(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.9. 선고 2016고합649 판결

The defendant, as the president of the entertainment tavern business of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government "E" and "F" in Seocho-gu, has overall control over the affairs such as control information entry, response to sexual traffic, management of main points, etc.

1. Offering of a bribe to G;

On November 2010, the Defendant provided “E” entertainment bars in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, or various conveniences, such as provision of control information and enforcement affairs, from G police officers belonging to the Seocho Police Station in the vicinity thereof, and provided G with KRW 300,000,000,000,000 from that time to that time, from February 1, 2015, the Defendant provided KRW 51,330,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, as indicated in the List 1.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2. Offering of a bribe to H;

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant provided “F” entertainment bars in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government or police officers belonging to the Seocho Police Station with various convenience, such as provision of enforcement information and enforcement duty, etc. In response, the Defendant issued KRW 1 million to H from the beginning of January 2015, including providing KRW 12 million, from that time to the early of January 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

3. Offering of a bribe to I;

On October 2014, the Defendant provided “F” entertainment tavern in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D or a police officer belonging to the Seocho-gu Police Station J District District District of the Seocho-gu Police Station with various convenience, such as provision of enforcement information, enforcement duty, etc. In response, the Defendant provided I with KRW 1 million, from that time to that time, up to January 3, 2015, the Defendant provided KRW 4 million on a total of four occasions, such as the list of crimes, as indicated in the list 3.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning K;

1. Some statements in the suspect examination protocol of each prosecution concerning G;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against K, L, M, N, andO;

1. Details of lighting and e-mail, and data on the three-one-day three-dimensional levels of funds and sales status;

1. Each investigation report and attached materials (Evidence Nos. 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 33, 34, 43, 44, 59 through 65, 74, 75, 86, 87, 94, 103 through 108, 111, 115, 116, 126, 128, 137, 138, 139, 144, 147, 149);

1. The judgment of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016Da1178 of the Seoul Central District Court Act, the judgment of the case No. 2016Kahap1179 of the Seoul Central District Court Act, the judgment of the case No. 2016Kahap789 of the Seoul Central District Court Act, the judgment of the case No. 2017No230 of the Seoul High Court of GIST

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (which covers the provision of a bribe and each of the accepted acceptance parties) and the choice of imprisonment for each type of crime

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of offering of bribe to G with the largest amount of circumstances)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant, who is a police officer, knew of G, H and I, and delivered money to them. However, the Defendant did not know about the specific amount of money which the Defendant delivered to him, and in particular, according to the facts charged, the prosecutor asserts that “the Defendant provided KRW 1.6 million to G as a bribe.” However, in light of the period of service of the Seocho Police Station P of the Seocho Police Station, the amount of money could not be recognized.

2. Determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant can be recognized that the Defendant offered the same bribe as the facts stated in the judgment in consideration of the provision of control information to G, H and I.

(a) Details of the daily statement of funds;

1) The financial statements (Evidence No. 28) prepared by Ma, who was a director in charge of the accounting of the fund daily entertainment bars and F entertainment tavern (hereinafter “the instant entertainment entertainment tavern”), stated that the content of the statement is very reliable since M is deemed to have been written daily detailed and secret for a period of four years, regardless of the instant public prosecution, as it was reported to K, a real operator of the instant entertainment tavern regardless of the instant public prosecution. Moreover, the Defendant also stated that the prosecutor’s office stated that “I am funds will be considered together by investors, and thus it cannot be written falsely.”

2) Details of the daily financial statements

K paid monthly money to the defendant to the competent authorities, such as the Seocho Police Station and the J District (hereinafter referred to as "rovicing funds"), and M entered the payment details in the daily funds account into “A president disbursement”, “A Minister”, “Cooperation Expenses”, “A”, “A”, “A”, and “water supply”, etc. However, the part of the "Water supply” is a pipe-based capital that will be paid to the new party, military metropolitan investigation group 2) and is irrelevant to G, H, and I.

The daily report of the Fund is written that the defendant paid KRW 6.35 million to October 2010, KRW 5 million to November 2010, KRW 8 million to November 2010, KRW 8 million to October 2014, KRW 600,000 to December 2014, KRW 5.5 million to December 2015, KRW 2015, and KRW 7 million to December 201.

