court. However, according to whether the above two cases have been consolidated and tried, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction, which is the sharing of duties, between each court, has changed depending on whether the above two cases have been tried or not. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above two cases are subject to consolidated trial. Whether the territorial jurisdiction exists or not shall be determined at the time of public prosecution, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the unique jurisdiction case has been pending in the same court until the final judgment of the related case. In case where the unique jurisdiction has been concluded first, it cannot be deemed that the jurisdiction of the related case which has been

Thus, this case against the defendant is recognized to be under the jurisdiction of this court as the case of offering of bribe to the defendant 2 and the case of violation of the Political Funds Act against the defendant 1, which is acknowledged to be under the territorial jurisdiction of this court as the present location, since it continues to be in this court at the same time as the case of offering of bribe to the defendant 2 and the case of violation of the Political Funds Act against the defendant 1, and thereafter, it cannot be viewed that the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the case was not consolidated with the defendant 2 and 1, or that the

1. The gist of the lawsuit brought by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. The assertion that the cash amounting to KRW 50 million in the holding is a political support payment that was received from Nonindicted Party 1

On February 8, 2004, the Defendant rejected Nonindicted 1’s talking that Nonindicted 2 would want to transfer the audit to the Defendant, and thereafter, Nonindicted 1 delivered 50 million won in cash to him and received the said money as a support payment. In addition, Nonindicted 1 was merely an in-depth doctor of Nonindicted 1, and it cannot be said that Nonindicted 2 received the said money from Nonindicted 2. Rather, Nonindicted 1, who delivered the said money to the Defendant on February 1, 2004, was actually Nonindicted 1’s support payment, and Nonindicted 1 delivered KRW 50 million in cash to the Defendant on behalf of Nonindicted 2,500,000,000 on behalf of Nonindicted 34,000,000 won in cash and KRW 25,000,000,000,000,000 won in cash and KRW 304,000,000,000,000,000.

B. The assertion that it is a political support fund and does not constitute a bribe

In addition, the defendant received the request from Non-Indicted 2 to help him to pass the amended bill on November 20, 2003, but he did not exercise any influence during the process of examining the above amended bill, and did not hear from Non-Indicted 2 that he would pay money to him as a case of Non-Indicted 2, not only at the time when he received the above request but also thereafter. Thus, even if the above KRW 50 million was the money of Non-Indicted 2, the above KRW 50 million was the money of Non-Indicted 2, around February 2004, when the 17th National Assembly member election was received, the said money was not a bribe, but it was merely a political support, and it was actually treated as a support payment in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Political Fund Act.

2. Determination

A. Facts recognized

In full view of each of the evidence in the court's holding that the examination of evidence was lawfully completed, the following facts are acknowledged [part of the investigation records (in the statement of February 21, 2005, 84, 2-4, 862, 4-12, 866, 11-12, 86), and part of the statement of February 23, 2005 (in the statement of February 23, 2005, 912, 18) of Non-Indicted 2 denies the actual authenticity at the examination of witness at the fifth trial date, it is not admissible as evidence. In addition, each protocol of examination of the suspect against Non-Indicted 2 and 1, each protocol of statement of the prosecutor's examination, a transcript, a written statement of statement of statement of Non-Indicted 2 and 2, and each of the statements made by Non-Indicted 2 and 1, the defense counsel's assertion that

(1) From December 2001, Non-Indicted 2 participated in the first and second outdoor advertisements projects implemented by the U.S. Organizing Committee pursuant to the U.S. Support Act for the purpose of appropriating the expenses incurred in the operation of the U.S., the representative director, and Non-Indicted 6’s digital opticalcom.

Belgium, however, there were difficulties such as removal of the existing outdoor advertisements, or re-tenders or negotiated contracts from the National Sports Promotion Corporation, etc., which will be transferred the right to operate the advertisement business, when the term of validity of the Act is the only method until December 31, 2004, and there was no other international competition support act which is scheduled after the expiration of the Act.

Secondly, from September 2003 to December 31, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6 et al. made a solicitation for the extension of the term of validity of the National Assembly Support Act through the amendment of law to Non-Indicted 5, a member of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee as a member of the National Assembly. Non-Indicted 5 proposed a proposal for the amendment of the National Assembly Support Act, which extends the term of validity of the Act to four years from October 7, 2003 to December 31, 2008.

