2016 Highest 235 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

person

Stathers (prosecutions) and the highest court;

Law Firm B

Attorney C

September 27, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

78,856,293 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Criminal facts

On June 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) requested that the Defendant select as a contracting party an enterprise recommended by the Defendant regarding a supply contract for materials related to the construction works ordered by the DGun to a public official in charge of the DGun department, etc. using a pro-friendly relationship with DGun E as a volunteer for the DGun E’s election at a local election on June 4, 2014; and (b) when such guidance was concluded, he had the intent to request the said enterprise to receive money and valuables under the name of the commission in return for the arrangement for the conclusion of the contract.

1. (State) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Acceptances);

On June 7, 2015, the Defendant consulted with G and asked G to “I Center’s construction landscape, outdoor light equipment, etc. so that I Center’s construction contract can be concluded,” and H to “The amount may be up to 20% of the contract amount” from “I may be decided to be up to 20% of the contract amount.” The Defendant asked to the public official in charge of the contract of the D military authority to the effect that I will be selected as the delivery party as the above delivery party, and (i) the F was selected as the party to the contract from H on July 7, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 11,600,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative account (L) in the name of K used by G to arrange the conclusion of the contract from H, and KRW 10,000,000,000 from July 10, 2015, the Defendant received each of the Defendant’s new account under the name of the Defendant (M) on July 10, 2015.

2. (States) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against N;

On June 23, 2015, the Defendant made phone calls to 00 operating (ju)N at a non-displace and made it possible to conclude supply contracts, such as metal materials and fences related to the PP formation company's civil engineering works, and asked 0 to “10% of the contract amount” from 0: (a) the Defendant heard the answer; and (b) the J who is a public official in charge of the contracts of the Korea Military Agency, to select as a party to the above supply contract; and (c) when N was selected as a party to the supply contract, on June 23, 2015, received 12,652,20 won from the Defendant's new cooperation account (M) with the Defendant's name on June 23, 2015, to 5,000,000 won from the same account on August 10, 2015.

3. (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to Q;

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that R operating state Q Q at an insular place (“S camping site development project would be able to conclude a supply contract for synthetic timber, etc.; (b) made a reply from R to the effect that “the amount of 20% of the contract amount will be paid” would be received from R; and (c) Q Q would be selected as a delivery party, and (d) received KRW 29,059,800 from the Defendant’s new cooperation account (M) in the name of the Defendant around July 10, 2015, as Q Q Q was selected as a delivery party.

4. (Case of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Mediation) against ICT;

On March 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) called “to pay the service fee to make the supply contract of lighting equipment related to welfare facility LED lighting replacement works,” made a solicitation to the effect that “T will be given 30% of the contract amount” from U, who is a public official of the Korea Military Service, to request the above supply contract party, and (b)T was selected as the delivery contract party, received KRW 22,14,293 in return for the conclusion of the contract in the name of the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (W) around May 12, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant received a total of KRW 90,456,293 on the intermediation of public officials' duties over four times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Some statements concerning the accused concerning the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution;

1. Copy of the protocol concerning the examination of suspects of G;

1. Each police statement on H,O, V, X, J, Y, Z, U, and R;

1. Details of each account transaction, tax invoices, contracts, design documents, requests for divided delivery, and notification, and details of transactions;

1. Each photograph, text message;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of mediation and acceptance as stated in paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act), Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of receipt as stated in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Criminal Act at the time of sale),

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

After a person who aided in an election of a local government was elected to the head of a Gun, the defendant actively contacted with the company intending to enter into a contract with a local government by taking advantage of friendly relations, and arranged a contract conclusion and acquired the amount equivalent to a considerable percentage of the contract price as a commission. The defendant's above act is that the defendant's trust of the public officials of the local government and the head of the local government is broken, and the fair operation of the local government is obstructed by solicitation or arrangement, thereby causing damage to the related company, as well as damage to the local government, and ultimately, the damage is bound to be borne by the residents. In light of the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is very poor and the defendant's liability is not less weak.

In addition, considering the fact that the amount acquired by the defendant is not significant, and that the defendant was punished as a violation of the Public Official Election Act by being related to the election of local governments, the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime, the defendant is recognized as all of the crimes, and the defendant is against himself, and the defendant has served while working in various organizations of the community, etc., the defendant cannot be exempted from the sentence.

The above circumstances, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, background, means, methods and results of the crime of this case, and the conditions of the anti-Sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.

Naba-