B. Determination on the period and amount of bribe offer to G

1) According to the statement, K, M, and L’s statement, each of the following facts: (a) during the remainder of the period excluding October 2010 to February 2015, 2012, the Defendant paid 5 million won or more to the Defendant on a regular basis; (b) the Defendant worked in the instant entertainment drinking house during the said period; and (c) the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she paid monthly money to G during the said period. Although the Defendant appeared as a witness in the relevant case (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da789 decided on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Defendant G) at the court, and stated that “The Defendant was working in the instant entertainment drinking house from three months after the opening of the instant entertainment drinking house business, and B was working in the entertainment drinking house until the end of October 2014.” However, such statement by the Defendant appears to be difficult to believe that he/she was liable for a reduction of his/her criminal liability.

In full view of these circumstances, the period during which the Defendant offered a bribe to G appears to have been from the beginning of November 2010 to the beginning of February 2015. However, in view of the fact that on October 2012, the Defendant stated that “3 to 4 during the period from October 2010 to March 2015” in the Prosecutor’s office, the Defendant offered a bribe to G is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant offered a bribe to G even on October 2012.

2) Amount of the bribe

A) L was present as a witness in the above related case court, and stated that “the defendant directly sees that he would directly give KRW 2 million to G or directly delivers it. At the early stage of the operation of the entertainment tavern in this case, he decided to pay KRW 2 million to G in the absence of any change to other police officers.” However, the above statement of L alone cannot be acknowledged to have given KRW 2 million to G by the remainder of the period except for the above four times.” However, the defendant stated that “K, who is the operator of the entertainment tavern in this case, and the actual donor, paid KRW 1 million to G in the Seocho Police Station R and P System respectively.” Furthermore, the defendant stated that “the defendant paid KRW 2 million to G” in the prosecutor’s office. Moreover, in light of the fact that the remainder of the period except for four times directly experienced by L, the above statement of L alone cannot be acknowledged to have been delivered to G by the remainder of the period excluding the above four times.

In addition, L makes a statement to the effect that “Although 1 year has elapsed since the opening of the instant entertainment drinking club business, it is difficult to specify the date and time in the approximately even though 4 times directly experienced as a witness at the court of the instant case, L is deemed to have given 2 million won to G only on the basis of L’s above statement.”

B) The Defendant consistently stated, from the investigative agency to the court of the pertinent case, that “The amount of KRW 300,000 to KRW 500,000 per month was provided toG, and one million was not less than KRW 1,000,000 after giving the said amount of KRW 1 million.” In addition, the Defendant stated that “the period of providing KRW 1,000 to G is not accurate memory, but that “the Defendant would bring about KRW 1,00,000 to no longer be subject to regulation while going through the control,” and that “the Defendant was present at the time of providing the said amount of KRW 1,000 to 0,000,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000 for KRW 20,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000 for KRW 20 for the said case.”

In full view of the aforementioned statements and circumstances, it can be recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 1 million per month to G from around October 201, when the entertainment tavern of this case was controlled.

C) Meanwhile, in the case from November 201 to September 2011, according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant provided KRW 300,000 to KRW 500,000 per month. Thus, the Defendant appears to have paid KRW 300,00 per month to G during the above period.

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of the description of the funds daily report, the statements of the Defendant, K, L, and M, and the remaining evidence, at least the Defendant recognized that, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, the Defendant paid KRW 300,000 per month to G during the remainder of the period excluding the first patrol officer from October 201 to the first patrol officer from September 201, 201, and KRW 43,300,000 per month during the remainder of the period excluding the first patrol officer from October 201 to the first patrol officer from February 2015.

C. Determination on the period and amount of the offering of a bribe to H

1) The facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred from it, i.e., ① the Defendant, at the prosecutor’s office, introduced G, a police officer, who was known to the Seocho Police Station, to G, in 2014. From the time he received H, he stated that “I paid KRW 1,00,00 per month during the period of his service in the Seocho Police Station P,” ② the Defendant appeared at the court of Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court 2016Ra178, Defendant H) to be a witness, and stated that “H was 10,000,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,0000,000 won was 10,000,000,000 won was 2,000,000,000 won was 2,000,000 won was 2,000,000 won.”

2) Meanwhile, M and L stated at the prosecutor’s office that “the Defendant was paid ex officio funds by March 2015.” However, as seen earlier, it appears that the Defendant had paid H a bribe up to January 2015, when considering the following: (a) there was no indication on the details of payment of ex officio funds on March 2015; (b) on February 2015, the Defendant was paid KRW 7 million; and (c) among them, KRW 6 million was the official visa funds (the term “water”) to be paid to G, and the remainder KRW 1 million was deemed to have been paid to G. In full view of the fact that it appears that the Defendant had been paid to H by January 2015.