In addition, around November 15, 2003, Nonindicted 5 demanded Nonindicted 2 to request that Nonindicted 2 pass the amended bill of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee (the National Assembly Chairperson) on the following grounds: (a) Non-Indicted 2 “I wish to be the Chairperson of the Reading Committee; and (b) Defendant Chairperson also requested to do so; and (c) Non-Indicted 2 requested Nonindicted 2 to pass the amended bill of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee.

(v) Around 21:00 on November 20, 200, Non-Indicted 2 respondeded that Non-Indicted 2 met the Defendant as the vice-chairperson of the Defendant’s supporters’ association and the non-Indicted 1’s intermediary, the middle school of the Defendant’s middle school, and that the Defendant met the Defendant or the Defendant “if the Act on the Support of the Oil and Games is extended, the amount of support worth KRW 1 billion per month at the Daegu City.” The share in the plan is more than 10% and it is requested well, and the Defendant “I will know, I will examine it well.”

⑹ 한편, 유·대회지원법중개정법률안은 2003. 11. 18. 제 243회 국회 제12차 문화관광위원회에 상정되어 대체토론을 거친 후 법안심사 소위원회에 회부되었고, 법안심사 소위원회에서 그 유효기간이 당초 4년에서 2년으로 축소되어 수정의결되었으며, 이에 따라 2003. 12. 16. 제244회 국회임시회 1차 문화관광위원회에서 유효기간을 2년으로 하는 개정법률안으로 가결되고, 결국 2003. 12. 28. 국회 본회의를 통과하여 2004. 1. 19.부터 시행되게 되었다.

⑺ 공소외 2는 2004. 2. 하순경 공소외 1에게 전화를 걸어 ‘ 피고인 의원에게 후원금을 좀 내야겠다’라고 말하고, 이에 공소외 1은 피고인에게 ‘ 공소외 2가 감사의 뜻을 전하고 싶어 한다’라며 공소외 2의 의사를 전달하였다.

⑻ 이후 공소외 1은 공소외 2로부터 피고인에게 후원금으로 5천만 원을 내겠다는 말과 피고인의 보좌관인 공소외 4로부터 ‘현금으로 돈을 주면 안 되겠느냐, 후원금 영수증은 3회로 나누어 끊어 주겠다’라는 말을 듣자, 우선 공소외 1 자신이 운영하는 주식회사 나라환경에서 3천만 원을 마련하고, 후배인 공소외 13으로부터 2천만 원을 차용하여 2004. 2. 하순경 공소외 1의 한국야구위원회(KBO) 사무총장 사무실에서 합계 5천만 원을 현금으로 공소외 4에게 전달하고, 한편 공소외 2에게는 3회로 나누어 발급해 주기로 예정되어 있는 후원금 영수증의 일자에 수표 발행일자를 맞추어 줄 것을 요구하여 2004. 3. 8.경 공소외 2로부터 같은 달 3.자 1,500만 원권 수표 1장, 같은 달 5.자 1,500만 원권 수표 1장, 같은 달 8.자 2천만 원권 수표 1장 합계 5천만 원을 교부받았다.

⑼ 공소외 1은 2004. 3. 8.경 공소외 2로부터 위 수표 3장을 교부받자 자신도 공소외 2와 별도로 피고인에게 3천만 원을 후원하여야겠다는 생각에 피고인에게 전화 연락을 하였으나 연결이 되지 않자 다시 공소외 4에게 연락을 하여 자신이 공소외 2에게서 교부받은 위 수표 3장 중 1,500만 원권 수표 2장을 받아갈 것을 지시하였고, 서울 서초구 서초동 소재 한정식집에서 피고인의 비서관인 공소외 3을 통하여 위 수표를 피고인에게 교부하였다(판시 범죄사실 2항의 정치자금이 위와 같은 경위로 전달되었다).

⑽ 공소외 4는 2004. 3. 9.경 공소외 3과 함께 있는 자리에서 피고인의 지구당 회계감사를 담당하던 공소외 14에게 공소외 1로부터 받은 위 수표 2장 합계 3천만 원을 현금으로 바꾸어 달라고 부탁하여 같은 달 10.경 공소외 14로부터 현금 3천만 원이 입금된 공소외 14 명의의 국민은행 통장을 교부받고, 이후 피고인의 지구당 사무실 직원인 공소외 11은 2004. 3. 15.경 공소외 4의 지시를 받아 위 공소외 14 명의의 통장에서 3천만 원을 인출한 후 국민은행 중동지점 피고인 명의의 정치자금계좌에 위 돈을 입금하였다.

