207, 693 A. Bribery

207Gohap701 (Joint) b. Acceptance of bribe

208Gohap5 (Consolidation)

208Gohap6 (Consolidation)

E. Disclosure of official secrets

1. A. Han-dong ○

2. B. (c. D. Kim○-○

3. b. Kim○-○

4. E. (e) ○

5. E. Ma-○

6. A. ○○

7. b. Doz. ○

8. (b) Maap○○

nan

Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Attorney Park Do-young

Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Attorney Park Do-young

May 8, 2008

Defendant 1, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for two years.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment is 58 days against the defendant Han○○, 155 days against the defendant Kim○, 3 days against the defendant Kim○, and 1 day to the defendant Lee○○ in addition to the above punishment against the defendant Lee○. The sentence is suspended against the defendant Lee Jong-○, 10, 200, 3 days against the defendant Kim○, and 1 day against the defendant Lee○○.

The sum totaling KRW 26,297,377 from Defendant Kim○-○, and KRW 17,185,80 from Defendant Kim○-○ shall be collected respectively.

Facts of crime

Defendant 1: (a) The president of ○○○○○○ who conducts repair and sales agent business of helicopter, the actual manager of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, the same Kim○○ is the chief of the National Police Agency’s rescue and relief service station and aeronautical department; (b) the chief of the equipment and techniques bureau in charge of the introduction of helicopter from November 2005 to September 2006; (c) the chief of the equipment and techniques bureau in charge of the operation of helicopter from September 2006 to July 2007; (d) the chief of the equipment and equipment bureau in charge of the operation of helicopter from September 2007 to the policy promotion officer in charge of the operation of helicopter; (e) the chief of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the chief of the police station in charge of the management of the operation of the ○○○○○○○○○○○’s technical police officer in charge of the operation of the 2007 Police Agency.

1. Defendant 1-○

A. On October 30, 2005, in relation to the engine repair services of the “Belgium (BL) introduced by the ○○○○ cafeteria in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City DI,” which was operated by the National Police Agency, the Aviation Agency of ○○○ and the Defendant Kim○, the captain of the aviation planning division, issued cash of KRW 10 million in terms of the conclusion of the contract for the said helicopter engine repair services and the provision of convenience ex post facto, and granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties.

B. Around August 2006, the Defendant’s passenger car in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Gyeyang-gu requested that “In the future, she would be selected as a business entity of the helicopters introduced by ○○ National Police Agency to operate the helicopter sales business in the future,” and granted a check of KRW 5 million in return for the request, and offered a bribe in connection with public official’s official duties.

C. A bribe as to public official's duties by delivering USD 10,00 ($ 9,640,000 in Korean won) to the defendant Kim○-○, who had been the director of equipment and technology bureau of the ○○ National Police Agency in relation to the helicopter import project in 2006 before the "OOO" house in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, around August 28, 2006, for convenience, such as aiding and abetting him to supply AW139 helicopters on behalf of Lee○-○.

(1) granted the Corporation.

D. Around February 17, 2007, in connection with the 8th floor coffee shop of Hyundai department store located in Seocheon-si in 2007, the ○○○ National Police Agency issued a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by providing convenience, such as providing information in the process of selecting helicopters (in Korean won amounting to KRW 4,682,00), and KRW 1 million in Korean won.

E. Around August 11, 2007, at the above modern coffee shop, around 2,00 dollars 2,00 (in Korean won equivalent to KRW 1,863,800) were delivered to the above Kim○ under the same name as the above paragraph (d) and offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

2. Defendant Kim○-○

A. (1) The fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Military Service (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○ Military Service”) purchased major equipment, such as aircraft, etc. at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Military Service Standards Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Standards Deliberation Committee”) shall deliberate and resolve on the performance of its equipment, etc. (see Article 4 of the Rules for the Selection of Vessels and Equipment). Accordingly, on February 24, 2005, the Board of Audit and Inspection prepared and resolved on the necessary performance of the above Air Service Standards at its own discretion for the purpose of preparing and resolving the ○○○○○○○○○ Military Service Standards at the 2nd ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Military Service’s request for an interim report on the performance of the Aeronautic○○○○○ Military Service.