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of the records on the daily statement of funds, the statements of the Defendant, K, L, and M, and the remaining evidence, the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, can be found to have given H KRW 100,000 per month to the police officer from February 2, 2014 to January 2, 2015 and offered a total of KRW 12,00,000 as a bribe over 12 times per month.

D. Determination on the period and amount of the bribe granted to I

1) Period for offering a bribe

A) We examine the commencement of bribe. We examine the facts found based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, i.e., the 1 K consistently stated at the prosecution about October 2014 regarding the time when I was introduced by the defendant. If we look at each of the defendant, L, and M’s statements, K appears to have the intent to confirm whether the police officer introduced the defendant to provide the official visa is properly paid the official visa, and ② there was a number of reports 112 as a retaliation against the employee of the entertainment entertainment place in Korea around September 10, 2014 when the employee of the entertainment place in Korea moved to the entertainment drinking house in this case. Around that time, K could be recognized that the defendant paid the bribe periodically from October 2014 to I.

B) We examine the termination date of the bribe. M, L, at the prosecutor’s office, stated that “the Defendant was paid ex officio funds by March 2015.” However, as objective evidence recognized earlier, there is no indication on the details of payment of ex officio funds on March 2015. On February 2015, 2015, the Defendant was paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant. Of that, 6 million won was the ex officio capital of ex officio and military investigation team, and the rest of one million won was considered to have been paid to G, the Defendant appears to have been paid a bribe by January 1, 2015.

2) Amount of the bribe

In full view of the following circumstances, it can be recognized that the monthly amount paid by the Defendant to the Defendant is at least one million won.

A) K and L consistently stated that payment of money was made to the J District each month, and that there was a somewhat different difference in the amount, but all of them was paid at least one million won. On the other hand, M made a statement at the prosecution that “M is known to have been paid KRW 2 million per month to the S District.” However, M appears to have been stated as above in that there was no separate price for the J District and only the S Public Security Center exists in the J District as it did not exist and only exists in the J District.

B) The Prosecutor stated, “I was paid KRW 1 million per month to I, and there was one million won in the envelope that I transferred to the Defendant, the same as I,” and stated, “I was present at the court of the relevant case (Seoul Central District Court 2016Gohap1179, acceptance of bribe, and Defendant I) as a witness.” However, L made a consistent statement on the part that “h was kept in an envelope with KRW 8 million from the opening of the instant entertainment tavern business to KRW 2 million or KRW 1 million, and the part that the Defendant sent the envelope upon request is consistently stated. Accordingly, it can be seen that there was at least one million in the envelope after delivery to I and that there was at least one million in the envelope.

C) L appeared as a witness in the court of the pertinent case, and stated that “There is little words that KRW 1 million out of the capital of the Defendant or K for the ex-closion from the J District, and the Defendant said that he would give the said money to I.”

D) At the prosecutor’s office, K stated that “I paid KRW 20-300,000 per month to I as from October 2014.” However, in full view of the following circumstances, K’s statement does not interfere with K’s finding that the Defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 per month to police officers, instead of paying KRW 20 to KRW 300,00 per month on a regular basis.” However, if L/M paid KRW 20-30,000 to police officers on a regular basis, it stated that the police officer was dispatched on a non-regular basis of control, etc., and other circumstances as seen earlier.

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of the records on the daily statement of funds, the statements of the Defendant, K, L, and M and the remaining evidences, at least the Defendant paid KRW 1 million to the police officer in relation to the I’s duties as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment and offered a bribe of KRW 4 million in total four times every month from the beginning of October 2014 to the beginning of January 2015.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

【Scope of Recommendation】

Bribery Type 3 (not less than 5 million won but less than 100 million won) (one year to four years).