⑾ 한편, 공소외 2는 2004. 3. 10.경 공소외 1을 통하여 피고인측에 위 5천만 원에 대한 후원금 영수증을 발행하여 줄 것을 요구하였고, 공소외 4의 지시에 따라 공소외 3은 주식회사 전홍을 후원금 기부자로 기재한 같은 달 3.자 1,500만 원, 같은 달 5.자 1,500만 원, 같은 달 8.자 2,000만 원의 후원금 영수증을 작성하여 공소외 2에게 전달하였다.

B. Determination as to the assertion that the cash amount of KRW 50 million in the holding is a political support payment received from Nonindicted Party 1

(1) Whether the Defendant refused to receive money from Nonindicted 2

Inasmuch as Nonindicted 1 stated, Nonindicted 2’s statement of Nonindicted 3 on March 4, 2005 (the investigative record No. 1189) that Nonindicted 3 did not receive any money from Nonindicted 1, 2000 won, Nonindicted 2 stated that “The Defendant would pay KRW 50 million,” and that Nonindicted 2 would not want to receive any money from Nonindicted 3 in the name of Nonindicted 1, 2000 won, and that Nonindicted 3 would not receive any money from Nonindicted 1, 200,000 won, and that Nonindicted 1 would not have any way to deliver the receipts to Nonindicted 2, 3,000 won, and that Nonindicted 2 would not have any way to issue the receipts to Nonindicted 1, 300,000 won in the name of Defendant 1, 300,000 won, and that Nonindicted 2 would have no way to issue the receipts to Nonindicted 2, 3,000 won in the name of Defendant 1, 204.

B. Whether Nonindicted 1 delivered 50,000 won in cash to the Defendant

In the prosecutor's statement of March 10, 2005, Non-Indicted 1 stated, "Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3 wished to pay KRW 50,00 to the defendant's member as a support payment. However, Non-Indicted 4's request made by Non-Indicted 4 and delivered KRW 50,000 to the defendant first in cash." After that Non-Indicted 1 did not state that Non-Indicted 2 would want to transfer their audit to the defendant, Non-Indicted 3,000 won, Non-Indicted 5's statement was first prepared, Non-Indicted 4 and Non-Indicted 1 stated that Non-Indicted 2 would have received KRW 50,000 later through Non-Indicted 4,000, and it was hard to see that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 would have issued his receipt to Non-Indicted 3,000 won under the name of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 4's statement that it would have been in the name of Non-Indicted 1's.

Abstract Whether Nonindicted 1 makes a false statement in order to conceal the fact that he has used 20 million won or more.

In addition, the defense counsel asserted that Nonindicted 1’s statement at the investigative agency and this court was merely a false statement to conceal the fact that Nonindicted 2,000 won was used. However, Nonindicted 3 issued 15 million won on March 8, 2004, a total of KRW 1,500 won on the 3rd of the same month, which was issued by Nonindicted 1 and KRW 30 million on the 4,000,000,000, KRW 15 million on the 5,000,000,000 won on the 4,000,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 4,000,000 won on the 10,000 won on the 4,000,000 won on the 5,000,000 won on the 3,000 won on the 4,000,000 won on the 4,000,000 won on the 3,00 won.

Therefore, the argument that the defendant was only the non-indicted 1's support fund, not the non-indicted 2's support fund, which was delivered by the non-indicted 1 to the police officer on February 2004, is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that a bribe is not recognized as a political support

In addition to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the evidence submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant in the testimony of Nonindicted 15, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant did not exercise any influence over the process of examining the amendment bill of the Act on Support of the Congress, and there was no speak that the defendant would give money to the case at the time of receiving the request from Nonindicted 2 in connection with the above amendment bill, and it is recognized that the time when Nonindicted 2 delivered the above money to Nonindicted 2 was the time of the election of the 17th National Assembly member.

However, the legal interest of the crime of bribery lies in the process of performing his duties and the reliance on the trust of the society. Thus, it is sufficient to recognize the bribe and it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant violated his duties. Thus, even if the defendant handled his duties without any solicitation, it does not interfere with the recognition of the crime of bribery as long as it is recognized as related to his duties, and whether the profit acquired by the public official in the crime of bribery constitutes an unjust profit in relation to his duties should be determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the contents of the public official's duties, the relationship between the duty and the benefit provider, the situation and time of giving and receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the legal interest of the crime of bribery above, it should be determined in light of the above legal interest of the public official, and it should be determined in light of the above 20th anniversary of the fact that the defendant received the benefit from the public official to the public official, as well as in consideration of the above 3th anniversary of his/her political act of receiving the benefit from the public official (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Do3697, supra.).

