2019No1937 A. Bribery (the promise to partially alter the crime of offering a bribe)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

(d) Violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly;

1. A.B. D. O. (680623-0000) and Samsung Electronic Vice-Presidents;

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

2.(a)(c) Gazin (530316-0000), free of duty;

Gangnam-gu Seoul residential

3.(a)(c) LO (510202-0000), free of duty;

Gangnam-gu Seoul residential

4.(a)(c)O (54013-0000), free of duty;

Gangnam-gu Seoul residential

5.(a)(c) YO (62025-0000), free of duty;

Housing Sung-nam-si Subdivision-gu

Both parties

Special Prosecutor Park Jong-young ( Prosecution and Public Trial)

Special Prosecutor Sweak-type, Sweak-type, Sweak-type, Sweak-type, Dispatched Prosecutor Park Jong-young,

Gangwon-do, Kimhae-do, Promotion for Family Heading, Haak-gu, Gangwon-do, and New Young-gu (Public trial)

Law Firm, Kim Jae-han, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo, Lee Jae-soo, Lee Jong-soo, Lee Jong-soo, and Lee Jong-soo;

Lee Jong-sung, Tae-ho, Park Jong-ho, Kim Il-il, Kim Jong-Ma (for the defendant)

Law Firm Jeonn, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul and Lee Jin-jin (for the defendant)

Attorney Kim Jong-hun (for the defendant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gohap194 Decided August 25, 2017

Seoul High Court Decision 2017No2556 Decided February 5, 2018

Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2738 Decided August 29, 2019

January 18, 2021

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1233(Rusing 1233) from Defendant OO shall be confiscated.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Litigation 1)

1) Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the lower court convicted the Defendants of partial violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”) concerning the provision of some bribe related to riding support (services 2), the purchase price of Salcido 3, the scambling insurance premium, the scambling insurance premium), some of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement 3, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Hambling (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), some of the purchase price of vehicles (Embezzlement 3, the purchase price of scambling scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam).

2) In addition, the lower court convicted Defendant 2 of the offering of a bribe related to the Korea Dongdong Sports Re-Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Yan Re-Center”) and the violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), among the facts charged as to Defendant 200, and related bribe related to sports (where both U.S.A. foundation and case sports (hereinafter referred to as the “U.S. foundation”) as an incorporated foundation and incorporated foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant foundations”)

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement).

3) Furthermore, the lower court convicted Defendant 0 of violating the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly (hereinafter “National Assembly Testimony Act”) among the facts charged against Defendant 00.

4) The Defendants filed an appeal on the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing, on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing.

5) The special prosecutor revised the previous facts charged by adding " September 12, 2014" to "the day of the private interview between the President Park Hy-young (hereinafter "former President") and the defendant Lee O concerning the offering of a bribe related to horse riding support among the facts charged before remanding the case. ② The special prosecutor added "the contents of the bribe related to horse riding support" to "the purchase price and insurance premium of the horse, the purchase price of the vehicle, the profit equivalent to the vehicle's free use of the vehicle," and "the preliminary facts charged of the offering of a bribe corresponding to the crime of bribery related to horse riding support" to "the fact of the offering of a bribe corresponding to the third party's offering of a bribe corresponding to the crime of bribery support," and "the preliminary facts charged of the offering of a bribe corresponding to the third party's offering of a bribe corresponding to the crime of bribery support," and "the supplementary facts charged of the offering of a bribe related to the offering of a bribe corresponding to the third party's offering of a bribe," and "the additional funds and the supplementary charges related to the bill of the crime of bribery."

6) The judgment of the court below prior to the remanding of the case is reversed on the grounds that the Defendants made ex officio reversal of the indictment due to changes in the indictment. In addition, the part concerning the offering of the bribe related to the horse riding support: ① the horse riding support, ② the part concerning the offering of the bribe related to the gifted, ③ the part concerning the purchase price of scambling, scaming, and scaming, ④ the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to the Yong-sports, ⑤ the part concerning the transfer of the accounts in the name of co-sports among the facts concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to the most fact about the occurrence of criminal proceeds, ② the part concerning the purchase price of scambling, scaming, and scaming, 7) and the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to the disposal of criminal proceeds, ② the part concerning the violation of the National Assembly Testimony Testimony Act, and the part concerning the remaining guilty shall also be reversed or reversed.

7) The first instance trial prior to remanding: (a) during the offering of a bribe related to riding support, ① the service cost; (b) the profits from the gratuitous use of the horse and the horse transport vehicle; (c) the service cost part; (d) the service cost part out of the violation of the Special Economic Crime Act (Embezzlement); (e) the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to most of the facts related to the origin of criminal proceeds; and (e) the judgment below convicts the Defendant only of the violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act; and (e) the judgment below acquitted the remainder.

8) As to the guilty portion of the judgment of the lower court prior to remand, the Defendants filed each appeal against the entire judgment of the lower court prior to remand.

9) On the premise that the special prosecutor's argument in the grounds of appeal is partly reasonable, the Supreme Court should reverse the part of the judgment of the court prior to remanding the bribe related to the horse of horse riding support to the Defendants, the horse or the part of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (Embezzlement) and the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the part of the offering of bribe related to the defendant Lee O, the leastO, and the part of the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) and the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement). The remaining portion of the offering of bribe related to horse riding support and the offer of bribe promise, the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement), the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act (Embezzlement), the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and the part of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment against Lee O, the remaining part of the judgment of the court prior to remanding the entire and the part of the judgment of the special prosecutor related to the offering of bribe related to the crime proceeds (including the part of innocence).

10) The special prosecutor changed the facts charged regarding the promise of the offering of a bribe in the trial following the remanding of the case to the effect that “the promise to offer a bribe in the amount is made”. The special prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment with the content of criminal proceeds in the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to the most recent criminal facts as to the origin of the crime proceeds, and applied for the modification of the indictment with the content of the crime proceeds to “service proceeds, Salcido, susath, Rausing or its purchase proceeds, vehicle free of charge,” and this Court permitted this.

B. Since the part of the defendants' violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (property concealment in a foreign country), the defendant'sO, the bestO, and the offering of bribe to each foundation of this case and the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) were finalized by the judgment of the Supreme Court, the above facts charged are excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants

1) As to the admissibility of a work log and KimO's work log

A) As for the fact that there was a conversation between the former president and the Defendant OO, etc., the AOO’s business pocket book cannot be used as direct evidence, indirect evidence, or circumstantial evidence, since it is not admissible as hearsay evidence, since it constitutes hearsay evidence, and this is also true when the AO’s statement related thereto is combined.

B) The content of the KimO’s work site shall be admissible only as circumstantial evidence of an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the content itself or as circumstantial evidence of an indirect fact not related to the authenticity of the content.

2) As to the details of horse riding support

At the request of the former president on July 25, 2015, the Defendants were not planned or prepared to support horse riding for Madna prior to the private interview.

3) The transfer of marina ownership is the substantial right to use and dispose of the ownership, other than ownership, and the Mail premium was not provided to the least Director.

4) As to whether the crime of violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) was established, there was no intent of illegal acquisition or embezzlement to the Defendants.