* descriptive criteria: 1-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Persons] Where the contents of solicitation are illegal or illegal or related to the execution of duties.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant paid a bribe regularly to various police officers working at the competent police station and the district for a long time to receive various convenience, such as control information on entertainment taverns in this case. This is due to a long-term flexible relation between the owners of entertainment drinking club business and the police officers in charge of entertainment drinking club business, and thus, substantially undermines the general public’s trust in the duties of management and control of entertainment taverns by police officers, and made it impossible to eradicate illegal acts through entertainment taverns. In fact, the Defendant was provided with enforcement information from police officers, and was provided with personal information of the reporter. Furthermore, the Defendant offered three police officers including G, etc. a bribe worth KRW 59.3 million in total for about one year, and there is no room for the Defendant to strictly punish the Defendant on the ground that there is a high possibility of criticism and criticism in the instant crime in light of these circumstances.

However, the Defendant was aware of the amount of money, but it was time for the Defendant to give a bribe to G, H and I, who is a police officer. In addition, the Defendant was employed by K, who is not the proprietor of the entertainment drinking house of this case, but the actual operator of the entertainment drinking house of this case. It is difficult to view that the Defendant directly enjoyed the benefits from the grant of the instant bribe. The Defendant did not have any criminal record other than the criminal record, for which the suspended sentence of 1972 was sentenced.

In addition, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in the same manner as the sentencing of the defendant.

The acquittal portion

1. As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (2016Gohap649)

A. Summary of the facts charged

K is the actual representative of K Co., Ltd. E from October 2010 to February 2013, 2013, and from March 2013 to May 2015, 201, who operates an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” and “F” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D for each of the above periods, and the Defendant is a person who works as a business president for the entertainment drinking house in this case.

On October 25, 2010, the Defendant served as a business president at the instant entertainment drinking house, and received KRW 800,000,000 from K in total, from March 23, 2015, for a total of 181 times under the pretext of solicitation of affairs handled by public officials, such as the police, such as a bribe, given and received in favor of a police officer, in order to stop the instant case even after enforcement.” The Defendant received KRW 1,50,00 from K for the management of the public official, as described in the list of crimes, from March 23, 2015, for a total of 181 times under the pretext of solicitation of affairs handled by public officials, such as the police, as described in the list of crimes.

B. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The Defendant only received money from K, the actual representative of the entertainment drinking house of this case, from public officials such as police officers, etc., and delivered it in lieu of the Defendant.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

"A public official shall accept money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs dealt with by the public official." The public official shall not be deemed to receive money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs dealt with by the public official for himself/herself, which are not those for himself/herself, or those for another person, which are not for his/her own sake, or for the purpose of arranging or arranging between the public official and the client. It does not necessarily mean to accept money and valuables in the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs dealt with by the public official in return for providing labor in connection with cases or affairs dealt with by the public official. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do50

2) Specific determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, and the circumstances that can be inferred therefrom, the Defendant: (a) in collusion with K as an employee in charge of the instant entertainment tavern operated by K, provided it with labor by acquiring enforcement information related to the duties of public officials, such as the crackdown on the entertainment tavern of this case; or (b) received money and valuables, such as wages, in return, in collusion with K; or (c) provided it to K for the duties of public officials, such as regulating the entertainment tavern of this case. Moreover, the Defendant cannot be deemed as having been employed formally to take charge of the official expenses; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant received money and valuables, such as wages, in solicitation of public officials in its own position, on the pretext of promoting the convenience of K.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) The Defendant was in charge of official duties for public officials, such as police officers, in order to smoothly operate the instant entertainment drinking club by avoiding the control information by obtaining in advance information on the instant entertainment drinking club. The Defendant, through official fees, stayed in the instant entertainment drinking club from 7:0 to 4:00 a.m. on a day to avoid the control information obtained from police officers, with a view to avoiding the control information. In fact, the Defendant had been able to avoid the control information in advance on several occasions.

K substantially running the instant entertainment bars listen to the Defendant’s reputation that the Defendant is well aware of the expenses necessary for the operation of entertainment bars, and from the beginning of the instant entertainment bars, K left the Defendant’s audience fee from the beginning of the entertainment bars. K paid the Defendant the funds necessary for the entertainment bars at the fifth day of each month, and separately paid the Defendant the benefits of KRW 7 million per month.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant was employed by K to take charge of the official duties, and only received benefits from K in return for the performance of the official duties, such as the acquisition of control information. Other official duties, such as official duties, are not received in return for promoting the convenience of K with respect to the duties handled by the Defendant, but merely received necessary funds when the Defendant takes official duties according to the direction of K.