(2) 2) In collusion with ○○○○○, etc., ○○○○○○ and 2, as above, additional 3-1 of its high-interest and 2-2 of its small and medium-sized flights as required by the ○○○ National Police Agency, no longer than 400 type C- 212- the prices vary as a serious flight machine, and there are differences between 3-212 - 400 type and 2- the National Police Agency’s budget, so it is impossible to purchase the above C- 212-40 type - 2 of its production specifications and 3-2 of its production specifications and 400 type - 2 of its production specifications and 3-2 of its production specifications as stated on the ○○○○ National Police Agency and 2-1 of its production specifications and specifications as stated on the 2-2-5-2 of its production specifications and specifications for the 2-2-00 competitive tender.

B. In relation to the introduction of the search and rescue flight equipment at the ○○○○○○ representative director in the 2005 ○○○○○○○○○○○○, an agent business for import of an off-line flight equipment in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu around March 2005, the acceptance of bribe (1) attempted to ensure that the aforementioned C-212-40 types of equipment may be selected from the Defendant ○○○○○, and on the pretext of changing convenience in the introduction process, ○○’s corporate card was issued on March 12, 2005, and used 127,635 won for the Defendant’s consumer goods at the Defendant’s consumer goods purchase cost at the 127,635 won from that time, from that time to August 20, 206, the bribe amounting to KRW 10,1013,377, under the name of the attached list of crimes, as shown in the attached list of crimes, shall be used in relation to the duties.

the Corporation received the Company.

(2) From the end of August 2005, in a mutually infinite restaurant in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Defendant Lee○-○ received 1,000 oil (in Korean won amounting to KRW 1,284,00) under the same name as the above paragraph (1), and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

(3) On October 30, 2005, at the ○○○ restaurant located in the ward-dong of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant received cash of KRW 10 million from ○○○○ under the same name as that of paragraph 1(a) and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

(4) On August 2006, the defendant Han-gu in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, received a check of KRW 5 million from Han-○ and received a bribe in relation to his duties under the same name as Paragraph 1(b).

3. Defendant Kim○-○

A. A. Around August 28, 2006, around 2006, the Defendant received USD 10,000 ($ 9,640,000 in Korean won) from ○○○○ in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, under the same name as that of paragraph 1(c) and accepted a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Around February 17, 2007, at the 8th floor coffee shop of the Hyundai department store located in Seocheon-si, one hundred U.S. dollars 5,00 (in Korean currency amounting to KRW 4,682,00), and one million won in Korean won received a bribe in relation to his duties.

C. Around August 11, 2007, at the above modern department shop, the above Hyundai department store received US$2,00 ($1,863,800 in Korean won) under the same name as the above paragraph b, and accepted a bribe in relation to its duties.

4. On November 6, 2007, when the Technology Evaluation Committee was held on November 6, 2007 with respect to the ○○○○○ and the same Ma○○○○○○○○ Defendants, the Defendants were working as management personnel. However, upon participating in the tender, the Defendants were requested to provide a technology evaluation member list from the new staff ○○○ in the helicopter import agent chain.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and copied the member list of the ○○ National Police Agency Aviation Division and Office located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon on November 6, 2007, which was held on November 6, 2007, at the office of Yeonsu-gu, Incheon on November 1, 2007, and then transferred the member list to the above new ○○○○ Office located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si.

5. Defendant Lee ○○

A. A. Around June 2004, in collusion with ○○○○○’s name in Spanish, he provided a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by allowing the said ○○ to pay off KRW 10,370,00 for the travel expenses, such as the said ○○ and his wife’s Spanish, under the pretext of convenience in the process of importing and examining parts of the 235 aircraft, which were introduced from ○○○○○○, who was in office of the head of the ○○○ headquarters, at the time of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s office.

B. From March 2005 to August 20, 206, around 127, 635 won was offered as a bribe in relation to the public official's duties by providing a corporate card of ○○○ under the same name as that of subparagraph 2-B (1) to Defendant Kim○, and allowing the above Kim○ to use 127,635 won at the purchase cost of consumer goods at the mooring point in Ireland within the ethura Home on March 12, 2005. From around that time to around August 20, 2006, by using 10,013,37 won under the same name as in the list of crimes, such as the list of crimes, from around 84 times in total.

C. In collusion with ○○ employee in Spanish and ○ employee in collusion with ○○ employee in Spanish, May 2005.

At the above ○○○ office, at the time of that time, had the said ○○○○○○, who had held the said ○○○○ office, pay on behalf of the said ○○ office the amount of KRW 19,976,00, including Spain and its wife, Spanish travel expenses, under the pretext of convenience provision in the process of importing and examining parts of 235 flight vehicles, and in the process of importing and examining parts, and of convenience provision in the process of importing and examining parts, and the said ○○ office offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

D. On August 2005, at the end of Incheon Gyeyang-gu, the duty of a public official is granted 1,000 U.S. (in Korean won equivalent to KRW 1,284,000) under the same name as the above paragraph (b) to the above Kim○ in a mutually inappropriate restaurant.

