Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is currently serving as D president from February 26, 2008 to February 18, 2013, and from April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2015.

On May 21, 2010, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation and received KRW 5 million in cash from the Defendant’s company, who was parked in the street above the head office of the Daegu Bank located in the Dong-gu, Daegu, and was in violation of the above Association’s duty to perform duties for the common interest of the members of the Association, even though the president of the said Association was in violation of the above duties, and was in violation of the above duties and was employed as a member of the Association, and was employed as D managing director and was employed as D managing director on the same job.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Each statement of the witness H and I in the first trial record;

1. A complaint (including attached documents, such as a copy of paper closure) (the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's receipt of five million won from F was merely a nominal reason for expenses and not a solicitation.

However, “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require that it constitutes the content of occupational breach of trust. If it is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith, it is sufficient to determine it, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the content of the solicitation and the amount of the consideration related thereto, form, and the integrity of transactions, which are legal interests protected, etc. In addition, such solicitation does not necessarily require that it is clearly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5628, Sept. 9, 2010, etc.). According to the foregoing evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court (in particular, the consistent statement of the F and G statements supporting it and copies thereof, etc.), according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, F retired while serving in the E Association for about 22 years, was a managing director of D (hereinafter “D Association”).

G listening to the view that G may be employed as a regular business of D Association from G in the long place, G was asked for employment, and thereafter, G was “personnel” to the Defendant, the chief executive officer of D Association, for employment of F.