B) On May 26, 2016, K made a statement to the effect that “When the Defendant was subject to the first investigation at the prosecutor’s office, the other party or method to which the Defendant would regularly give a bribe would be well known.” However, according to the following’s statement, L, M, etc. employees’ respective statements, K was aware that the Defendant would regularly pay KRW 1 million to G who works in the Seocho Police Station P, H who works in the Seocho Police Station P, and I who work in the J District P, etc., on a monthly basis.

C) In addition, at the investigative agency, M stated that “A person in charge of the official expenses that the Defendant paid each month, and K was in charge of official expenses that he paid at the time of leave. K deemed that at around 19:00, around October 2014, K gave cash to G in our room room around 19:00. K paid KRW 300,000 or KRW 500,000 to police officers found from time to time, and also paid KRW 300,000 or KRW 300,000 to fire officers, and paid KRW 2,00,000 per month to the Seocho-gu Office of Food and Drug Administration.” At the investigation agency around 2008, K knew knew of the Defendant’s introduction from July 2014 to around 10.”

In light of these circumstances, K knew with police officers who offered a bribe by the defendant and provided him/her a bribe directly.

D) In a case where the Defendant gives a bribe to a public official on a irregular basis, namely, in a case where a bribe is given to a police official under the pretext of “Cooperation Expenses” in the daily statement of funds, or where a bribe is given to a public official under the pretext of “food expenses”, “entertainment expenses”, or “secting with meals,” K received a report from the Defendant, and decided whether to grant the bribe last, and at that time notified M of the contents of the bribe granted, and instructed M to arrange the contents thereof, thereby managing and supervising the Defendant’s waterway expenses.

E) The money indicated in the name of " Q" in the funding log appears to be the amount that police officers paid meals in Q restaurant located on the side of the entertainment drinking house of this case on behalf of K, and cannot be deemed to be the money paid to the Defendant for the purpose of the public road funding.

F) Some of the money that the Defendant received from K as “satisf” may have been disbursed in order to offer entertainment to public officials by the Defendant’s own decision regardless of K’s instructions. However, even according to evidence, the amount may not be specified, and it appears that the Defendant received money similar to the payment from K in return for the provision of labor, and that part of the money was voluntarily disbursed to maintain personal friendship with public officials, and that it does not seem to have been given for solicitation on entertainment bars of this case.

D. Sub-committee

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 5

2. As to the offering of part of the bribe to G (2016, 1054)

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant issued a bribe of KRW 16 million in total over 53 times a month to G under the same name as the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment, from the beginning of November 2010 to the beginning of March 2015, and granted a bribe of KRW 1.6 million in total over 53 times.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to whether a police officer paid KRW 2 million each month from the first patrol officer of November 2010 to the first patrol officer of September 2011

L had been present as a witness in the relevant case (Seoul Central District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 789 High Court 201Da789) and in the court of law, "G directly received KRW 2 million or directly delivered within the country". L has been kept in a bag containing the rovic funds.

Although the Defendant stated that “The time of this case’s entertainment drinking house opening business was one year after the opening of the instant entertainment drinking house business, and the period of not more than one year in the opening of the business is well known as to how the Defendant would have taken out any person in charge of the funds,” it is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned statement alone was paid KRW 2,00,000 per month to G from November 1, 201 to September 201. The remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant paid KRW 300,000 per month exceeding the KRW 30,000 per month in G during the foregoing period to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Determination as to whether a police officer paid KRW 2 million each month from October 201 to February 2015 (excluding a first patrol officer on October 2012)

The Defendant made a statement in L, which seems consistent with the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 2 million per month to G during the above period. As seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid KRW 2 million per month to G during the above period. The remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant paid KRW 1 million per month during the above period to G beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3) Determination as to whether a bribe was given to a policeman on October 2012 or a policeman on March 2015

Defendant and L made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “from the beginning of November 2010 to the beginning of March 2015,” that the Defendant paid a bribe to G during each month. However, as seen earlier, there is no indication on the details of payment of official expenses on October 1, 2012 and March 2015 on the funds log with high credibility as objective evidence as seen earlier. The Defendant also stated from the investigative agency to the court of the pertinent case that “from the beginning of October 2010 to the beginning of March 2015 to the beginning of March 2015, the same shall not apply to G bribe.” In addition, considering the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the Defendant offered a bribe to Gman on the beginning of October 10 and the beginning of March 2015 to the beginning of March 2015, it is insufficient to deem otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the facts charged in this part, the portion exceeding KRW 300,000 per month out of the part that paid KRW 2 million to the first patrol officer from November 201 to September 201, 201, the portion that exceeds KRW 100,000 per month out of the part that paid KRW 2 million to the first patrol officer from October 201 to February 2015, and the portion that received KRW 2 million each from the first patrol officer from October 201 and the first patrol officer from March 2015 constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the part that received KRW 2 million each from the first patrol officer from October 2012 and the first patrol officer from March 2015, and thus, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately from the text of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. As to the offering of part of the bribe to H (2016, 1054)