The defendant served as the chairman of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee as a member of the National Assembly. Although the defendant has a high level of integrity and fairness in performing his duties and has to guarantee transparency in the legislative process that serves as the basis for the existence of the National Assembly, it is inevitable to punish the defendant in light of the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery or imprisonment with prison labor for more than 10 years) in light of the following: (a) the defendant gives and receives a bribe of KRW 50 million from an advertisement enterpriser who intends to use for election expenses at the time of his election for his member of the National Assembly; and (b) the fact that the defendant received a bribe from the investigation agency to the court is clearly recognized by the above evidence; and (c) the defendant is denied that he was the money of the advertisement enterpriser; and (d) in light of the overall circumstances before and after the crime of this case, it is inevitable to punish the defendant.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant has no history of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, the defendant does not demand the money of each of the preceding decisions in advance, and the defendant does not demand another member of the National Assembly in the process of passing the National Assembly through the National Assembly, or does not seem to have any circumstance to exercise the power to proceed as the chairperson of the Culture and Tourism Committee, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, degree of justice, etc., and the sentence of the same punishment as the order shall be imposed within the scope of reduced amount, considering the elements of all the sentencing, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, and degree

1. Summary of the charge of bribery on April 26, 2004 among the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of this case

Since around March 26, 2004, the Defendant was performing the president of the Korea Wheeler Association. From around March 2004, the Defendant requested the above Association to provide support for operating expenses of the open Rotterdam in 2004, but did not request support even until April 26, 2004, which is the day before the opening of the Games. Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to audit the passage of the National Assembly on the criminal facts stated in the judgment by Nonindicted 2, through Nonindicted 1, to receive money from Nonindicted 2 for the purpose of supporting the wheeler Association, and on April 26, 2004, the Defendant asked Nonindicted 1 to receive money from Nonindicted 1 through Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 20, who received money from Nonindicted 1, 200, Nonindicted 1, 200, Nonindicted 5, 200, 20, 200, 200, 20.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant asserts that the defendant did not directly request the non-indicted 1 to seek a sponsor for the expenses of the Wheeler Association competition, and that the defendant merely instructed the non-indicted 3, a secretary of the defendant, to find out the sponsor, and that the non-indicted 3 asked the non-indicted 1 to find out the sponsor, and that the non-indicted 1 asked the person who will contribute the support fund to the Association, and that the non-indicted 1 contributed the support fund to the Association upon the request from the non-indicted 2, and therefore, the defendant did not know the circumstances in which the support fund was donated in advance, and that the non-indicted 2 did not receive the amount equivalent to the support fund as a bribe, since the non-indicted 2 contributed the support fund to the Association, not to the above funds to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Facts recognized

In addition to the evidence documents submitted by the prosecutor and the materials submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant for each testimony of Nonindicted 2, 1, 3, 16, and 17, the following facts are recognized:

(1) From around 1998, the Defendant has been in charge of the president of the Korea Wheeler Association. The said Association has operated support payments and subsidies for the Welfare of Disabled Persons with no income. In the past, the Association received donations from the Defendant, the president of the Association, Nonindicted 18, etc., who is the president of the Association, from the Association, and used them as operating expenses of the Association (the foregoing Association received donations from the Korea Welfare Promotion Association, and issued a receipt issued in the name of the Korea Welfare Promotion Association’s name, and used them to return the said designated deposits from the Korea Welfare Promotion Association. However, in the general account table for the settlement of income and expenditure of the Association, the Association did not specify the donations in the name of the sponsor for convenience, but entered them as the contributions from the Chairperson of the Korea Welfare Promotion Association).

D. Meanwhile, from April 27, 2004 to April 30, 2004, the said Association planned to hold an international wheeler International Wheeler International Meeting from Korea in 2004. However, since it did not prepare expenses equivalent to KRW 100 million at the time, it requested the Defendant to seek a sponsor on several occasions.

