A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

B. Acceptance of bribe

2012Gohap261(combined)(C)

(d) Offering of bribe;

(e) Misappropriation;

1.(a)(c) A;

2. D. (e) B

Promotion for Family Head Office (public prosecution, public trial), and public trial (public trial)

Attorney C in charge of the law firm D (Defendant A)

Law Firm E, Attorney F (Defendant B)

September 28, 2012

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 9 years and by a fine of 258 million won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and by imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B. Where Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, Defendant A shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 3.60,000 won converted into one day.

A penalty of KRW 179 million from Defendant A shall be additionally collected.

Criminal History "2012 Gohap143

1. Defendant A

The Defendant, from March 16, 2009 to March 12, 2012, was in general in charge of the management of equipment to control various electronic signals related to the operation of the said power plant while serving as the head of the G power plant team at the second power plant headquarters of the Gouri Atomic Energy Headquarters.

(a) Acceptance of money and valuables from the representative director B of H Co., Ltd;

On May 7, 2010, the Defendant, at around 2009, ordered B operating H Co., Ltd. of industrial machinery manufacturing companies, such as nuclear ice equipment, to perform a contract for the purchase of high voltage/low-tension oil equivalent to KRW 1.5367 million ordered at the above G Co., Ltd. without going through the procedures for release of sealed sludge production and its manuals.

1) Property in breach of trust on May 17, 2010

At around 11:29 on May 17, 2010, the Defendant received convenience in relation to the cases of the above act and various contracts to be carried out in the future from the above B through the Agricultural Cooperative Account (I) in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 30 million in the name of the wife B through the Agricultural Cooperative Account (I) in the name of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 30 million in receipt of such unlawful solicitation as to its duties.

2) Acceptance of bribe on June 27, 201

around 10:51 on June 27, 201, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in the name of H (H) through the said Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of supply contract, other convenience provision, etc., which is anticipated from the above B, from June 27, 2011. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in relation to the duties of executive officers and employees of market-based public corporations.

3) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) on January 17, 2012

Around January 17, 2012, the Defendant received 30 million won in the name of a supply contract and other convenience offered in the future from the above B at a mutual sculp shop near the Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu Do-dong Apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant received 30 million won in relation to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations.

B. Acceptance of bribe from K transfer L Co., Ltd.

1) Acceptance of bribe to a police officer on September 201

M is the Npt Deputy Director of the above G Team that the defendant serves as the team leader, and K (hereinafter referred to as "K") is a nuclear power plant subcontractor as the development and supplier of the nuclear power measurement control system. K entered into five contracts in charge of M only 201,000 won, such as entering into a purchase contract with the above G Team at around June 24, 201.

On August 8, 2011, the Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant, received money and valuables from the K side, in collusion with the Defendant, and the Defendant intended to use them for the personnel solicitation of M.

Accordingly, M demanded money and valuables from K to K at the same time, stating that "the children of K's team leader are studying abroad." On September 201, 201, after receiving zero reports from the above G team office, M received convenience for the above contract conclusion and the supply contract scheduled in the future, M received KRW 20 million. The Defendant received the above money from M from M and divided KRW 10 million. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 20 million with respect to the duties of the officers and employees of the market-type public corporation in collusion with M and received KRW 20 million in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of the public corporation deemed public officials.

2) Acceptance of bribe around October 201

K performed the "supply and installation of an empty surveillance system" service equivalent to KRW 700,000,000 from September 17, 201 to October 9, 201, which was ordered by the said G Team, of KRW 700,000 from the said G Team.

around October 201, the Defendant received KRW 15 million in return for providing convenience in relation to the conclusion and implementation of the above G Team’s service contract within the Defendant’s passenger car operating the Busan metropolitan metropolitan transportation Daegu. The Defendant received KRW 15 million in relation to the duties of officers and employees of the market-type public corporation, who are deemed public officials.

2. Defendant B

The defendant is the representative director of H Co., Ltd. of industrial machinery manufacturing business such as nuclear ice equipment.