5) Even according to the judgment of the court below that transferred the ownership of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. to the largest director on the establishment of a violation of the Regulation on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, since the transfer method is the first acquisition of the ownership of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Electronic”) and then transferred it to the largest director, the sale contract for acquisition of ownership shall not be deemed a fraudulent or fictitious act.

6) As to the establishment of a crime of violating the National Assembly Testimony Act, Defendant O did not have received a request from the former president and a demand for contribution from the former president relating to the foundation contribution.

7) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (five years in prison, five years in prison, five years in prison, five years in prison, the last instance of the Defendant, and the last instance of the Defendant: four years in prison, four years in prison, and four years in prison, and four years in prison, two years in prison, and six months in prison) is too unreasonable.

B. Grounds for appeal by the special prosecutor

1) As to the existence of illegal solicitation, the lower court omitted determination on whether there was an implied illegal solicitation in a single meeting to strengthen management rights defense, which is an individual pending issue, and to alleviate investment attraction and environmental regulations related to the bio-project. 2) As to the establishment of the crime of offering of a bribe related to riding support, and the crime of offering of a bribe

A) The offer of bribe was made between the former president and Defendant 00.

B) It should be deemed that the least director acquired the vehicle’s gratuitous use profit as a bribe.

3) As to the establishment of the crime of violating the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of violating the Regulation of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, the ownership of Salcido itself is transferred to the least director, and it constitutes a bribe. In this regard, the crime of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) and the crime of violating the Regulation of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act is established.

4) Unreasonable sentencing

The court below erred in determining the aggravated factors among the special sentencing factors of the sentencing criteria, and the sentencing of the Defendants is inappropriate because the sentencing of the Defendants is too unhutiled.

3. Ex officio determination

As seen above, the Defendants have reasons to reverse ex officio due to changes in the indictment. However, there is no ground to reverse the above ex officio, but both parties’ misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles still present this court.

Since it is the object of the judgment, it will be examined.

4. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. As to the admissibility of a work log and KimO's work log

1) As to the admissibility of an AO-related business pocket book

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the work pocket book of an AO crime is admissible as evidence not hearsay evidence, but hearsay evidence with regard to the fact that there exists such a statement in the work pocket book, and that it is admissible as evidence in writing, which is a material evidence, and that there was a conversation between the former president and the defendant for EO or between individual visitors with regard to the fact that there was a conversation as to the contents of the statement, but it is not admissible as evidence by the rules of hearsay evidence. However, it is admitted as circumstantial evidence for an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the contents of the statement, and its admissibility is admitted as circumstantial evidence, and it is combined with the statement of an AO crime to the effect that the former president received the contents of the former president concerning the method of preparing the work pocket book, and did not increase or decrease his thoughts, and it is admitted as evidence for an indirect fact to acknowledge the contents of the conversation between the former president and the defendant for EO, not hearsay evidence, but it has the original value of admissibility and value of evidence as evidence.

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Legal principles

Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not recognize the admissibility of hearsay evidence, in principle, and recognizes it exceptionally only when the requirements prescribed in Articles 311 through 316 are met. Whether a statement made by another person constitutes hearsay evidence is determined depending on what constitutes a fact requiring proof. In a case where a fact that constitutes another person’s statement, namely, the content of the original statement, is a fact requiring proof, said fact is hearsay evidence; however, in a case where the existence of the original statement itself is a fact requiring proof, said fact is deemed original evidence and not hearsay evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012).

In a case where a document recording a statement is used as direct evidence of a crime, the document is considered hearsay evidence; however, said document is not always considered hearsay evidence when it is used as circumstantial evidence for an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Do16001, Jun. 13, 2013). However, in a case where the admissibility of a document recording a statement is recognized on the grounds that it would be used as circumstantial evidence of the fact that the statement was made itself, and where said fact is again used as an indirect fact proving the contents of the statement or its authenticity, said document constitutes hearsay evidence. This is because the document is used to substantiate a fact comprising the original statement written therein, and becomes a fact requiring proof. In such a case, said document is inadmissible unless it satisfies the requirements prescribed in Articles 311 through 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do2738, Aug. 29, 2019).

(2) Determination

In the work pocketbooks, etc. of euthan crime, there are both the contents of conversation between the former president and the individual interviewee, which the former president left to the euthan crime after the private interview (hereinafter referred to as the "part of conversation") and the contents of the former president's direction to the euthan crime (hereinafter referred to as the "part of direction").

In a case where the part concerning the conversation, such as the official pocket book, etc. of an AO crime, is a statement to prove the contents of a conversation between the former president and an individual visitor, it is admissible as evidence only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In this case, the official pocket book, etc. of an AO crime does not satisfy these requirements. Therefore, it is not allowed to use it as evidence of an indirect fact that can inferred the contents of conversation between the former president and an individual visitor. This would result in using it as evidence to prove the contents of the conversation. This would result in using it as evidence to prove the contents of the conversation.

The Defendants’ assertion pointing this out is with merit. 11)

2) As to the admissibility of the Kim O-O's work site

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the admissibility of evidence can be recognized as an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the entries, rather than an original evidence or hearsay evidence with respect to the existence of such descriptions in the business log of KimO, rather than an original evidence, and the admissibility of evidence in writing, which is a evidence.

B) Judgment on the appeal before remanding

The court prior to the remand judged that the hearsay evidence is inadmissible in case where it is used as circumstantial evidence for an indirect fact that acknowledges the authenticity of the written contents through the existence of any content in the business log of KimO.

C) Judgment on remanding

The appellate court determined that it was inappropriate for the appellate court to decide without distinguishing the requirements for admissibility depending on the content of the work log of KimO, but it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the hearsay rule and omitting judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the special prosecutor, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the special prosecutor.

D) The judgment of this Court

In light of the fact that KimO-O's work date on June 20, 2014, which was a private quota, stated "the succession of management rights for third group group - moning", the lower court recognized that the contents related thereto are highly likely to have been reported to the President by the private quota, but such fact-finding seems to have no impact on the substantial judgment of the facts related to the crime of existence (see, e.g., the attorney's opinion (28)).

Therefore, in relation to this, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the hearsay rule which affected the judgment.

B. As alleged by the Defendants, the Defendants did not plan the horse riding support from July 25, 2015 prior to the private interview, and even if there were some errors in the lower court’s fact-finding, it cannot be deemed that the above mistake of facts affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. As to the transfer of Mail ownership

1) As to the assertion that the substantial right to use and dispose of non-ownership has been transferred

A) Legal principles

If a bribe recipient, even if he/she does not meet the legal requirements for acquiring ownership, acquired possession of the goods provided as a bribe and did not request the return of the bribe recipient or legal owner, he/she shall be deemed to have the authority to actually use and dispose of the goods and have the authority to receive the said goods as a bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006).

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court recognized that the Defendants transferred the ownership of Salcido, Basa and Masna to the least director and offered the said Masna as a bribe.