In relation to the bribe, the bribe was given.

6. Defendant tea ○○

A. A. Around April 2003, 2003, CN for transportation introduced and operated by ○○○○, at the above ○○ office, received a bribe in relation to its duties by having the said ○○ office pay an amount equivalent to KRW 10,187,40 for travel expenses, such as Spanish in the Defendant’s wife, and its wife, on the pretext of convenience in the process of importing and examining parts of 235 flight vehicles, ○○ Korean agent, a manufacturer of 235 flight aircraft, ○○○, a representative director at the time of the above ○○○○ office received a bribe.

B. Around May 2005, at the above ○○ office, as set forth in paragraph 5(c), CN - 235 flight equipment import and inspection process, as well as KA - 32a helicopter import, parts import, and convenience in the process of inspection, etc., the above ○○, etc. received a bribe in relation to its duties by having the above ○○ office pay on behalf of the Defendant and its wife, or by having the said ○○ office pay on behalf of the said ○○ office a substitute payment of the said amount of KRW 19,976,00,000, including Spanish, Italian travel expenses.

7. Around June 2004, Defendant ○○○○○, as set forth in paragraph 5(a), introduced from the above ○○ office to provide convenience in the process of importing and examining parts of the 235 flight aircraft, etc., the said ○○○, etc. received a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by having the said ○○ office settle the amount equivalent to KRW 10,370,000 on behalf of the Defendant and his wife on behalf of the said ○ office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement made by the Defendant 1-A, 2-B(3), and 2-B(4) of the judgment (207 Gohap693, 2007 Gohap701)

1. A copy of Belgium Engine repair contract, copy of passbook, copy of pocketbook, and copy of card charter;

1. Each investigation report [including a copy of the attached Kim○ written statement, and a copy of the protocol of interrogation of Kim○○○○○-related suspect), a report attached to a copy of the Han○○-related Kim○-related book (including a copy of each book of the year 2005, year 2006, and year 2007)];

○ Each fact of 1-C, D, E, and Decision 3 (2008, 5)

1. Each statement made by the defendant ○○○ and Kim○○ in the second trial records;

1. Examination protocol of suspect about Kim○-○ by prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning ○○ and ○○○;

1. A copy of a penbook or a copy of the 2006 pocket book;

○ Each fact of 2-A(2007Gohap701)

1. Partial statement of Defendant Kim○-○

1. Each legal statement of the witness ○○○ and full ○○○;

1. Each statement made by the witness Kim○-○ and Kim○-○ in the third trial records;

1. Some statements among prosecutorial interrogation records on Kim○-○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○;

1. Part of the prosecutorial statement on this ○○, this ○○○, Kim○, ○○, the upper ○○, the upper ○○○, the upper ○○, Kim○, ○○, Kim○, ○○, Kim○, ○○, and Kim○, in each prosecutorial statement (including the part of Park○○’s statement)

1. Protocol of seizure of the person on September 14, 2007;

1. Each written accusation, accusation, letter of accusation, sphere ○○, and written questions and answers to ○○○○○○, sphere ○○○, written confirmation on the preparation of ○○○○○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Ma○○, and Kim○○, and the rules of the Committee for Selection of Ship Vessels, Equipment and Equipment;

1. Each investigation report (including the attached report on the result of the review on the specifications of an aircraft on March 4, 2005 and March 11, 2005) attached to the report (including the attached report on the result of the review on the specifications of an aircraft), attached to the report on the attached specifications of an aircraft on March 17, 2005, attached to the report on the attached specifications of an aircraft (including the attached specification of the consultation on the specifications of an aircraft), attached report on the request for foreign investment advice on the purchase of an aircraft on March 30, 205 (including the attached specification of the request for foreign investment advice on the purchase of an aircraft), interim report on the introduction of an aircraft, attached report on the attached specifications of an aircraft on April 14, 2005 (including the interim report on the introduction of an aircraft on April 14, 2005, and the attached report on the introduction of an aircraft on June 6, 2005).