(a) Offering money and other valuables to A;

1) Property in breach of trust on May 17, 2010

The defendant made a request to A as described in the above 1-A(1) and transferred 30 million won as a honorarium to A.

Accordingly, the Defendant provided A with KRW 30 million in return for such unlawful solicitation. 2) On June 27, 2011, the offering of bribe in return for such unlawful solicitation.

The Defendant demanded A to provide convenience as described in the above 1-A(2) and remitted KRW 20 million to A.

Accordingly, the defendant granted KRW 20 million to the duties of officers and employees of market-based public corporations that are considered as public officials.

3) Offering of bribe on January 17, 2012

The Defendant demanded the provision of convenience to A as described in the above 1-A(3) and delivered KRW 30 million to A.

Accordingly, the Defendant provided KRW 30 million to the duties of executive officers and employees of market-type public corporations to be considered as public officials.

(b) Granting of money and valuables to P;

On May 3, 2011, the Defendant issued KRW 100 million in cash to P, who is the head of the first power plant team at the Korea-U.S. nuclear headquarters, the contract amount of KRW 1.655 million ordered by the said G team, to P, who is the head of the first power plant at the Korea-U.S. nuclear headquarters, and KRW 100 million in cash for convenience in the future supply process.

Accordingly, the defendant provided KRW 100 million to the duties of officers and employees of market-based public corporations.

C. Around March 23, 2012, H entered into a contract for the purchase of sealed devices equivalent to KRW 498,300,000,000, ordered by the G Team at the first power plant of the Korea-U.S. Nuclear Headquarters (U.S.) with the Gori Nuclear Headquarters.

On September 10, 201, the Defendant issued 10 million won to the above G Team Vice-head S in the coffee shop in front of the Busan TR Daegu apartment, and issued 10 million won to the above S through the Defendant’s wife J around March 10, 2012 in the same place as the Defendant’s wife at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant granted KRW 20 million to the duties of officers and employees of market-based public corporations that are considered as public officials.

Defendant A worked as the head of Han-ri High Atomic Energy Headquarters at the second power plant team from March 16, 2009 to March 12, 2012 and has overall control over the management of various electronic signals (hereinafter referred to as "measurement variables") related to the operation of the said power plant.

1. Acceptance of property in breach of trust from V by the U representative director;

On May 209, the Defendant received KRW 5 million, along with the solicitation to the same effect from the above V, at a restaurant parking lot near the second power plant of the High Atomic Energy Headquarters, from U representative director of U, a corporation that supplies various power generation materials in Hanwon, such as control cards, safety grade control equipment, etc., and from V, 5 million won in the supply of measurement and control equipment such as electronic card test equipment. On June 2009, the Defendant received KRW 5 million in addition to the solicitation to the above purport from the above V. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 10 million in total twice in response to such unlawful solicitation in relation to his duties.

2. Receipt of money and valuables from WX;

A. On April 13, 2009, W on 2009, May 28, 2009, there was a continuous transaction relationship with the above G Team, where the defendant works as the team leader, such as concluding a supply contract, such as the contract amount of 3.3 billion won of the contract amount ordered by the G Team at the second power plant team at the Gori Atomic Energy Headquarters.

Around May 28, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from X operating W to the Agricultural Cooperative (I) account in the name of the Defendant, along with a solicitation to the effect that the case of continuous transaction, such as the conclusion of the above contract, and various conveniences in the future delivery contract are given to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 20 million in receipt of such unlawful solicitation as to his duties.

B. Acceptance of bribe to a policeman on November 201

W around November 20, 201, there was a continuous transaction relationship with the above G Team that the defendant works as the team leader, such as entering into a supply contract with the contract amount of 16,3250,000 won ordered by the G Team at the second power plant team of the Korea-U.S. Institute of Nuclear Energy headquarters.

Therefore, at the office of the Defendant on November 201, 201, the Defendant received KRW 3 million,00,000,000 from the Defendant’s office, along with a solicitation to the effect that, at the time of future anticipated delivery contracts, such as cases of continuous business transactions from the above X and the above contracts. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of market-based public corporations.