On April 26, 2004, the day before the opening of the above competition, the Defendant called Nonindicted Party 1, and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to seek a sponsor for the competition expenses by asking him to “I would not have any security guards, or would not have any security guards.” On the same day, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Nonindicted Party 2 to “I would be able to support the Defendant in sports events of disabled organizations whose president is the disabled, and give support payment.” Nonindicted Party 2 asked Nonindicted Party 1 as a sub-registered organization where the said Association could be able to account as a contribution to the disabled organizations from the former red corporation to account as a contribution to the disabled organizations.” Nonindicted Party 2 tried to confirm this fact and donate support payment to the Defendant.

x) On the same day, Nonindicted 1 received a copy of KRW 50 million check from Nonindicted 2 at the former Red Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and delivered it to Nonindicted 3, who was accompanied by the said place. Nonindicted 3 again wired the money to the said bank account in the name of Nonindicted 16, a director of the Association on the same day.

(v) Around April 29, 2004, the Defendant said that “I will see Non-Indicted 2 in the restaurant with Non-Indicted 1,” along with Non-Indicted 1.

⑹ 한편, 위 협회는 대회가 임박한 관계로 위 돈을 송금받은 직후 이를 한국장애인복지진흥회에 지정기탁금으로 입금하는 절차를 거치지 않은 채 위 국제휠체어테니스대회 경비로 모두 집행하였고, 공소외 2가 2004. 10.경 회계 처리를 위하여 기부금 영수증을 요구하자 협회가 마련한 5천만 원을 한국장애인복지진흥회에 지정기탁금으로 입금한 후 2004. 4. 26.자로 소급하여 영수증을 발급받아 공소외 2에게 교부하여 주었으며, 2004년도 수입·지출 결산 총괄표에는 통상의 경우와 같이 위 돈을 회장단 출연금으로 기재하였다.

B. Whether Nonindicted 2 was unaware of the fact that the Defendant donated support payments in advance

The defendant requested several times of the above Association to request the defendant to report the same contents, and the non-indicted 3, who is a secretary, also stated that the non-indicted 1 did not directly request the non-indicted 1 to seek the sponsor's expense. However, in the statement of March 4, 2005 (in the investigation record 1195 page), the non-indicted 1 stated that the defendant would not be able to ask the non-indicted 2 to report the above contents to the non-indicted 3. The non-indicted 2's request that the non-indicted 1 would not be able to request the defendant's support payment, even if the non-indicted 1 would be able to request the non-indicted 2's request that the non-indicted 1 would be able to request the above defendant's support payment after the completion of the four-month election. Further, the defendant's request that the non-indicted 1 would not be able to request the above defendant's support payment.

C. Whether the defendant can be deemed to have received a bribe

If it is acknowledged that the above facts are true, it can be seen that the defendant received the above amount as a bribe; ① At the time, the defendant called Nonindicted 1 to ask Nonindicted 2 to seek expenses for the Games; and Nonindicted 1 to request Nonindicted 2 to pay the expenses for the Games. Nonindicted 2 would be able to provide support for the sports events of the disabled organizations which are the chairperson, and to give support to the Association. The defendant's request for the above money would not mean that the defendant would be able to give support to the above wheeler Association's sports events rather than to give or demand the above wheeler Association's money. ② On the other hand, Nonindicted 2 did not provide the above support money to the Association, but delivered it to Nonindicted 3 more than 40 billion won, which was issued at the time of the above request to the Association. However, the defendant could not be seen as having been able to request the above 200 billion won or less, which was issued to the Association. However, the defendant could not request the above 400 billion won or less.

In addition, in light of the fact that the crime of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society, it is necessary to determine whether the public official is suspected of being fair in the performance of duties from the general society due to receiving the benefit. However, it is general to collect most of the necessary operating expenses, such as expenses incurred in the opening of the Korean Wheeler Association, in the form of donation. As long as Nonindicted 2 contributed the above Association, it is decided to allow the Defendant to contribute the support fund by requesting it to Nonindicted 2, who has received a solicitation in relation to the amendment of the Act on the Support of the U.S. Congress, and even if Nonindicted 2 had the intention to give the defendant a bribe in the inner sense, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is doubtful of fairness in the performance of his duties from the general society in the performance of the duties of the National Assembly member.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have received a bribe equivalent to the above-mentioned amount directly from the non-indicted 2, with the fact that the non-indicted 2 contributed a donation to the above Association under the defendant's initiative.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, inasmuch as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are when there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in which a public prosecution was instituted due to the relation

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)