A. Summary of the facts charged

On February 2, 2015 and March 2015, the Defendant provided a bribe of KRW 2 million in total twice in total, by paying KRW 1 million each under the same name as the criminal facts stated in H, as stated in the judgment, to a police officer of early February 2015 and a police officer of early March 2015.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the part on March 2015 of the daily loan does not have the details of the payment of the excencing funds, and on February 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant for the excencing of the excencing funds. Of these, KRW 6 million was the part of the excencing the excencencing funds to be paid to the Sincencencencencencencenc in the military and the Sincencencencenc, and the remainder of KRW 1 million was deemed to have been paid to G, and K was the prosecutor’s statement that “the excencencencencencenced funds was paid until January 2015, 2015,” the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the Defendant offered the bribe to H to the extent that there is no reasonable room for deliberation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or inasmuch as the crime of offering a bribe to H, which is related to the crime of universal offense, the judgment of innocence

4. As to the offering of part of the bribe to I (2016, 1054), the summary of the facts charged

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000 per month to the first patrol officer from the first patrol officer to the first patrol officer from September 2014, and the first patrol officer from February 2015 to the first patrol officer from March 3, 2015, and first patrol officer from March 2015, and granted KRW 10,000 per month in total over 10 times.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the commencement date of the bribe

In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, i.e., ① Defendant and I were dispatched to the entertainment drinking house of this case from time to time, and the entertainment drinking house of this case was subject to the suspension of business due to the crackdown of the former JJ, and thus, Defendant and K would have been significantly high in need of giving a bribe to the JJ, ② K and L also stated that there was a regular payment of at least KRW 1,00,000 per month in the JJJ region, ③ the Defendant introduced a new police officer when there was a personnel movement against a police officer, and managed it so that there was no gap in giving a bribe, such as immediately giving a bribe. ④ Defendant and I appears to have been aware of it for a long time, ⑤ L was given money from the prosecution to the JJ district.”

However, the facts acknowledged by the evidence as above and the circumstances that could be inferred from it, i.e., (i) 1 started to work in the JJ forces from February 2014, i.e., (ii) 1 started to work in the JJ forces; (iii) but from February 27, 2014 to March 26, 2014, she did not work in the KJ forces after undergoing an operation for the reason of a fluor’s frection, and (iv) from October 2010, 2010, when I started to work in the JJ forces, it appears that I had not worked in the police station, the earth division, etc. in the jurisdiction of the instant entertainment drinking house from around February 2014, and (iii) in the case of H, there was no evidence to acknowledge that K received a bribe from the Defendant on July 1, 2014 to October 26, 2014; and (iv) there was no evidence to the effect that the Defendant offered money to the K police station from 14.

2) Determination on the completion date of bribe issuance

As seen earlier, the part on March 2015 of the daily loan does not have the details of the payment of the official travel funds, and on February 2015, 2015, the amount of the official travel funds was KRW 7 million to the Defendant. Of these, the amount of KRW 6 million was stated as the official travel funds ("the portion") to be paid to the new military and military metropolitan investigation group, and the remainder of KRW 1 million was deemed to have been paid to G, and K was stated as "the official travel funds was paid until January 2015, 2015." In full view of the aforementioned facts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the Defendant offered a bribe to the early policeman on February 2, 2015 and the first policeman on March 2015, 2015 to the extent that there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or inasmuch as it is found not guilty of the crime of offering a bribe to I which is related to the crime of universal offense

Judges

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

Note tin

1) M states that “ Q” is also the capital of the capital log. However, this amount is not the money that police officers paid on behalf of K, and that is not the money paid to the Defendant for the purpose of the capital of the capital of the transportation log. Thus, it is not directly related to whether the Defendant paid cash to police officers. Accordingly, the capital of the transportation log is excluded from “ Q”.

2) It is not clear to which police authority will be accurately referred to in the context of the Sinsan Party and the Sinarar Party.