3. Acceptance of bribe from the Z of the Y representative director;

On October 31, 201, Y Co., Ltd., a development company of the nuclear power measurement and control system, had a continuous transaction relationship with the above G Team working for the defendant, such as entering into a purchase contract with the contract amount of KRW 512 million ordered by the G Team at the second power plant of the Korea-U.S. nuclear headquarters.

On November 201, the Defendant received 15 million won from the Z, the representative director of the said company, for consideration of the cases of ordinary trading relations and various conveniences in the future supply and service contract, in front of the cafeteria in Busan Metropolitan City, around November 2011. Accordingly, the Defendant received 15 million won in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of the market-type public corporation.

4. AA corporation in receipt of money from the representative director AB is a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale business automatic control equipment, and was registered as the Korea Water Resources Maintenance Corporation around September 2006, and the defendant is a project manager, a project manager, and a person who manages and supervises the light maintenance and repair of measurement equipment that AA received from the above A, as a project manager, and a person who manages and supervises the light maintenance and repair business of measurement equipment that AA received.

around October 201, the Defendant entered into a contract with the vice president AD of AA and received KRW 15 million from AB for the future convenience of orders in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence located in the Busan metropolitan Daegu AC, and around November 201, the Defendant received KRW 1,6 million from AB for the same purpose in the KTX Mine mine located in Gyeonggi-si. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 36 million in total in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of the market-type public corporation, which is deemed public officials. From November 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract with the 200,000,000 won, such as the contract price for the supply of electric construction and software from AEF, and completed the 9,000,000 won, such as the contract price for the supply of electric power, 20,000 won, around 19, 200,000 won and around 20,000 won.

Therefore, the Defendant received 10 million won in return for a request from AF operating AE to purchase the above electric source supply system more and more at a coffee shop in front of the Busan AC Party in Busan, which was around March 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 10 million in relation to the duties of executive officers and employees of the market-type public corporation, who are deemed public officials.

Summary of Evidence

“2012 Gohap143

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. A copy of each protocol concerning the examination of suspects of L or S;

1. Each written statement of AG and AH;

1. A copy of the J Reports;

1. Each investigation report, each family relation certificate, total certificate of registered matters, transaction details of AFC Account, AI agricultural cooperatives and foreign exchange bank account, personnel records, contract details of purchase request of the G Team at second power plant, status of the G Team at high headquarters 2 G Team contract, each purchase contract, officetel sales contract, office-stel sales contract, copy of the entry money sheet, the inquiry of past transaction details, A.J's monetary records, the entry money sheet, and the statement of transactions of free savings deposits;

“2012 Gohap2610

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the above accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against V, X, Z, AD, and AF;

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)3 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the receipt of a bribe on January 17, 2012 and the imposition of necessary fines); Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the receipt of a bribe to a police officer on September 201; the selection of imprisonment and the imposition of necessary fines); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the imposition of a bribe to a police officer on September 201); Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the imposition of a bribe to a police officer other than the above two criminal facts; the

B. Defendant B: Articles 133(1) and 129 of the Criminal Act; Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions; Article 357(2) and Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of giving a bribe and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the largest penalty);

(b) Defendant B: 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 in relation to the hot P which is the most severe punishment);

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 and the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The sentencing guidelines for each of the offenses against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and each of the offenses of acceptance of bribe: 5 years to 18 years (the imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years to 45 years);

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes, Acceptance of Bribery, and less than KRW 100 million but less than KRW 500,000

[Special Contributor] Special Person: Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribery, and aggressive Demand

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Special Priority Area

[Extent of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months to 18 years = The imprisonment of 9 years, which is the original lowest limit in the recommended field, shall be mitigated to 1/2, because it falls under the case where the types of the most serious crime are higher than the most severe one crime as a result of addition.

[General Aggravation] General Mitigations: Quasi-public officials under Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (referring to quasi-public officials under Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

B. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 9 years and fines for 258 million won (the prosecution punishment: imprisonment for 7 years and fines for 300 million won) nuclear power plants have been established and operated by receiving each mine in many countries on the earth in that they are energy sources replacing fossil fuels and have an effective means of coping with climate change measures. However, as mentioned in the series of circumstances leading to the 1979 Srima nuclear power plant accident in the United States, the 1986 Furgian nuclear power plant accident in the 1986 nuclear power plant, and the recent aftermath nuclear power plant accident in Japan, there is a high possibility that human life damage caused by the failure in the operation of the power plant would result in hundred and seventy million won, property damage would be caused to hundred million won, pollution damage would be caused to neighboring nuclear power plants, accidents, and nuclear waste treatment would be more likely to be caused to be caused to the end of the 20th nuclear plant construction plan in Busan, and there is no possibility that it would be more cost of spreading the existing 10th nuclear waste.

Even if the structure and mechanism of a nuclear power plant are complete and operated under the premise that the employees conduct the highest surveillance and supervision, the risk of potential accidents due to natural disasters or technical difficulties, such as experience in the post-cuba nuclear power plant, is always common. Therefore, there is no choice but to raise fear and apprehension of nuclear power generation due to the enormous damage and the fatality of the degree of damage caused by the nuclear power plant. Therefore, those engaged in the nuclear power plant have a high level of integrity and duty of care, and only when the transparent and strict operating system is secured, the people's trust can be obtained. Nevertheless, the employees, including the Defendant, demanded a bribe to be given to the relevant companies without any awareness, and actively demanded a bribe to be given to those employees to return the receipts to the public or to those employees who have been given a bribe in order to meet the demands of the public to return the receipts to the public or to those employees who have been given a false bribe at an extremely low level, such as “the public's life and property, and the public's body and property at least seven (7) times).

However, the defendant supports his wife and two children, and the defendant has no previous conviction or more than a suspended sentence, etc. shall be determined in the same way as the order is issued in consideration of favorable circumstances.

2. Defendant B

(a) The sentencing guidelines for the crime of offering of a bribe as indicated in the judgment: two years to three years; or

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery. Bribery. 100 million won or more

[Special Contributor] Special Mitigation : Where the consignee complies with the affirmative demand of the consignee;

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Two to Three years of imprisonment (Law penalty: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months);

[General Persons] General Persons: Cases of a high relevance to duties;

General mitigations: Bribery for quasi-public officials under Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (see Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, referring to quasi-public officials under Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

(b) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years (one year and six months); and

The Defendant, as the person in charge of the company that produces nuclear power plants, was well aware of the risk as stated in the above paragraph (1), offered bribe to the employees of one-source in order to deliver things produced by the company that it operated without any charge or awareness of the crime. Moreover, sealed oil supplied to Han-source is a very important device that prevents neutism and cooling water leakage from being exposed to the core from the core. Thus, it is essential to undergo a thorough verification of performance through fair competition and due process. However, the Defendant was a bribe, even though it was essential to receive a thorough verification of performance.

Through the method of grant, I attempted to see these procedures bypassing.

Even if the above act is derived from the active demand of bribe by the consignee and the high quality practices of Han Institute, there is no doubt that the state key industry constitutes a serious crime that causes serious doubt to the safety of the nuclear power plant directly connected with the national security and the security of the nation. However, the defendant is the most supporting the child attending the wife and graduate school, there is no disorder or criminal record in the suspension of execution or in the absence of criminal records, the defendant is divided into seriously and actively cooperate in the investigation process, and has contributed significantly to the identification of the corruption of this case by actively cooperating with the defendant in the investigation process, etc. shall be determined as ordered by the order, taking into consideration the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

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

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Jae-hoon

Judge Lee Jae-ju

1) As from January 24, 201, the Korea hydroelectric Energy Corporation was defined as a market-oriented public enterprise in accordance with the public notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and accordingly, as a public institution.

Under the Act on Operation, the executive officers and employees are deemed to be public officials when they receive money and valuables in connection with their duties (hereinafter referred to as "Korea-Japan").