8.Reporting on the attachment of the PEN05 - GA - 1072 recommendations for the change of the size of the aircraft sent by the Public Procurement Service (including each description of the notice of review on the change of the size of the aircraft attached to the PR - GA, 1072 recommendations for the change of the size of the aircraft), reporting (including each description of the notice of the terms of the purchase consultation attached to the Public Procurement Service, 'purchase agreement', 'the notification of the contents of the purchase consultation', 'civil complaint delivery', 'the notification of the response on civil complaint delivery', 'the notification of the foreign capital transfer', 'the notification of the notification of the foreign capital transfer', 'the notification of the request for technical purchase', 'the notification of the request for technical purchase', 'the notification of the foreign capital purchase', 'the notification of the request for technical purchase' and 'the notification of the request for technical purchase', 'the notification of the request for technical purchase' attached to the request for technical review.

2-2(1)-2(1), (2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(2)-2(3)-2(2)-2(3)-2(2)-2(2)-

1. Statements made by Defendant Kim○-○ in the second trial records;

1. The details of the use of ○○ Receipts, 2005, 2005 (the year 2005);

○ Each fact listed in Decision 4 (2008, 5)

1. Each statement made by the defendant ○○, ○○, and ○○○, among the second trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning ○○ and ○○○;

1. A list of the technology evaluation members by Han○○;

○ Facts of 5-A, C, and 6,7 of the Decision (2008 Gohap6)

1. Each legal statement of the Defendant ○○, the tea ○○, and the leap○○

1. Some statements among the suspect interrogation records of the prosecution about ○○, ○○, and ○○;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning ○○;

1. A protocol of seizure of the person on October 16, 2007;

1) Each investigation report - a copy of the 00 ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ Pool’s Overseas Travel Information Assistance Report (AF 2), a copy of the 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2, a copy of the 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2, a copy of the ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ - a copy of each ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2’s Overseas”).

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant 1-○○○: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of offering of a bribe) and each of the imprisonment options.

B. Defendant Kim ○: Article 129(1) of each Criminal Code, Articles 227 and 229 of each Criminal Code (the preparation of a false official document and the exercise of a false official document) and Article 229 of each Criminal Code. Defendant Kim○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○: Each Criminal Code Article 129(1)(a) of each Criminal Code, and each of the choice of imprisonment.

D. Defendant 2, 127(1) and 129(1)(2) of the Criminal Act: (a) Defendant 2 and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) Defendant 2 and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; (c) Defendant 3 and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; (d) each of the offering of a bribe around March 2005; and (d) Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 (the offering of a bribe around June 2004; and around May 2005, the offering of a bribe) of the Criminal Act; and (c) each of the choice of imprisonment.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1-○○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the most severe crime committed during the period specified in the offering of a bribe around October 30, 2005)

B. Defendant Kim-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment, the nature of the crime, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act)

C. Defendant Kim-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the most severe crime committed on August 28, 2006, among the concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe)

(d) ○○○○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the heavier punishment for offering of a bribe on or around May 2005)

(e) Defendant ○○○: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (one of the concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acceptance of bribe around May 2005)

1. The type to be suspended;

(a) Defendant 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months; and

(b) Defendant tea ○○○: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and collection of 30,163,400 won. Defendant Prostitution○: Imprisonment for six months and collection of 10,370,000 won;

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant Han-○, KimO, Kim○, and Lee Dong-○: Article 57 of each Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Defendant 1: Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1248, Apr. 2, 2006)

1. Collection;

Defendant ○○○, Kim○-○: Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Lee-○, HaO, Ma○○, and his defense counsel under Article 134 of each Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 2 and ○○○○ attended the Military Support Consultative Meeting (PSM), ○○○○ and ○○○, upon consultation with ○○ and ○○○○, to bear all the expenses, including aviation charges and lodging expenses (hereinafter referred to as “expenses for attending the meeting”) to participate in the meeting of the above Defendants and their spouses. The above meetings were held from 194 to ○○○○ Chief of Staff each year, and thus, from 194, the above Defendants and their spouses did not recognize that they received a bribe in connection with their duties, and the above Defendants did not have any awareness that they received a bribe in connection with their duties. In this case, Defendant 2 did not have any awareness that the offering of a bribe was not made or there was no perception that the offering of a bribe was a bribe.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the cost of attending the meeting of Defendant 2, 00, 00, and his/her spouse borne by ○○○○○, constitutes an unfair benefit with regard to Defendant 2’s duties.