C) The judgment of this Court

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that there was a mutual agreement between the lower court and the Defendant Park GabO on November 15, 2015 that the authority to actually use and dispose of the horses and the horses to be purchased in the future was the least director. The Defendants provided the least director with the following horses as a bribe from November 1, 2015 to the Defendants: (a) from November 15, 2015, the Defendants provided the following horses as a bribe; and (b) the least director received the said horses from the Defendants as a bribe.

Furthermore, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants do not affect the establishment of the crime of offering of a bribe, as seen earlier, even if the bribe recipient did not meet the requirements for the acquisition of legal ownership, if he/she had the authority to use and dispose of the goods as a bribe. As such, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants do not affect the establishment of the crime of offering of a bribe. This part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit (However, as seen earlier, partial revision of the facts charged, as alleged by the Defendants).

2) As to the assertion that the premium was not provided

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court recognized that the Defendants provided the amount equivalent to the premium for the horses as a bribe.

B) The judgment of this Court

There is no evidence to deem that the insurance benefit under the insurance contract for the horses has been transferred from Samsung Electronic to the Lastwon. In the event of an insurance accident, insurance proceeds are paid to Samsung Electronic and, in the event of an insurance accident, if the insurance proceeds are delivered to the Lastwon or the purchase of horses with the insurance proceeds, etc., the new crime of acceptance of bribe is established at the same stage. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the Lastwon received the amount equivalent to the insurance premiums for the horses from the Defendant Park Jong-jin. The Defendants’ assertion pointing this out is with merit.

D. As to the establishment of a crime of violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement)

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendants embezzled the amount equivalent to the insurance premium for the horses on the premise that the Defendants provided the amount equivalent to the insurance premium for the horses as a bribe.

2) The judgment of this Court

As seen above, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants provided the amount equivalent to the premium for the horses as a bribe, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants embezzled the amount equivalent to the premium for the horses.

The defendants' assertion pointing this out is with merit.

E. As to the establishment of a crime of violating the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined as follows: (a) the sales contract for Rausing and Rausing was the act of forging the origin of criminal proceeds as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 of the Regulation on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Legal principles

The act of pretending the origin of criminal proceeds under Article 3(1)2 of the Regulation of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act means an act that pretends to exist as if there exist no facts concerning the origin of criminal proceeds or as if there exist no facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4408, Sept. 4, 2014).

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the contract for the sale and purchase of Vitana and Rausing is merely the most unfair transaction. In conclusion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts. The Defendants’ assertion pointing this out is with merit.

(1) As seen earlier, it is necessary to acquire the ownership of the said Mascam on the premise that Samsung Industries received the Mascam itself as a bribe, and that it is necessary to acquire the ownership of the said Mascam to deliver the Mascam and Mascam to the Mascwon as a bribe.

(2) According to the sales and purchase agreement, Samsung Industries purchased and paid the price for the purchase and payment of the price for the purchase and the payment of the price for the purchase and acquired the ownership of the said maths. Samsung Industries entered into a sales and purchase agreement between the mastt and the mastt on January 27, 2016 to purchase the maths and the maths from the mastt. On February 4, 2016, it paid the masts the purchase price of KRW 2,6820,000 (2.6820,000) under the said sales agreement to the mastt on February 4, 2016.

F. As to the establishment of a violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendant guilty on the violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act.

2) Judgment on the case before remanding

The judgment of the court before remanding the case was rendered to the effect that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant made a false statement against memory that it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s use of the part (i) among the violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act was not memoryed by the former president on July 25, 2015, on the grounds that it was against memory. The judgment of the court prior to the remanded the case was guilty as to the part (i) i.e., war or war.

3) Judgment on remanding

With respect to ① parts, the special prosecutor filed each appeal on the parts of the judgment below, i.e., the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding, i.e., the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding, and ii. the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding.

4) The judgment of this Court

As above, since each of the grounds of appeal by the special prosecutor and the defendant Lee O was rejected, this part of the judgment before the remand should be followed. The argument about the part of the decision made by the defendant Lee O-hoon is with merit.

5. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the special prosecutor

A. In regard to the existence of illegal solicitation, the special prosecutor asserts to the effect that the lower court’s omission of judgment on the establishment of implied illegal solicitation in relation to the acceptance of bribe related to the gifted center defense, which is an individual pending issue that the lower court constituted the succession of management rights, and the mitigation of investment attraction and environmental regulation related to the biotechnology, affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, as long as a quid pro quo relationship can be acknowledged by the former president’s act of duties and profit provided by the former president, it is not necessary to establish a quid pro quo relationship with each of the specific pending issues as part of the succession, and thus, it is not necessary to accept the prosecutor’s assertion. b) Whether the crime of offering of a bribe and the crime of offering of a bribe are established or not.

1) As to the assertion that the offer of a bribe was made in an amount yet to be paid

A) Legal principles

In a case where the court of final appeal reversed the entire part of another crime in relation to a single comprehensive crime or concurrent crime, and then re-renders a sentence for concurrent crimes after remanding the entire case, the part rejected by the court of final appeal on the grounds that the grounds for final appeal cannot be accepted at the same time as the court of final appeal rendered a final judgment and rendered a final judgment cannot be asserted against this part, and the court that received the remand cannot render a judgment contrary thereto. Thus, the defendant cannot make a claim as to this part as the grounds for final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15031, Apr. 15, 2016). The same applies where a new argument is added with regard to the part for which the final judgment became final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do12630, Oct. 25, 2018).

Such principle is equally applied even when prosecutor’s assertion in the grounds of appeal is rejected (see Supreme Court Decision 2020Do9836, Jan. 14, 2021).

B) Determination

The lower court and the lower court determined that the Defendants cannot be deemed to have promised to offer a bribe of KRW 21.3 billion to the former president and the lower court, and the special prosecutor held that the Defendants could not be deemed to have promised to offer a bribe of KRW 21.3 billion in the case of remanding.

The assertion to the effect that the decision was affected by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment and specification of the promise to grant, intent of the donor, etc., violating the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct examination, omitting judgment, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

However, the appellate court rejected the special prosecutor’s argument in the grounds of appeal. However, the appellate court reversed the portion of the promise to offer a bribe on the ground that it was related to the destroyed portion and the blanket crime, but in relation to the promise to offer a bribe, the appellate court could no longer dispute any longer due to the occurrence of final judgment at the time of remanding the case, and this court cannot make a decision contrary thereto. Thus, the special prosecutor’s assertion in this part of the indictment is rejected (the special prosecutor revised the indictment to the effect that "the promise to offer a non-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-amount-type-type-form-type-type-type).

2) As seen earlier, the special prosecutor added the ancillary charges that changed the contents of the bribe in relation to the provision of the bribe in relation to the provision of the vehicle from the "vehicle purchase price" to the "vehicle's gratuitous use profit" among the offering of the bribe related to horse riding support in the judgment prior to remand. Even though it is difficult to recognize that the vehicle itself or the purchase price of the vehicle was received as a bribe, it is reasonable to view that the vehicle was offered as a bribe at least. The special prosecutor's argument pointing this out is reasonable. The special prosecutor has a reason to point out whether the crime of violating the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to horse riding support, and the crime of violating the Regulation on the Regulation on the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (Embezzlement) related to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) related to horse riding support in the judgment prior to remand, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants' attempt to commit the crime of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act itself was established as the "the crime of violating the Regulation on the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act," as the special prosecutor's argument in relation to this.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the offering of a bribe related to riding support, the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement), the violation of the Act on the Regulation on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to most of the facts about the reason for the occurrence of criminal proceeds, and the above part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of facts as to each of the above parts, and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). Furthermore, the part concerning the offering of a bribe related to the gifted, the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment due to most of the fact about the disposal of criminal proceeds, and the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment should be reversed on the ground that there is a single sentence on the ground that there is a relation between the above part and

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is identical to that of the judgment below, except for partial revision as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

○○ 9: 15:100,000 won (5.880,000 won) was purchased from Samsung Electronic Co. on October 21, 2015 with KRW 74,9150,000 (5.880,000,000 won) for transportation of KRW 1.6:00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

○○ 12th to 15th 12th 12th 100,000 won (2.580,000 won) was provided for a bribe equivalent to KRW 7.5,2810,000 (2.880,000 won) in total by providing co-sports in the name of co-sports with a total of KRW 3.63,484,00 (2.89,000) as the service price in return for the illegal solicitation that the Defendant would assist the Defendant’s succession of the work for the use of the Defendant’s O in collusion, and by providing the cco-sports with a total of KRW 3.63,484,00 (2.89,000) as the service price, and by providing the cco-sports with a cco-sports account in lieu of the maximum won, or by providing the profits from the use of the vehicle.”

○ Change of the 12th page of the lower judgment as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

○○ 13th to 15th 13th 13th m3th 15th m3th m3th m3th m3th m3 to 15th m3th m3th m3000,000 of the market price was transferred to the largest source the right to use and dispose of the horse using the horse equivalent to KRW 749,150,000 of the market price over six times in total, and it was arbitrarily used by means of remitting to the account in the name of co-sports controlled by the largest source of KRW 6,360,000,000 of the capital of Samsung electronic, or settling the payment in lieu of the horse purchase price to the largest source.

The 14th 3 to 5th 14th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g. e. e. e. e. g. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e.

A person shall be appointed.

0. Removal of the lower judgment from 14th to 15th page

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666).

○ Change to 19th 18th 19th 19th 19th and 19th 19th "the offering of bribe and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)"

The lower court’s judgment: (a) one copy of the 21st to 9th (1. 2. 4) Epic book (390 No. 1. 390); (b) one copy of the Epic book (1138); (c) one copy of the Epic book to be submitted KimO decoration (2852 September 4, 2015; b) one copy of the Epic book (2852; c) one copy of the Epic book (2896; b) one copy of the Epic book (2896; b) one copy of the Epic book (290; b) one copy of the Epic book (290; c. 2900; c. 2901; c. 21601; c. 4. 2016; 3. 4.2015; 3.4.2016;

Application of Statutes

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

(a) For transfer of defendant: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act;

In addition, it is necessary to determine whether to grant a specific crime or not. Article 3(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Articles 133(1), 130, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 3(1)1 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, Article 356, Article 355(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (as a whole, the fact of embezzlement related to riding support, including the fact of embezzlement related to riding support), Article 3(1)2 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Regulation on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (including the fact of embezzlement related to the Gift Center), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 355(1)

○ The Defendants asserted that the service payment portion and the horse riding payment portion were in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, not the single comprehensive crime, and sought ex officio judgment (see the legal counsel’s opinion (2) in November 19, 2019), but it is reasonable to view them as a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2017No2556, Feb. 5, 2018). Although the former president of the former case, the case related to the horse riding support, and the last OB case, the Defendants considered as a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2019No1962, 2657, Jul. 10, 202; 2019No938, Feb. 14, 2020) were related to the offer of horse riding support, the Defendants’ assertion that they were related to the offering of the bribe was related to the former one’s comprehensive crime of embezzlement.

B. MaximumO, POO: Articles 133(1), 129(1), 30 (a), 133(1), 130, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 3(1)1 of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 (1)2 of the Criminal Act; (d) Articles 356, and 35(1)2 of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes; (e) Articles 356, and 35(1)2 of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 356, and 35(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 130(1), 30(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 13(1), 130(1), 130(1), 130(2), 30 of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment; (e.ging, 30(2) of the Act);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) concerning horse riding support with the largest punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant Park Jin-jin and Yellow-O: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration has been made for each favorable condition among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Confiscation;

For defendant Lee O: the first sentence of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

○ Confiscation/additional collection is reasonable to confiscate licensing from O in a case where the consignee has kept the bribe as it is and returned it to the receiver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10290, Mar. 27, 2008). In a case where the addressee has returned the authority to use and dispose of the horse to O, the receiver, the receiver, and the third party has returned the right to use and dispose of the horse to O, it is reasonable to confiscate the horse from O (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 207Do10290, Nov. 30, 202).

Reasons for sentencing

1. For the purpose of this Decree;

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from June to June 22 months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) First Crimes [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)]

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust [Type 4] Embezzlement 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won (Special Convicts] mitigation element: In cases where punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered, the aggravation element: 17 in cases where the Act on the Number of Crimes is very poor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 4 years to 7 years of imprisonment

2) Class 2 crime (Bribery)

[Determination of Type] 100 million won or more for the offering of a bribe

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: Where a person complies with the affirmative demand of the briberyer: Where the details of the solicitation are related to illegal or unjust performance of duties;

Although the former president first demanded a bribe, the former president actively offered a bribe with the intent to purchase a job-related act in order to obtain benefits related to his/her duties by accepting the demand of the former president’s bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do13792, Aug. 29, 2019); and (g) made an illegal solicitation in the said process (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do13792, Aug. 29, 2019); and (g) it is unreasonable to view it as a mere passive grant (a.g., the scope of recommending area and recommending punishment).

3) Group 3 (Violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at National Assembly)

【Determination of Punishment】 Malicious or Evidential Malics Malics 01. Malics Malics Malics Malics Ba

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

4) Scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years to ten years. Determination of sentence shall be made

1) It is more favorable to Defendant O’s primary crime, the fact that the former president first demanded a bribe, and that the damage to the crime of occupational embezzlement was recovered in the trial before remanding.

2) However, Defendant OO offered a bribe actively by accepting the demand of the former president for a bribe, and made an illegal solicitation for requesting the use of the president’s authority to assist the former president’s succession in the process. Unlike the case where a bribe is offered to the president with a vague expectation to the extent that assistance is likely to be received or damage is unlikely, there is a big difference in the nature of the crime in that when a bribe is offered in the process of offering a bribe, the president would have the relevant public official, etc. exercise unfair influence during the process of performing the solicitation. DefendantO embezzled the funds of Samsung electronic company worth KRW 8.68,0810,00 to solve the problem of succession to management rights, and provided it as a bribe, and the crime was concealed by concluding a false service contract, and the National Assembly also concealed the above evidence.

Considering such circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment and the statutory detention on the part of the defendant is inevitable.

3) However, it is somewhat unreasonable to apply the sentencing criteria even if Defendant OO has imposed a sentence on Defendant O when considering the fact that it was embezzled by Defendant OO was due to the former president’s demand for support under the name of Samsung electronic, and that the damage of occupational embezzlement was completely recovered in the trial before remanding. Furthermore, considering the fact that it is very difficult for the president to refuse to demand a bribe in reality, in the event that the president demands a bribe, it is difficult to reject such demand, it is somewhat unfair to apply the sentencing criteria as it is. In addition, taking account of various circumstances, such as the circumstances leading to the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence as set forth in the instant argument is determined as above.

D. Whether to reflect the sentencing of the compliance monitoring system

1) Following the amendment of the Commercial Act on April 14, 201, listed companies whose asset size exceeds a certain level, a compliance officer must be prepared and a compliance officer should be appointed. Samsung Group, accordingly, has a compliance officer assigned to affiliated companies such as Samsung Electronic, etc., but did not prevent the occurrence of the instant case.

2) After the judgment of reversal and remanded, the Samsung Law Monitoring Committee was launched independently from an affiliate company, referring to the U.S. compliance monitoring system, and the more strengthened compliance monitoring system was combined with the existing compliance monitoring system.

3) The circumstance that the total number of companies strengthened the compliance monitoring system after the corporate crime case occurred falls under “a situation after the crime was committed” under Article 51 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Act and can be considered as one of the conditions for sentencing.

4) However, in order for corporate crime cases to be considered as one of the conditions for sentencing to strengthen compliance monitoring system after the occurrence of corporate crime, its effectiveness should be verified very strictly. The reasons are as follows.

A) The internal compliance monitoring system in the U.S. has emerged as a precautionary measure against a bribe crime of a company since the large-scale bribe incident in the 1970-80s, and its importance has been discussed in several years, and it has been recognized judicially as a provision in the 1991 portion of sentencing for the organization of a company, such as Chapter 8 companies, etc. in the U.S. Guidelines, 191, and has been evaluated as contributing to the establishment of a compliance ethics culture in the future.20) The provisions related to the compliance monitoring system in the U.S. Federal sentencing guidelines form a form of encouraging and facilitating the introduction of compliance monitoring system by providing incentives to reduce liability if the company has been effectively operated with an appropriate compliance monitoring system in the event that the criminal liability of an organization, such as a company, etc., was at issue.

B) However, in order to induce the voluntary operation of the compliance surveillance system as above, strict penalties for illegal acts and illegal acts should be premised on the perception that illegal acts are to be detected. This is because, even though a company committed an illegal act, if it considers that the plant is punished or that the plant is unlikely to be exposed even though it committed an illegal act, the reason for the voluntary operation of the compliance surveillance system will cease to exist even when it brought costs. This is more true in view of the fact that there is a low possibility that illegal profits may be gained due to the compliance surveillance.

C) In light of this point, it is very careful to reflect the situation in which the compliance monitoring system was introduced or strengthened as a positive factor in sentencing. This is because, if a sentence is reduced based on the compliance monitoring system that is not effective as the basis of the compliance surveillance system, it is likely to undermine the premise of strict punishment against illegal acts. In particular, in a case where the compliance monitoring system has been strengthened after the Supreme Court’s judgment was rendered on the grounds of the same case, as in this case, after the Supreme Court’s judgment on the reversal and return of the case, it is more likely that the company will introduce or strengthen the compliance monitoring system if it is found guilty after both factual and legal issues are disputed. The essence of the compliance monitoring system is not a sense of preventing illegal acts.

5) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the strengthened compliance monitoring system of Samsung Group is being operated effectively. The Defendants’ authenticity and effort to enhance the effectiveness of compliance monitoring system, including the authority and role of the Samsung Compliance Commission independent of individual affiliates, organic linkage between the Samsung Compliance Commission and the compliance monitoring organization within the Samsung Compliance Commission, and establishment of the compliance reporting system, etc. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find that the compliance monitoring system of Samsung Group satisfied the above effective criteria.

A) Effective monitoring of compliance begins from the evaluation of legal risks.22) To ensure effective compliance surveillance of listed companies under the standard law does not take place, ① evaluation of legal risks by examining the size and frequency of occurrence of legal risks, etc., and ② management of legal risks so assessed (Article 12), ③ operation of compliance education and training programs corresponding thereto (Article 14), daily compliance assistance and compliance inspection must be conducted (Articles 15 through 17). It appears that the aforementioned process begins from the evaluation of legal risks, and that its meaning should be lost as a whole if one part is disconformityd with the requirement of compliance guidelines and compliance guidelines (Article 15 and 17). 23) Operation of compliance programs, compliance inspection guidelines, and compliance inspection system, as well as compliance guidelines, should be established to the maximum extent possible in relation to compliance monitoring and compliance measures (Article 12).

C) Furthermore, it seems necessary to supplement the following parts of the compliance monitoring system of Samsung Group.

(1) Examining past Samsung Group’s illegal acts, it can be found that the illegal act was committed through an organization that serves as a control tower such as the Restructuring Headquarters and the future strategic office. However, the current compliance monitoring system of Samsung Group does not specifically provide countermeasures against the illegal act through an organization that serves as a control tower as above.

(2) In order for the highest management company to commit an illegal act for the purpose of management succession, it is inevitable to mobilize the organization within the company. However, since the compliance monitoring system has been strengthened and the activities of the compliance monitoring organization have actively been conducted, it is difficult to commit an illegal act using the organization within the company compared to the past.28) In this regard, Kim Jong-soo's professional examination committee is unable to complete illegal and corruption unless it is performed at the level of the representative director or the working-level (e.g., the payment of outside support fund, the purchase or sale of stocks for merger, etc.). In the stage of the implementation at the related company level, it is possible for the related company's practical compliance monitoring activities at the stage of the implementation at the related company level, so the proviso of the highest management progress, such as the total number, etc., and the proviso of the highest management progress, can be seen as effective at least in the process of the implementation. However, in order to recognize the effectiveness of the highest management practice at least in the stage of the implementation, it should be established directly by an independent compliance committee.

At present, the Samsung Monitoring Committee concluded the Convention on the Establishment and Operation of Samsung Electronic and Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) among the affiliates of Samsung Group, and has been conducting compliance surveillance activities against the above companies. 30) The most of the offenses committed by the highest management company may occur in the companies other than Samsung Electronic, Samsung Heavy Industries, Samsung C&T, Samsung Electricity, Samsung SDR, Samsung SDR, Samsung Life Insurance, and Samsung Fire Marine Insurance (hereinafter referred to as “T&T”), Samsung E&S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”). At the time of the occurrence of the case of the issuance of Samsung E&S bonds, Samsung E&S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”). At the end, many criminal cases related to Samsung C&E were mobilized, and recently criminal cases related to the succession of management rights at the stage of the implementation of the act, in order to control illegal activities related to the succession of management rights, it seems unreasonable that the Samsung Monitoring Committee’s compliance measures should be implemented.

(3) The part that did not initiate an investigation into the case of Samsung C&T merger on the ground that the case before the launch of the Samsung Compliance Commission or the court's first trial decision was not yet pronounced is not persuasive.31) The essence of the compliance surveillance is not a sanction but a preventive measure, and the analysis of the past records of the relevant company in the compliance surveillance is one of the essential tasks in analyzing the legal risks expected to occur in the future and preparing countermeasures against them. 32) (4) The creation of non-financing itself must be conducted in order to prevent the occurrence of bribe in the political power. The disbursement of 10 million won or more is subject to deliberation by the Samsung Compliance Commission as an agenda. Thus, the risk of offering a bribe to the political power can be prevented, but 33) It is difficult to deem that the examination of the appearance of the external support fund is sufficiently strengthened because it is sufficiently prepared in the way of responding to the offer of a bribe to the former president and the instant case, as seen in this case.

The issue of whether it falls under the part of the Samsung Electronic Support Deliberative Committee’s regulation is to be judged regardless of the form. As such, even if the appearance is presumed as above, there is room to conduct an examination by the Samsung law monitoring committee. However, it is not realistic to expect that the related parties who concluded a false service contract in order to offer a bribe to the political power reveal that the substance of the contract is the offer of bribe, and refer it to the Samsung Compliance Commission for deliberation. Rather, as long as it becomes known that the conclusion of a false service contract for offering a bribe constitutes a case where the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Regulation Act is violated, it should be assessed and managed as an independent legal risk, and it is necessary to prepare countermeasures against it by analyzing the method of raising funds by the Samsung Party itself in the case of offering a bribe against the President Park Jong-sung, etc.

(5) Since the legal risks to be managed are not limited to the existing legal risks, the holding of borrowed-name shares, which mobilized executives and employees, should also be deemed as the legal risks to be controlled.

① The holding of a borrowed-name share is mobilized by the officers and employees of the company, and ② This may lead to a violation of the duty to report the holding of shares in bulk (Article 147 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act), a corporation may also be punished (Article 44 Subparag. 18, Article 445, Article 20, and Article 448 of the same Act), and ③ The holding of a borrowed-name share in the names of executives and employees may also be a financial resource for offering a bribe. However, the defense counsel asserts that there is no borrowed-name share at present, which shall be considered in the process of determining priority by evaluating the possibility of occurrence of risks.

2. The defendant's tear and O equipment;

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from June to June 22 months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) First Crimes [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)]

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust [Type 4] Embezzlement 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won (special person] mitigation element: In cases where punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered, the aggravation element is very poor in the number of crimes.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 4-7 years of imprisonment

2) Class 2 crime (Bribery)

[Determination of Type] 100 million won or more for the offering of a bribe

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: Where a person complies with the affirmative demand of the briberyer: Where the details of the solicitation are related to illegal or unjust performance of duties;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 3 years to 5 years of imprisonment

3) Scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years to nine years. Determination of sentence shall be made

1) There are favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) Defendant tear and OO chief offender; (b) the former president first demanded a bribe; and (c) the damage to the crime of occupational embezzlement was recovered in the trial before remanding.

2) However, Defendant tear and PO also actively offered a bribe to the former president’s demand for bribe, and there was an illegal solicitation in the process. Defendant tear was in charge of the duties of the future strategic office (president) as the head of the future strategic office, and Defendant O was in charge of the duties of the future strategic office as the deputy head of the future strategic office (president), and was in charge of the duties of the director of the future strategic office. The degree of participation is significant in that he planned the overall crime and made a substantial decision on it. Considering these circumstances, it is inevitable to sentence sentence and statutory restraint even for Defendant Choi PO and PO.

3) However, even if a sentence is imposed in consideration of the following: (a) the embezzlement of the funds of Samsung C&M is due to the former president’s demand for support in the name of Samsung Electronic; (b) the damage to the occupational embezzlement was completely recovered; (c) the refusal of the president’s demand is very difficult; and (d) the success in the succession process does not directly belong to the Defendant’s largestO and the president, it is somewhat unreasonable to apply the sentencing guidelines as it is. In addition, the sentencing guidelines are somewhat unfair. In full view of various circumstances, such as the background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for the sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case, the sentence shall be determined as per the order.

3. The number of stuffs and yellow dusts by the defendant;

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from June to June 22;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Class 1 crime [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement]

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust [Type 4] Embezzlement 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won (special person] mitigation element: In cases where punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered, the aggravation element is very poor in the number of crimes.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 4 years to 7 years of imprisonment

2) Class 2 crime (Bribery)

[Determination of Type] 100 million won or more for the offering of a bribe

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: Where a person complies with the affirmative demand of the briberyer: Where the details of the solicitation are related to illegal or unjust performance of duties;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 3-5 years of imprisonment

3) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four to nine years; a decision of sentence shall be made.

1) A favorable circumstance is that Defendant GabO has long history of fine only one time, Defendant YO was the first offender, the former president first demanded a bribe, and the damage to the crime of occupational embezzlement was recovered in the trial before remanding.

2) However, Defendant Park Jin and YO actively participated in the crime of offering a bribe by accepting the demand of the former president’s bribe, and the nature of the crime is not good.

3) However, considering the fact that the benefit from the success of the succeeded work does not belong to the Defendant Park Jin and Yellow O, Defendant Park Jin and Yellow O was committed, but it appears that they did not plan the commission of the crime itself, the sentence is harsh aspect to sentence them. Other circumstances, such as the circumstances leading to the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as having been committed, and the sentence is determined as ordered by the order.

Not guilty part 36)

1. Offering of a bribe or promise to offer a bribe related to riding support;

A. The main facts charged

1) Summary of the facts charged

On September 12, 2014, in addition to the date and place specified in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts, the former president and the Maximum Institute requested horse riding support to the same purport as stated in Paragraph (2) of the criminal facts while holding a single interview with Defendant Lee O on September 12, 2014. By accepting this, the Defendant Lee O accepted it, and thereby agreed between Defendant Lee O and the former president on acceptance of a bribe in return for illegal solicitation.

Since then, as the performance of the above agreement on acceptance of bribe, Defendant Park Jin and Defendant Yellow Co-sports prepared by the Maximum Institute on August 26, 2015 and 3.3 billion won in total from August 8, 2015 to December 2018, 21.”

A service contract was concluded on October 14, 2015; 24,418,00 won (1.86,870), October 21, 2015; 74,9150,000 (5.880,000); 8,2170,000 won (65,830,000) and total of 360,000,000,000 won (1.668,000,0000,0000) were promised to purchase three vehicles for the end of 14,50,000 won (1.665,000,000,0000) for the aggregate of 1.65 billion won (2.65,0000,0000,00000 won) and 1.686,000,0000,000 won (2616,000,000 won).

2) Determination

A) Without reasonable doubt, the evidence alone submitted by the special prosecutor on September 12, 2014, the part of the private interview with the special prosecutor was not sufficient to hold a private interview with the former president on September 12, 2014, or a bribe from riding support on the job.

It is difficult to readily conclude that a promise to grant was made.

B) The commitment of offering of bribe

As seen above 5-b. 1) In relation to this part, there was no further dispute as to this part due to the occurrence of the final binding force at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of remand, and this court cannot make any judgment contrary thereto. Thus, this part of the facts charged is not acceptable.

C) The part on the offering of bribe for the purchase cost of mail and for the money in the name of insurance premium

It is reasonable to view that the Defendants provided Salcido, Rausing, and Rausing as a bribe, not for the purchase cost of marinas, and it is difficult to recognize that money in the name of insurance premium was offered as a bribe as stated in the above 4-C. 2 (b).

D) In light of the fact that the portion of the offering of a bribe to the money in the name of the vehicle purchase cost indicated in the document prepared by Samsung Electronic and Co-Co-sports, the vehicle’s ownership is in Samsung Electronic and Samsung Electronic, and Samsung Electronic sells the vehicle to the team in the first order of February 2016 and the vehicle transport vehicle to another German company on April 12, 2017, and received the price, there is insufficient proof that the Defendants provided the vehicle’ purchase price to the least director as a bribe.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged is 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. However, as long as the court found the Defendants guilty of the offering of a bribe related to the horse riding support in the judgment of the Defendants related to the above not guilty part, it shall not be pronounced not guilty separately from the text.

B. The ancillary charge part

1) Summary of the facts charged

On September 12, 2014, in addition to the date and place specified in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts, the former president and the Maximum Institute requested horse riding support to the same effect as stated in Paragraph (2) of the criminal facts while holding a single interview with Defendant Lee O on September 12, 2014. By accepting this, the Defendant Lee O accepted it, and thereby, agreed on acceptance of bribe between Defendant Lee O and the former president in return for illegal solicitation.

On October 21, 2015, in order to buy a high-priced horse to be used by Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad 152170, Nov. 13, 2015, the insurance company paid 8,2170,00 (65,830,00) premium for Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad 15,00,000 to the maximum won on November 15, 2015, the insurance company provided Mad 10,000,000 won and Mad 284,000,000 won to the insurance company.

2) Determination

As seen in the above 4-C. 2, it is difficult to recognize that the benefit equivalent to the insurance premium was provided as a bribe. Accordingly, since this part of the conjunctive charge premised on this premise also constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the offering of a bribe relating to the riding support related to the crime of a single comprehensive crime with the above innocence, the judgment of not guilty is not rendered separately.

2. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement);

A. Summary of the primary and preparatory facts charged

Defendant 1, as the Vice-Chairperson of Samsung C&M, is a person in charge of overall management of Samsung Group’s subsidiaries, including fund management, through Samsung Group’s future strategic office, with the intent of supporting Madra’s German horse riding training with the funds of affiliated companies of Samsung Group. Defendant 2, as well as the fact that Madco sports is established at Germany to receive funds from Samsung Electronic, without sufficient consideration of the nature of the work and relevance thereof, it goes against the objective of the establishment and operation of Samsung Electronic Corporation. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 and 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

A person shall be appointed.

B. Determination

The Defendants should be deemed to have embezzled the attempt itself, not the purchase cost of the attempt, (No. 2). As seen earlier, insofar as it is difficult to recognize that the purchase price of money or vehicles in the name of the premium was provided as a bribe (no. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the above table). As long as the Defendants embezzled the amount equivalent to the said amount.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged around this part of the primary and preliminary 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. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of violating the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with respect to riding support for the defendants who are related to the above not guilty part, the sentence of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

3. Violation of the Regulation on Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants: (a) embezzled the funds of Samsung Electronic Company to the former president in return for the illegal solicitation that the former president intended to perform the succession work; and (b) granted to the latter president the amount equivalent to the horse and training expenses to be used as a bribe; (c) however, the Defendants paid the purchase price of the horses necessary for the overseas off-line training and training for the horse riding group belonging to Samsung Electronic Company, which did not have completed, and planned to make relevant documents false as if it were possessed by Samsung Electronic; and (d) make plans to disguise the origin of criminal proceeds of the Defendant’sO and the Maximum members; (c) directed the former president to implement the said plans; (d) Defendant Park Jong-jin, Defendant Professor-jin, and Defendant Yellow-man provided three vehicles and one vehicle transport-related property benefits by preparing a sales contract that purchases the horses with their own assets; and thereby, the Defendants conspired with the latter to use the most property benefits related to the causes of the crime of bribery and embezzlement.

B. Determination

1) The part concerning the sales contract for Salcido, suasia, and Rausing

As seen in the above 4-Ma (2) above, it is difficult to recognize that the sale and purchase contract for Vitana and Rausing is merely a transaction with which the contract for the sale and purchase of Salcido is not completed. For the same reason, it is difficult to recognize that the contract for the sale and purchase of Salcido is merely a transaction with which the contract for the sale and purchase of Salcido is not completed.

2) The portion of profits from free use of the athletes’ vehicles and horse transport vehicles

As seen earlier, the part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the assertion in the grounds of final appeal is groundless shall be no longer disputed as to this part due to the occurrence of the final binding force at the same time as the rendering of the judgment, and the court that has been remanded shall not render a judgment contrary thereto. The same shall also apply to the case where a new argument is added as to the part in which the final binding force has occurred.

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court prior to remand did not recognize the purchase price of vehicles as criminal proceeds on the premise that the Defendants cannot be deemed to have given the purchase price of vehicles as a bribe, and that they cannot be deemed to have embezzled the purchase price, etc. of vehicles. In this regard, the special prosecutor asserted that the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court prior to remand did not accept the special prosecutor's ground of appeal on the following grounds: (a) insofar as the purchase price of the vehicle was given as the use price of the vehicle was a bribe, and the use profit of the vehicle was the criminal proceeds offered as a bribe, even if only the use profit of the vehicle was offered as a bribe, the above use profit also constitutes a bribe, and it is obvious that the court did not judge the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment; (b) however, the remanded court rejected the special prosecutor's ground of appeal on the ground that this part was reversed and remanded on the ground that this part was a single comprehensive crime with the reversed part, but it cannot be argued any more at the same time with the judgment of the court and this part.

4. Violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act

A. Summary of the facts charged

around 10:00 on December 6, 2016, Defendant O used at the third conference of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (No. 245) held as a witness of the first hearing of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the State's suspicion case by civilians, such as the least members of the Park Jong-young Government. Defendant O used as a witness of the first hearing of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the State's suspicion case by civilians. Defendant O used as a witness of the former president on July 25, 2015 and February 15, 2016 at the request of the former president to provide the funding for the establishment of the Foundation and the K sports Foundation. Nevertheless, Defendant O used as a witness of the Special Committee on the Investigation of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea before the president of the National Assembly and the members of the Ansan National Assembly, and made a statement to the effect that he/she did not reply to this effect."

B. Determination

As seen in the above 4-f (f) it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant OO made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in this part of the facts charged and presented perjury. Therefore, since this part of the facts charged is when there is no proof of a crime, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act as to Defendant OO, which is related to this part of the facts charged and the facts charged, the sentence of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

Judges fixed by the presiding judge;

Judges Song-young

Judges Kang Jong-chul

1) As to the progress of a lawsuit, the proceedings were arranged in the attached sheet and attached thereto.

2) The name was changed to Salcane, and thereafter, to Salcane 31 (Salva 31). The term “suic attempt” is abbreviationd.

3) An abbreviationd name is non-vinaV (VitanaV), “non-via”.

4) Washington 1233 (Rusing 1233), hereinafter referred to as “Smoking”) is abbreviationd.

5) The term "Irre the previous president and the sole meeting on July 25, 2015) of the Commission for the Prevention of Marman’s Arman’s

The part replyed to "I shall not be memoryed" (hereinafter referred to as "part of the Commission") and the "President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea" of the members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission").

to the Foundation without reporting to the Foundation whether the donation is made to the Foundation? It is not reported to the Foundation on the basis of “e.g., this day and the only daily test.”

The part replyed by "............." (hereinafter referred to as "part") and the part replyed to the question of the members of the Do conversion.(hereinafter referred to as "the part").

이라고 한다), ㉣ 황열철 위원의 질문에 답변한 부분(이하 '㉣ 부분'이라고 한다)을 모두 유죄로 판단하였다.

6) The part of the suing’s insurance premium, the suing’s insurance premium, the suing’s own, the suing’s insurance premium, the suing’s insurance premium.

7) The purport of the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is that there are reasonable grounds.

8) The lower court did not render a judgment of innocence.

9) The Defendants’ assertion in the grounds of appeal was rejected or omitted.

10) After the remand, the reason for the yellow dust was withdrawn from the trial. November 30, 2020, defense counsel’s written opinion (25), and December 7, 2020

Defense Counsel’s written opinion (27) 13 pages, 4 December 4, 2020, 41 pages of the trial records dated December 7, 2020.

11) The Defendants’ determination by the lower court on the admissibility of the work pocket book is related to the violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act.

In support of the argument that "a solicitation has been made to the individual pending issues", it also affects the sentencing.

[See the defense counsel's written opinion of December 14, 2020 (28)]

12) We refer to Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8735 Decided November 25, 2010 as precedents for the same purport.

13) See the protocol of the trial dated December 7, 2020.

14) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do13792 Decided August 29, 2019 see Supreme Court en banc Decision 21 Decided August 29, 2019

15) As seen earlier, the indictment was modified after the remand in relation to this part. The Defendants were changed.

It is the position that the facts charged are not recognized and disputed (see the counsel's written opinion on December 21, 2020 (29)).

16) The official pocket book and statement of an euthan crime are used as evidence to prove the contents of conversation divided by the former president and individual visitors.

of this section. The same shall also apply to the remainder.

17) Where the means and methods of a crime have been closely planned in advance, and a large number of persons have been organized by sharing their roles.

18) A program, whether carried out voluntarily or in accordance with a court order, shall:

d. John D. Copreland, Tyson’s Story: Bils and Effs.

Jointliance Processm, 5 Drakke Jour 305 (200), 33.

19) With respect to the process of judicial approval of the compliance instructor system of the United States, Dr. Jhn D. Copeland, and Tyson Lsony: Budling

an Effective Ethics and Compliance Program, 5 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 305 (2000), 311-326；

Gabel, Mtransporteld, Rughton, Leter vs. Sirit: the Ethics, and the 46thics of the Tvostn.

Business Business Law Journal 453 (2009), 457-468

20) The United States in the demonstration conducted by the U.S. Ethics Officer after the enforcement of Chapter 8 of the Federal sentencing guidelines.

Part VIII of the sentencing guidelines has a huge impact on the company's practice of corporate ethics through the adoption of compliance monitoring programs.

A half of the words "business ethics" is difficult, and more than 60% of the response parties are business ethics (busi business ethics).

The general perception in the world seems to have been believed that the ethical dynasty was not to be able to avoid business.

According to the EOA, most of the business employees today can combine management and ethics.

It shows that ethical diana E. Murphy, Basic Doideline for the People's Association: Doiana E. Murphy, National Assembly for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Association for the People's Republic of Korea.

(202), 710, 711. Diana E. Mury is a U.S. 8 Appellate Court Judge (1994-2.8) and Federal sentencing.

The chairman of the Committee (199-2004) has served as the chairman of the Committee.

21) Jsephh E. Mury, Pooly, Conflict: Unz mincing Cates Self-Polcing, 69 Ruters Univs

Law Review 421 (2017), 423, 424.

22) Jsephh E. Mury, Pooly, Conflict: Unz mincing Catef-Picling, 69 Routers Univs

Law Review 421 (2017), 448: Serena Ham, Effemy: A HS Proach

The buyer and buyer DOJ, 94 Wlasing Law Review 851 (2019), 867.

23) stuffing, listing companies’ management and reasonable and efficient compliance guidelines, listing, September 2015, Korea-listed companies

Council (2015), 16 pages

24) Review of gambling, practical issues related to compliance programs under the Commercial Code, and legislative improvements, the right to research on commercial law 33

No. 2, Korean Commercial Law Association (2014), 138 pages

25) §8B2.1. Effship and Ethics

(a) To Doz. An Anoncu and ethics program (com) An Anoncu shall Association

(1) exercise due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct； and

(2)Incurages eth physical andcom management Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

Dorance. Dorance. Dorance.

(b) Domination 이이 이이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이

Terms and Conditions Governing Doz. Dogr Dogr Dogr. Dogr Dogr Dogr Dogr.

Referenceing: (Instrue)

(c) Doing Sub-Section (b) of the Bank of Korea 200 Do3022, 1982, 2002, 2003.

The Fair Trade Commission and shalls at a premium rate to be tamps, uumme, or momothe in the set for management of the eachbook.

2. 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2. 3.2. 3.2. 3.2.2.

Furthermore, §8B2.1.(c) In the relevant note, ① the nature of criminal conduct, sclur and phishing, ② the possibility of occurrence

(likelihood to occur), ③ 기관의 전력(prior history of the organization) 등을 평가한 투 ④ 범죄행위의 심각

성과 발생 가능성에 따라 그에 대응하는 조치에 대해 주기적으로 우선순위묠 정할 것을 요구하고 있다.

26) As to this, the number of professional examiners is expressed by the assent of three (3) members, including a lecture day, a red-net, and a pging class.

8 pages of the report of a psychological commissioner.

27) The 27) sought the opinions of three experts from them in attached Form.

28) Report on professional examiners 21 pages (refer to the part on the writing of professional examiners of Gangwon-do).

29) Report on professional examiners 64 pages (refer to part on writing professional examiners in Ginsung).

30) Reference materials to be submitted by a defense counsel 276 see 1.

31) Report on professional examiners is 16 pages, 18 pages, 39 pages, 53 pages, 81 pages.

32) In Chapter VIII of the U.S. Federal Sentencing, in relation thereto, the following reference is made:

2.22222 이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이이 이이이 이이이 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이이 이이 이이 이이 이이.

33) Reference materials to be submitted by a defense counsel are see the defense counsel’s written opinion (35) dated 31, 2020, 276 10 and 34.

34) See his defense counsel’s written opinion on January 7, 2021 (36) 14.

35) The defense counsel’s written opinion dated January 7, 2021 (see Supreme Court Decision 36) 16 pages.

36) As seen earlier, the Defendants’ violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (property flight out of the country), the leastO for Defendant O, and OO

The offering of a bribe and the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) in relation to each of the foundations of this case are dismissed by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In this regard, no judgment shall be rendered separately.

37) The special prosecutor’s appellate brief 222,223 pages.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.