Whether a public official's profit constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit in relation to his duties shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the official duty, the relationship between the provider of the benefit, the existence of a special relationship between both parties, the degree of interest, the circumstances and timing of the receipt of the benefit, etc. In light of the public official's receipt of the benefit as the legal interest protected by the law, the issue of whether the bribe is suspected of being fair in the performance of his duties from the general public is an important standard for the determination of the nature of the crime of bribery (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4411, Sept. 29, 2005). Bribery is the process of the performance of his duties, the trust in the society, and the non-purchase of the act of receiving the benefit, and there is no need for special solicitation to recognize the nature of the bribe received because the bribe does not require any solicitation or unlawful act, and there is no need for a specific act of receiving the benefit as an individual act of receiving the benefit and its duty. 2004.

The defendant ○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○, partial statement of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and each protocol of evidence duly adopted by this court on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the above 6-year-old number of members involved in the 6-year-old sales of the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., was a meeting of the nature of the sales of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 2-year-old sales of the 5-year-old equipment that had been using the 2-year-old 2-year-old sales of the 3-year-old.

B. Furthermore, as to the recognition of giving a bribe to ○○○○○, and whether there was a perception of giving or receiving a bribe to ○○○○○○, or ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the following circumstances are not applicable to the invitation business, i.e., official overseas business trips or private overseas travel (○○ Regulation 2-76). On the document of approval by the ○○○○○ Chief of Staff, only the facts of the Defendant’s business trip and ○○○○○○○○○’s spouse were written, and it does not seem that the Defendant’s spouse’s accompanying fact was regularly approved. From May 11, 2005 to May 15, 2005, the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s meeting was partially informed of the entire amount of the bribe to be given to ○○○○○○○○○’s spouse.

Even if there is no perception of the bribery (in addition, it is assumed that the defendant's difference in the defendant's vehicle, ○○, and ○○○○, other than his spouse, claimed for the travel expenses to attend the Gun Support Council, if ○○ claimed the State for the travel expenses to meet the appropriate number of days, the amount of the judgment that received from ○○ in the same invitation method as this case is much larger than the amount available after receiving the travel expenses according to the appropriate number of days, and in this regard, the above defendants can be said to have been aware of the bribe).

C. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, and his defense counsel is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

A. The crime of this case, which is a public official of ○○○, and ○○, provides a bribe to Defendant Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Ma○○, who is a public official of this case, in relation to each of his duties, and received it from Defendant Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, tea○, and Ma○○, and Ma○○, who disclosed public official secrets, is likely to impair the integrity and fairness of public officials who want to protect the crime of bribery and leakage of official secrets. Thus, the crime of this case is highly likely to undermine the public official’s integrity and fairness. Therefore, the Defendants need to be punished corresponding thereto.

B. In particular, Defendant Kim○-○ and Kim○-○, a police officer, was in a position to perform their duties fairly and fairly while maintaining the integrity and morality of his duties, and instead accepted a bribe several times in relation to his duties. Furthermore, Defendant Kim○-○ had committed several false public documents related to his duties, as acts detrimental to the public’s trust in relation to his duties, and the nature of such crimes is good, and the amount of bribe received over several occasions is not high, and they tried to conceal and reduce their crimes in the course of investigation. Defendant Kim Jong-○ still denied some crimes and did not violate his mistake, and thus, it cannot be subject to any strict punishment corresponding thereto. Defendant Han-○ and Lee○ also offered a bribe in relation to his duties as a public official several times, and thus, the amount of the bribe cannot be subject to any strict punishment corresponding thereto.

C. As to Defendant 2, 00 and 200, considering the following circumstances: (a) prior to the instant crime, Defendant 2 was the first offender without any previous conviction; (b) the confession and reflects all his mistake; and (c) the Defendants did not acquire any benefit or consideration due to the said crime; and (b) allowing the said Defendants to complete a public service life, which has been faithfully performed for several years by sentence of a stay of execution or higher; and (c) the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor shall be imposed for a limited period of time.

D. With respect to Defendant 2, 00 and 00, even though the above Defendants were a senior commander who had performed an important duty in 00, they received the instant bribe with the responsibility for performing their positions, despite the fact that the amount of bribe received was not a large number of bribes. However, prior to the instant crime, it was a first offender who had no criminal record prior to the instant crime, contributed to the nation in good faith, and did not seem to have committed any particular unlawful act in relation to his duties before and after the military support management meeting. The participation of the military support management meeting was necessary to a certain extent for the national defense interest of our country as well as 00, and in particular, the participation of the head of the OO head, the head of the O head of the Gun or 00 military commander and his spouse, and the working officer at the Spain head of the ○○ military support meeting was customary for ten years to attend the meeting to be held in Spain with the invitation of 00 and the above Defendants were also held at the general meeting with the approval of each Chief of Staff.

E. It is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, consequences, and circumstances after the crime.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges