2019 Highest 839 A. Bribery

(b) Embezzlement;

(c) Violation of Fisheries Act;

(d) good offices.

(e) Violation of fishery resources management;

(f) A tide protection tank in violation of fishery resources management

1.(a)An unclaimed vessel owner, 62 years old, South, and North

Residential Ulsan

2.(a)(b)The Kim Jong-sik, 75-year students, South, and a driver;

Residential Ulsan

3.(c) Yellow Captain, 79＇s 79＇s sony, South, and North

Residential Ulsan

4.H. Criminal Affairs, 85 years old, South and North Korea, public officials;

Busan

5.c. Gambavi, 72, South and North Korea

Residential Ulsan

6.C. Kim Fhan, 63 years old, South, and the person serving in a self-support center;

Residential Ulsan

7.c)Flag, 53 years old, South, and Japan;

Residential Port

8.Ch, 72, South and in Japan.

Residential Ulsan

19.Ma, Hobbes, 65 years old, male and female, and self-employed

Residential Ulsan

10.F. Monomen, 57 years old, female, jun

Residential Ulsan

11.Ma, 52-years, South, and North

Residential Ulsan

12.ma. Tregir 69＇s vegetable, South and North, self-employed

Busan

c)ferry wharfs, 62 years old, south, fishing

Residential Ulsan

Lee Jin-bok (prosecution) and Park Jin-Jin-Jin (public trial)

Attorney Park In-bok (for the defendant Park Jong-ju)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

Attorneys Yang-soo (the master of the defendant, Park Dao, Park hh, Lee Hah, Lee Hah, Lee Hah

National Ship)

Attorney Park Jong-chul (for the criminal defendant)

Attorney Park Jong-chul (Defendant Kim Fhan, Kim Il-il, Red Abbebbe, and a ferry station for rheat

National Ship)

June 12, 2020

【Defendant Park Jong-ju, Kim Jong-sik, and Criminal Procedure】

1. Defendant 100,000 won shall be punished by a fine of one million won. Defendant 100,000 won shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting Defendant 10,000 won into “one day” if Defendant 2 did not pay a provisional fine of one million won.

Defendant Park Jong-ju and ordered the above fine to be paid provisionally.

2. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months;

3. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment in relation to the criminal case of the defendant. The amount of KRW 530,000 shall be collected from the criminal case of the defendant. The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charges shall be ordered to be paid provisionally in lieu of the criminal case of the defendant.

【Defendant Yellow Master, Park Dao, Kim 5, Kim Il-il, Kim Il-hh, ferry wharf】

1. Defendant Yellow Shipmaster No. 1-B(b) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months and by imprisonment for one-C and (d) of the Decision, with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the sentence No. 1(b) as stated in the judgment shall be suspended with respect to the defendant's yellow captain for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. Imprisonment with prison labor for three months;

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive. 3. A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months for Defendant Kim Ba.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive with respect to Defendant Kim Yong-FFF, and the community service for 120 hours shall be ordered to Defendant Kim Yong-FFFF.

4. Imprisonment with prison labor for up to four months by multiplying Defendant Kim Il-il.

However, with respect to Defendant Kim Il-il, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. It shall order Defendant Kim Il-il to provide community service for 80 hours.

5. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be postponed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive to Defendant Parkh, and the community service for 120 hours shall be ordered to Defendant Parkh.

6. Defendant’s ferry station shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, with respect to the defendant's ferry station, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months;

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive for the defendant Hong Hobbe, and the social service for 80 hours shall be ordered for the defendant Hongbbe.

2. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three months;

3. Imprisonment with labor for a limited term of six months, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

However, with respect to the heating of the accused, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. The community service for 80 hours shall be ordered to the heating of the accused.

4. Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to the two defendants. The order of community service for 80 hours shall be issued to the heads of the two defendants.

Criminal history of crime guest crime

On May 24, 2016, Defendant Park Jong-ju was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Fisheries Act at the Ulsan District Court, etc. on two years and February 1, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 31, 2018, and sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Fisheries Act at the Ulsan District Court on August 21, 2018 and two years of suspended execution on August 21, 2018, and completed the execution of the above sentence at the Ulsan District Court on October 1, 2018. Defendant ferry wharf was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Fisheries Act, etc. on September 22, 2016, and was sentenced to a fine of two years and three million won for a violation of the said Act at the Ulsan District Court on September 22, 2016, which became final and conclusive on September 1, 2016, and was sentenced to a fine of five years and three million won for a violation of the Fisheries Act.

1. No one shall capture, gather, or cultivate marine animals and plants in any way other than a fishery business under the Fisheries Act or the Fishery Resources Management Act, regardless of who violates the Fisheries Act, inh, his/her ferry station, yellow captain, gambling, mushroom, Kim Il-il, Kim Il-il, and so forth.

The mincing vessel owner (the confirmation of July 21, 2018) and the confirmation of hand (the identity, June 8, 2018) play a role in selling mincing vessel that was illegally captured by using the above fishing vessel’s captain and crew members recruited by the above captain and the above captain to illegally capture mincing vessel, together with the mincing vessel owner (the identity, the identity, the identity, and the identity of the vessel owner) and the joint owners of mincing vessel (S, the illegal fishing vessel owner), which is an aquatic animal prohibited from capture. The defendant's ferry, as the captain of the above Sho Lake, was the above 'Sho', and the crew of the above 'S, the illegal fishing vessel owner', who was the captain of the above 'S, was the captain of the above 'Sh,' and the above 'Sh, the captain of the above 'Mh, the defendant', and the above 'Sh, the above captain of the vessel.

A. On June 2014, in accordance with the above prior public offering in violation of the Fisheries Act, Defendant 2, the captain of Defendant 2’s ferry station, Defendant 2’s captain, and Defendant 2, crew members, were captured in a way other than the fishery or other methods under the Fishery Resources Management Act, following the finding of 4 miles of a mincing-out in the East Sea where the location cannot be known after departing from the defensive port located in the Dong-gu in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, the captain of the above “S” and the captain of the vessel, among the crew members, of Defendant 2: (a) discovered minc-out 4 miless in the East Sea; and (b) led the passengers of the fishing gear already in possession; (c) led them to the actual death of the fishing gear; and (d) accordingly, Defendant 2 captured each by means other than the fishery or other methods under the Fishery Resources Management Act by taking advantage of the joint vessel owner, the confirmation of losses, the crew members, and their names.

B. On May 2015, the lower court, based on the aforementioned prior public offering in violation of the Fisheries Act with respect to the violation of the Fisheries Act, including Defendant 1’s ferry station, yellow captain’s stuffing ship owner, confirmation of loss, etc., Defendant 1, the captain of the said “S”, and Defendant 1, the crew, respectively captured minck and 7 mam of minc in the East-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., under the same method as described in the foregoing A, from the East-gu, where the location cannot be identified after leaving the same sea for several days on May 2015.

As a result, Defendant ferry wharf and Yellow Captain conspiredd with the common vessel owners of the above "SSho", and captured marine animals by any method other than fishing under the Fisheries Act or the Fishery Resources Management Act.

C. Violation of the Fisheries Act with respect to Defendant 1’s yellow captain, gambling, mushroom, Kim Jong-il, Gambhh’s stuffing, and the confirmation of his/her loss in early January 2017

According to the above pre-public offering, the captain of the above "Sho", the captain of the defendant Y, the defendant Y, the seafarer fright, the defendant fright, the defendant 5, the Kim 5, the Kim Il-il, the Kim Il-hhhhh Lhhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lh Lhh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lh Lhh Lh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lh Lh Lhh Lh Lh Lh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lh Lhh Lhh Lhh Lhn Lhn Lhn Lhn Lhn Lhn Lhn in a way other than fishery under

D. Violation of the Fisheries Act with respect to the following: (a) Defendant 1, who was on May 1, 2017, as Defendant 1’s yellow captain; (b) Defendant 1, 1,5, 1,000 Gh

According to the above prior recruitments, the captain of the above 'Sho', including the captain, the captain of the defendant Kim Inn, the crew, the defendant Kim fivehhh, etc., departing from the port of the massagedo located in the Mannam-gun of Seocho-gun on May 2017, and during the course of minshing 1 math in the nearby sea in the manner described in the above Ga in the same manner as the mentioned in the above Ga. Accordingly, the defendant yellow captain, Kim Inn, and Park Innhh, he captured the aquatic animals in a way other than the fishery business under the Fisheries Act or the Fishery Resources Management Act, in collusion with the co-owner of the above 'Sho's common vessel.

2. No one shall possess, distribute, process, keep, or sell garbbbes captured in violation of an order of prohibition against the propagation and protection of human resources in endangered species under this Act, except in cases where he/she purchases naturally dead garbbes, which are naturally affected by fishing nets, fishing gear, fishing gear, etc. put in the sea regardless of who violates the Fishery Resources Management Act, such as fishing nets, fishing gear, etc. which are naturally killed, by a person who finds any such violation.

A. On January 2017, Defendant Hong Hobbe’s violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act: (a) purchased 2 Mai B from among illegally captured mincs, 1-C, 1-3, from among the illegally captured mincs, 95,00 won per kilogram; and (b) cut and dismantled 84,00,000 won in total; and (c) processed and cooked the Ga Mai’s life on the Ga Ga Mai’s Gam and sold it to the customers by using the method, such as living on the Ga Mai’s Gam.

Accordingly, the defendant possessed, processed, and sold fishery resources captured in violation of fishery resources management.

B. On May 6, 2017, Defendant 1’s violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act: (a) received the request of Defendant 1 to purchase and possess a 1string of 1kg, total amount of KRW 80,000,000, total amount of KRW 46 million, and then cut and dismantle the 1string of 17,000,000,000,000 from the store of the said farm; and (b) sold the 47,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, from the store of the said farm.

As a result, Defendant distributed fishery resources captured in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act. Defendant 2, around May 6, 2017, sold the said restaurant to Nonparty 2 by purchasing mincing 1 Ma-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-si-ri-si-si-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si (hereinafter referred to as “the above restaurant”).

Accordingly, the defendant possessed, processed, and sold fishery resources captured in violation of fishery resources management.

3. 피고인 이열 개의수산자원관리법위반방조 피고인 은 2017. 5.6.경 울산 울주군 두동면에 있는 피고인이 관리하는 농가 창고 에서 , 제 2 의 나. 항 과 같이 불법 포획된 밍크고래 고기를 유통하려는 위 이열한으로부터 " 오늘 밤 에 고래 를가지고 갈 껀데, 창고열쇠를 가지고 있냐? 혹시 돈 은 얼마나 들고 있냐 ? 나중에 내가줄 테니깐 가지고 있는 현금을 최대한 준비해서 창고로 가지고 와

D. The Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000,000 from the said heat to the said heat, despite being aware of the fact that it was engaged in cutting, dismantling, or subdividing the above-mentioned illegally captured mincing device upon the request of “the foregoing mincing machine.” Accordingly, the Defendant made it easy for the Defendant to distribute the captured fishery resources in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act.

4. Mediation and acceptance of criminal charges against the defendant;

A. Status and circumstances of the crime of the defendant

Defendant 1, as an assistant to the Korea Coast Guard’s investigation and criminal investigation, was conducted on January 18, 2017 at the investigation team of the above police station, using the above Kim Jong-chul’s 3 statement that he had been working at the investigation team of the above police station, and was engaged in the collection of information on the same fact as that of the above Kim Jong-chul’s 3 Incident, and then distributed it after illegally capturing his crew members. The 3rd of the above investigation conducted an investigation on the ground that he was aware of the fact that he had been informed of the fact that he had been working at the investigation team of the above 4th of the above Kim Jong-chul’s 3th of the fact that he had been informed of the fact that he had been working at the investigation team of the above 4th of the fact that he had been informed of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been working at the investigation team of the above 3th of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been on the 1st of the investigation team of the above 3th of the investigation.

B. Facts of crime

On April 2, 2017, the defendant introduced the Songcheon-gu, a superior officer of the Ulsan Coast Guard, and the Kim Jong-gu, to the telephone, and then moved to the G entertainment tavern located in Ulsan-gu and made efforts to ensure that the investigation of the above case under investigation such as Kim slope, a police officer in the process of drinking 3 at the same time, would not be complete upon the request of the defendant. However, the defendant would be able to accept a solicitation as the opportunity arises as the situation where he works together with Kim slope, etc., and after he respondeded to the purport of "the defendant would be able to pay KRW 1.6 million in cash, such as alcohol and entertainment expenses, and received approximately KRW 5,300,000 from the above Kim Jong-gu, and received entertainment from another public official who is a public official, using his status as the above public official.

5. The offer of a bribe by Defendant Park Jong-ju and Kim Jong-sik

(a) Details of the public offering;

On January 18, 2017, according to the intention of Kim Jong-sik, the relationship with the Kim Jong-ju becomes worse after notifying the defendant Park Jong-ju of his illegal high capture to the Ulsan Coast Guard on January 18, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the relationship with the Kim Jong-ju was changed by gathering the facts from the defendant Park Jong-ju on his own, and the defendant Park Jong-ju was changed by 'I will come to 'I will come to 'I am if I am while I am while I am while I am while I am while I am while I will come to am while I am while I am while I will come to come to am. I will come to contact with each other from around that time, and I am to see that the defendant Park Jong-ju received from the defendant Kim Jong-soo during the process of coming to close, and then I am to see that he will come to the defendant Park Jong-soo and 2 am to the place of his criminal investigation.

B. Facts of crime

At night on April 2, 2017, Defendant Park Jong-ju moved Defendant Kim Jong-dong to a road near G amusement tavern located in Ulsan-gu where he was on board the cab that he operated and was able to talk with him, and Defendant Kim Jong-ju issued a request for a bribe of 4-B, as provided in paragraph 4-2, to the head of the criminal case, and 1.6 million won including the amount of alcohol and the cost of entertainment loan, etc. In relation to this, Defendant Park Jong-soo paid 1.6 million won to Defendant Park Jong-dong, in cash, and she took part in the criminal case of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge.

6. Around December 6, 2016, Defendant 1’s embezzlement: (a) lent the name of the Defendant to the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Ulsan-gu; (b) had the victim open an account under the name of the Defendant after completing business registration and business reporting; and (c) had the said restaurant work as an employee for the said restaurant from January 6, 2017; (d) retired from the said restaurant on January 1, 2017 at the Defendant’s account (e.g., 103-2324-8* - 9) and then used the Defendant’s personal account in the name of the Defendant at KRW 30,00,000,000 for the total amount of money deposited from the credit card company of the said restaurant; and (b) had the victim’s personal account at KRW 17,000,000,000,000,000 from each of the said 7.

The summary of evidence (to be omitted)

Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 133(1), 132, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of a fine, etc.;

○ Defendant Kim Jong-sik: Articles 133(1), 132, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 355(1)(Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; Article 132 of the Criminal Act; Articles 132(1)4 and 66 of the Criminal Act; Articles 97(1)4 and 66 of the Fisheries Act; Articles 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 30(b), 35(d) of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1)(Embezzlement); Articles 132(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 132(a) and (b) of the Criminal Act; Articles 97(1)4 and 66 of the same Act

○ Defendant Park Woo, Kim Il-il: Articles 97(1)4 and 66 of the Fisheries Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of capturing mincing 1-c. c. c.) and the choice of imprisonment

○ Defendant Kim Inn, Park Inhh: Articles 97(1)4 and 66 of the Fisheries Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (as stated in the Decision 1-C, D.) and each choice of imprisonment, respectively.

○ The Defendant Red Abbebbe, heat, heat, and heat: each of the subparagraphs 2 and 17 of Article 64 of the Fishery Resources Management Act (the possession, distribution, and sale of illegally captured high seasons), and the selection of each imprisonment.

○ Defendant 1: Article 64 Subparag. 2 and Article 17 of the Fishery Resources Management Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (the illegal capture and distribution of high-speed vessels), Article 97(1)4 and Article 66 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 12823, Oct. 15, 2014); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the capture of high-speed vessels), Articles 97(1)4 and 66 of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 12823, Oct. 15, 2014); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 97(1)4 and 66 of the Fisheries Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the capture of high-speed vessels)

1. Mitigation of assistance;

○ Inlet of Defendant: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3(Accessories) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant 1: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and Article 39(1)1 of the Concurrent Crimes

Hh, the ferry station of Defendant Kim Jong-do, the Yellow Shipmaster, Kim Jong-han, the ferry station: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50(1) of the Act

○ Defendant Park Jong-ju: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant Yellow Shipmaster: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (limited to a violation of the Fisheries Act as stated in Article 62(1)(b))

○ Head of the Defendant, Gaba, Gaba, Kim Inn, Kim Jong-il, Hobbeh, mobbebbeh, rheat, rheat, and rupture ferry stations: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

○ Defendant Kim Inn, Kim Il, Ghh, Red Abbebbe, heat, heat, and heat: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

1. Additional collection:

○ Criminal Procedure against Defendant: Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Judgment on the assertion of Defendant Park Jong-ju, Kim Jong-sik, and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. As stated in the facts stated in Section 5-A (A) of the judgment, Defendant Park Jong-ju did not call that he would give or provide the money required for contact to the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the Kim Jong-sik, and there was no conspiracy or participation in the offer of the bribe as stated in the judgment of Kim Jong-sik.

B. The fact that Defendant Kim Jong-sik had a drinking place such as the date, time, place, and so on stated in Section 5-b of this decision, and that the payment was made in the same manner as the criminal charge, but this is merely limited to the friendship with the criminal charge, and it does not have been settled for the purpose of solicitation for the criminal case of Park Jong-sik, and there is no such solicitation to that effect.

C. Defendant Head of the Criminal Procedure Office (hereinafter “Defendant Head of the Criminal Procedure”) did not receive any solicitation, such as the record of the above criminal facts, from the Kim Jong-dae at the same time and place as indicated in Article 4-2(b) of the Decision. However, Defendant was not in a position to take charge of the criminal case at the time, and Defendant did not have a position to have an impact on police officers in charge of the instant case. Thus, the requirements for establishing the crime of bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Act cannot be satisfied.

2. Determination

A. The crime of offering of a bribe, offering of a bribe, offering of a criminal case for the defendant or offering of a bribe is a requirement for the establishment of the public official to accept, demand, or promise a bribe with respect to the good offices belonging to the duties of other public officials by taking advantage of his status, and "using his status" cannot be said to fall under the case where a public official uses a private relationship such as friendship or kinship. However, if a public official uses his status in a relationship which is legally or practically influenced by the process of affairs handled by other public officials, it does not require that a public official has a special relationship such as relationship, cooperative relationship, supervisory authority, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1900, Jun. 25, 199; 2004Do42, Nov. 10, 2005; 2005; 2004Do42, supra, the public official's act of offering or offering a bribe to another public official by taking advantage of his or her specific direction for the public official's specific act of offering or offering it.

2) Based on the above legal principles, in light of the following facts acknowledged by the court of this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, Defendant Kim Jong-sik provided entertainment at a entertainment place as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court in this case, for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of an objection, such as being prosecuted by the gambling owner due to the above suspected facts, in order to grasp the progress of the investigation into the illegal mincing and taking advantage of Sho on January 2017, 2017, and further, to prevent the occurrence of an objection, such as being charged by the gambling owner, etc., for the purpose of preventing another police officer from falling under the duties of other police officers, such as Kim Dok, who is charged with investigating the suspected facts of the gambling owner, as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court, and the head of Defendant Kim Jong-sik provided entertainment from the Defendant Kim Jong-sik to him in the same name as that of his criminal facts. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants and his defense counsel did not accept this part of this.

① On January 1, 2107, Defendant Kim Jong-sik, upon the instruction of Kim Jong-soo, informed the facts of suspicion of Park Jong-ju around the Ulsan Sea and started internal investigation into the facts of suspected suspicion of gambling around the Ulsan Sea, and around that time, Defendant Kim Jong-sik was in charge of the marine investigation information and the investigation team Kim slope belonging to the investigation team at the time of the investigation team, and Defendant Park Jong-chul was in charge of the investigation, and on February 13, 2017, Defendant Kim Jong-sik was in charge of the investigation into the facts of suspicion of gambling, including taking clothes from the investigation team at the time of moving to the planning investigation team at the investigation team at the time of moving to the investigation team at the investigation team, and carried out internal investigation into the fact of suspicion of gambling, including taking clothes at the North Korean port at the Jeonnam Sea.On the other hand, at the time of taking the aforementioned notification to Defendant Kim Jong-sik, Defendant Lee Jong-soo was in charge of illegally mining gling from his testimony in around 2015.

② After that, on February 2017, 2017, Defendant Kim Jong-sik found that he was well aware of the fact of suspicion of stuffing in the police officer, and reported the fact of his suspicion of stuffing. He tolded that she would withdraw his report at the inside of the police officer, and that she would make him "I would do so if I would do so, I would like to do so." After that, Defendant Kim Jong-sik was paid daily along with Park Jong-ju and her internal women, I would like to inform Defendant Park Jong-young of the fact that he would not inform Defendant of his intention of withdrawal of his criminal investigation, but would have reported his intention of withdrawal of his criminal investigation. In light of the circumstances that Defendant Park Jong-dae's criminal fact that he was suspected of his intention of withdrawal of his criminal investigation.

③ In fact, around March 2, 2017, the written statement prepared by the Defendant head of the criminal office on the Defendant Kim Jong-sik included the purpose of strengthening the specific contents on the facts suspected of the Park Jong-sik, which he reported by the Defendant Kim Jong-sik. Since then, the Defendant head of the criminal office prepared a protocol of examination of the suspect suspected of violating the Fisheries Act in the instant case, even though he was not a counter-member of the investigation board of Kim Jong-sik, the Defendant head of the instant case. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant head of the criminal office participated in the investigation of the suspected facts of Park Jong-ju before the alteration of the organization, and even thereafter, he was in a position to de facto control or exercise influence over the investigation of the suspected facts of the Park Jong-ray, which are in charge of Kim Jong-sik.

④ On March 14, 2017, at the request of the head of the relevant criminal case, Defendant Kim Jong-sik and the head of the relevant criminal case (hereinafter “Defendant Kim Jong-sung”) had talked about the Defendant’s head of the relevant criminal case, and had talked about the Defendant’s head of the relevant criminal case. On March 14, 2017, at the time of the investigation of the witness, Defendant Kim Jong-sik and the head of the relevant criminal case had been friendly with each other. At the time of the investigation of the witness, Defendant Kim Jong-sung and the head of the relevant criminal case refused to take part in the business trip at his own expense, but the Defendant Kim Jong-sung refused to take part in the criminal case, and paid the expenses separately to Defendant Kim Jong-sik.

⑤ Around April 2, 2017, Defendant Kim Jong-chul was sent to the head of Ulsan-gu Hyundai department store near Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu. Defendant head of the crime was withdrawn in cash of KRW 600,000 from the nearest convenience store (Ulsan-gu referred to as the "Ulsan-gu") prior to the delivery of the crime. After that, Defendant head of the crime and his direct and direct employees, the head of the dispatching team (a name, 00 investigation team leader), who is a superior officer of the crime, was called the "G amusement tavern around 23:32 on the same day, 3 U.S. head of that day, and 1:11 on April 301, 2017 following that day, 1:500 Kasan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do. From among the Don-2, Defendant Kim Jong-gu, 1:600 Kasan-gu, 2017.

④ After the drinking place at the above entertainment place, Defendant Kim Jong-sik and the head of the crime around April 3, 2017, on the day of the call. According to the record on the contents of the call, Defendant Kim Jong-dae and the head of the criminal case confirmed whether they entered the house well after the above drinking place, and divided the conversations with the purport that Sho-ho (the facts suspected of Park Jong-ho) can promote friendship more freely and freely between the two parties that should soon be resolved, but Defendant Kim Jong-dae will be aware of the fact that the statement to the effect that "I am well asked for am......., after that, Defendant Kim Jong-dae's request, I am to the effect that I will go against the duty of the above office, and that I will be aware of the above fact that the head of the crime of this case's reply to the head of the crime, and that the head of the crime of this case's reply to the above head of the crime, I see that the head of the crime of this case's reply to the head of the head of the crime.

7) At the time of the police investigation, Defendant Kim Jong-sik stated that, at the time of the police investigation, he had expressed that he had made a statement to the head of the above entertainment drinking house to the effect that “I would be able to process it in good condition. If the head of the above entertainment drinking house was erroneous, I would not see that he would be able to treat it in good condition.” However, at the time of the police investigation, he stated to the effect that he had made a statement to the effect that he would not be able to meet the investigator’s meeting and pressure at the time at the time of interrogation of the prosecution, and that he did not actually made such solicitation. However, at the time of the police investigation, Defendant Kim Jong-sik denied the fact of calculating the drinking value of the above entertainment drinking house at the time of questioning of a judicial police officer who confirmed the contents of CCTV of the above entertainment drinking house, and in the prosecution, he did not admit the fact that he stated as the suspect in the interrogation as above, but did not admit that he did not raise any objection or pressure against the principal at the time of the police officer’s meeting.

8) At the time of the examination of the witness in this court, the previous year, which was the same as Defendant Kim Jong-ju, stated that Defendant Kim Jong-sik was able to see the contents of his statement to the head of the team in charge of the head of the team (as to the investigation of the facts suspected of the election campaign, the investigation of the facts of the election campaign) at the time, and that the statement was made to the effect that he was able to speak to the head of the team in charge of the election campaign, and that he was able to confirm the contents of the statement at the investigation agency of the previous year. At the time of the 5th examination of the suspect, he also stated to the effect that he was able to see the contents of the statement, such as Defendant Kim Jong-sik, from Defendant Kim Jong-sik at the time of the 5th examination of the suspect. Therefore, even if Defendant Kim Jong-sik’s statement was made in the previous year, he appears to have been related to the criminal facts of the head of the election campaign and the head of the election campaign team.

① From the examination of the witness in this court on April 3, 2017, Defendant Kim Jong-sik respondeded to the purport that the meaning of “the request for ‘the request expressed at the time of conversation with Defendant head of the Defendant’s criminal affairs” is “the request for the examination of how to proceed.” The meaning itself refers to the fact that when he knows the progress of the investigation, he shall be asked to the person in charge of investigation into the facts suspected of election campaign, he shall be informed to himself if he knows the progress of the investigation. As such, this constitutes the content of requesting multi-public officials to mediate the matters related to his duties.

① Although the investigation of the facts suspected of gambling was not interrupted after the offer of entertainment as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in Defendant Kim Jong-sik’s judgment, and in fact, the criminal defendant head does not seem to have contacted Kim slope to know about the content of the investigation or the progress of the investigation. However, as long as it is possible to recognize the fact of offering and receiving entertainment under the pretext of mediation between the defendant Kim Jong-sik and the criminal defendant, such circumstance does not affect the establishment of the crime of offering and receiving bribery and the crime of offering bribery.

B. Whether the offering of bribe constitutes a crime of offering of bribe as stated in the judgment of the defendant Park Jong-young

1) A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act requires the fact of having committed a crime through the control of functional acts based on the joint principal intent as a subjective element. A joint principal offender’s intent is to use one another’s act to commit a specific criminal act with a joint principal intent and to shift his/her own intent to the commission of one’s own intent. A joint principal offender, who does not directly participate in part of the act that falls under the elements of the joint principal offender, may be held liable as a joint principal offender in cases where it is recognized that there exists an essential functional control over the crime through the inherent contribution to the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do41065, Jul. 15, 2010; 201Do4175, Apr. 17, 2017).

2) Based on the above legal principles, in light of the following series of facts acknowledged by the court of this case by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, Defendant Park Jong-chul participated in the act of execution by taking part in the act of execution as he was a person with the largest interest in the facts of his suspicion that he was investigated in Ulsan Sea, and he was in contact with the charge at the time of Kim Jong-sik's contact with the charge of the charge, and upon receiving the report of his progress such as the fact of contact with the charge of Kim Jong-sik's charge, he would pay the expenses incurred after the contact. It is sufficiently recognized that he participated in the fact of offering of a bribe in the decision of Kim Jong-sik by means of a method, such as expressing his intention to pay the expenses incurred after the contact.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that there was a distribution of the intent of joint processing and functional act in the fact of offering of a bribe as indicated in the judgment with Defendant Park Jong-ju, and therefore, it can be recognized that there was a public offering and participation in the above fact of offering of a bribe, and this part of this part of the argument by Defendant Park Jong-ju and the defense counsel

① As recognized in the foregoing Section 2, Gingu stated to the effect that Defendant Park Jong-ju would not be prosecuted due to his report, and that Defendant Park Jong-ju would not have been prosecuted, and thereafter, on March 2, 2017, Defendant Park Jong-ju would have found his office in Ulsan Seahyeong, and expressed his intent to withdraw his report on suspected facts of Park Il-ju’s election. The Kim Jong-do offered the charge of funeral and entertainment around March 14, 2017 and around April 2, 2017, Defendant Park Jong-ju and his her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son and son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son.

② In general, the actual vessel owner excluded from being directly involved in the high-speed operations, and took a practical role in the capture of illegal mincing and taking measures by participating in the affairs, such as the preparation for the first time of capture, the first time of dissolution, the second time distribution, and the distribution of earnings, etc., and Defendant Park Anchor is the actual vessel owner of the instant case, and he was engaged in the illegal mincing and capturing of the first time around August 2015 and May 2016. The Defendant Park Jong-ray was sentenced to the suspension of execution on May 24, 2016, and thus, it is difficult to directly contact police officers during the suspension period on March 2017, and even after the above suspension of execution, Defendant Park Jong-soo was determined to have been taking part in the illegal mincing and taking part in the investigation of the instant case, as the Defendant’s actual vessel owner was in the actual vessel owner of the instant case. In addition, Defendant Park Jong-ray was found to have been aware of the necessity of the above suspension of execution.

③ In the investigation of the Kim Investigative Agency, the Defendant Park Jong-ju made a statement to the effect that “I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am am I am I am am I am am I am I am am I am am I am am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am we

④ At the examination of the witness in this court, the former internal investigation made a statement that the proprietor of stuffed in his country made it clear that he had made the statement to the effect that he would make up for it later. The entertainment expenses for the criminal charge are confirmed in the content of the investigation agency. The former internal investigation is also confirmed. In the witness in this court’s examination, the son who made the statement to the effect that he would make the last statement if he would make a settlement by giving priority to the Kim Jong-sik, and the witness in this court’s examination that he would make the former statement to the effect that he would make a settlement by giving priority to the former Kim Jong-sik, and that the latter statement to the effect that he would make the latter compensation for the boomed value or the drinking value that he had made while making the latter criminal charge only on his own at the examination of the witness in this court. As such, as seen above, he consistently made a statement to the effect that he refused to make up for it later. As such, as seen in the preceding part of the statement and the present status of the preceding investigation agency, he had consistently been consistent with the content and the preceding statement.

⑤ Along with the facts of the crime in the judgment that viewed the Kim system, the Defendant made a call with the Defendant on April 3, 2017, and recorded the conversations with his own smartphone (the content is the same as the description 6. A. 2). After voluntary submission of the above smartphone to the police to confirm its contents. On June 12, 2018, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant made a recording to ask for the recording circumstances at the time of investigation into the suspect interrogation of the police.” After that, in the interrogation of the suspect who was considered to be the Defendant Kim system, the Defendant Park Jong-ju made a statement to the effect that there was no answer as above, the Defendant Park Jong-ju made a report or made a statement to the effect that he was about to talk at the time of questioning about whether he did not reply as above in the interrogation of the suspect who was the Defendant Kim system, and that he made a statement to the effect that he would have done an act to the effect that he would have done an act to the Defendant Park Jong-dae.

④ After offering the entertainment of Kim Jong-sik as indicated in the judgment, Defendant Park Jong-sik delivered KRW 5 million in cash to Kim Jong-sik on May 2017. After that, around October 2017, he transferred the ownership of approximately KRW 37 million through KRW 38 million in the market price to Kim Jong-sik, and the former five million in the examination of this court stated that the above five million in the examination of this court was to complete payment of entertainment expenses for the long-term criminal affairs to Kim Jong-sik, and that the aforementioned five million in the payment of entertainment expenses was not only to be borne by Defendant Park Jong-ju but also to be borne by Defendant Park Jong-ju in consideration of the aforementioned fact that the payment of cash and the transfer of the ownership of the taxi to Kim Jong-sik was not related to the expenses for the long-term criminal affairs, but also to be borne by Defendant Park Jong-ju in consideration of the fact that the aforementioned payment of cash and the transfer of the ownership of the taxi was not related to the expenses for the use and the transfer of the ownership of the taxi.

Reasons for sentencing [Defendant Park Jong-ju, Kim Jong-sik, and Criminal Procedure]

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case committed in collusion with the Defendant Kim Jong-sik for the purpose of gathering a suspected illegal setting during the grace period. The Defendant was involved in the crime of giving a bribe to police officers on the charge of the crime of the crime of this case, which is heavy in nature of the crime. The Defendant’s serious punishment is a crime threateninging the fairness and purchase of a public official’s official duties during the course of the crime. The Defendant did not appear from the investigative agency to the point of view that he did not seem to violate his wrongness while recognizing the Defendant’s crime from the investigative agency to the point of time, and thus, is also highly likely.

However, the crime of offering this case was led by Kim Jong-sik, not the defendant with the largest interest, and the amount of offering of this case is the small amount, and since the crime of offering this case did not affect the investigation into the facts of the defendant, the defendant was indicted as the above facts of the crime, and the execution of the punishment was completed on May 31, 2018, and the defendant's health status is not good, and this case's crime is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime of violation of the Fisheries Act stated in the judgment of July 21, 2018, and the crime of offering this case is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act with the criminal records stated in the judgment of this case, and the fact that equity should be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as age, character and conduct of the defendant, motive and behavior, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, etc.

2. Defendant Kim Jong-sik

(a) Scope of punishment imposed under Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of up to seven years and six months;

B. Bribery No. 1 (the scope of recommending type 1) according to sentencing criteria (the offering of bribe)

[Determination of Type] Bribery 02. Bribery / [Type 1] 30 million won or less

[Special Sentencing Aggravation] Aggravations: Cases where active mines, solicitation details are illegal or are related to illegal performance of duties;

[Scope of Recommendation and Recommendation] Crimes (Embezzlements) 2 (Embezzlements) of Special Daehan, Imprisonment with prison labor on June 2)

[Determination of Type] Embezzlement/Misappropriation 01. Embezzlement/Misappropriation / [Type 1] Less than KRW 100 million

【Special Sentencing】

[Scope of Recommendation and Recommendation Form] Basic Field, and the scope of Recommendation Form according to the majority of the criminal processing standards: 6 months to 2 years (the first crime + 1/2 of the upper limit of 2 crimes)

C. Determination of sentence: The Defendant’s crime of embezzlement of this case is recognized for six months of imprisonment; the amount of bribe granted for this case is a small amount; and the Defendant’s suspended sentence for 194 following the suspended sentence for 2017, which has no other penalty power, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, as the instant crime was discussed as a matter of the operation of the instant restaurant by Defendant this victim Kim ○ and the instant cafeteria, it was embezzled by using approximately KRW 13 million from the account in the name of the victim, which was deposited with the said cafeteria, and the Defendant committed the crime of offering of bribe by offering entertainment as stated in the facts of the crime against police officers around the Ulsan Sea and Ulsan for the said Gambling, while taking advantage of the malicious sentiment on the said Gambling, the Defendant did not have any agreement with the victim Kim ○ and the said cafeteria, and there is a high possibility of criticism that the relevant crime is very heavy in light of the process, motive, and content of the crime. In addition, in this case, the Defendant did not have any effort or intent to compensate or recover the said victim for the damages or losses to the present Gam to the present ○ level of the crime of embezzlement. In addition, there is a need to punish the said public official’s fairness in the performance of the duty of offering of bribe, and there is no need to punish the said public official.

In order to avoid the crime of grant, there seems to be no perception of his mistake while denying the crime of grant, and to avoid the punishment of the personal body and the stuffed owner, it seems that the investigative agency and this court intend to deceive the investigative agency or this court by means of a false name or false statement different from the facts in the investigative agency and this court. Considering the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the sentence of imprisonment is inevitable to give the defendant a severe and minor judgment of violation of the law and order.

In addition to the above sentencing circumstances as to the defendant, considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and the situation after the crime, the sentence shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines.

3. The Defendant’s crime of this case, as a police officer in the Ulsan Sea Line, was committed with respect to the illegal mincing, and the fact of suspicion of capture, which is conducted by public officials in other sea areas, such as the Defendant’s Kim slope, who are under the investigative authority over illegal mincing, and taking advantage of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment, is provided entertainment at an entertainment drinking point, such as the Defendant’s Kim Jong-do’s statement, under the pretext of arranging the mincing, and the nature of the crime, motive, contents, etc. of the crime. The Defendant’s crime of this case is a serious crime that seriously damages the public official’s fairness in the duties, influentness, and public trust in the general public. Even if the responsibility for the crime was committed, there is a need for strict punishment for the Defendant’s failure to recognize his mistake while denying the Defendant’s crime.

However, the amount of the bribe offered by the Defendant is a small amount; the Defendant did not participate in or exert influence over the investigation of the gambling by other landscape officers, such as Kim slope, as desired by the Defendant Kim Jong-sik; it appears that the investigation of the gambling officer was conducted normally; accordingly, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment due to the above suspected facts, such as the record of the criminal records in the judgment of the gambling officer; the Defendant was the first offender with no criminal punishment power; the Defendant appears to have performed his duties as a public official in good faith before the instant crime was committed; and the Defendant appears to have performed his duties as a public official in good faith.

In addition to the above sentencing circumstances with regard to the defendant, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and the situation after the crime.

【Defendant Yellow Master, Park Dao, Kim 5, Kim Il-il, Kim Il-hh, ferry wharf】

1. The following facts are the circumstances that are favorable to the defendant: (a) recognizing the crime of violation of the Fisheries Act by the defendant, and against his mistake; (b) there are many criminal records against the defendant; (c) having no force to punish him; and (d) committing the crime of violation of the Fisheries Act as stated in Article 1-B(b) of the facts of the crime as stated in the judgment among the crimes of violation of the Fisheries Act (the crime of Haman on May 22, 2015) should take into account both the violation of the Fisheries Act stated in the judgment of September 22, 2016 and the latter concurrent crimes as stated in Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to latter concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act; and (d) there are family members to support the defendant

However, even though the Defendant had been punished for committing an illegal capture of the same kind of setting, the instant crime was committed by taking charge of the captain of S, a light-line S, and taking part in the capture of 12 Mama at least three times again. In light of the motive, details, methods, and consequences of the instant crime, the nature of the crime is heavy, and there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the motive, contents, and consequences of the crime. At least mincing, it is necessary to strictly punish mincing the Defendant to create economic benefits through the distribution and sale of food by simply committing the destroyed type of risk, the internationally prohibited capture of which is prohibited. In particular, even if the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence by judgment on September 22, 2016, the Defendant’s act of capturing and taking the Defendant at least two times during the period of suspended sentence, and the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the need for further criminal punishment, such as the captain’s duty and supervision, should be considered to the extent that it is unreasonable and unreasonable.

In addition to the above sentencing circumstances with regard to the defendant, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

2. The ferry wharfs set the sentence like the order, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, along with the sentencing circumstances on the Defendants as follows.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendants took part in the planned and organized capture of minckes, which are endangered species prohibited from catching in the world, through a mincing Sho Lake for the purpose of economic benefits. The crime of this case was committed in the course of and details of the crime, and the method, method, and degree of the crime.

In light of the fact that the crime is heavy and there is a need for strict punishment because the possibility of criticism is considerable; in the case of the defendant ferry wharf, the defendant's participation in the captain and the degree of his responsibility is more severe; and the defendant has the power to punish the same kind of crime against the defendant.

The favorable circumstances of ○○: The Defendant’s participation in the case of Defendant Park Dao, Kim 5, Kim 5, Kim Il, Kim Il-il, and Park Ghh, while recognizing his own criminal conduct and reflecting his wrongness; Defendant’s participation in the case of Defendant Park Dao, Kim 5, Kim Il, Kim Il-il; and the number of his participation in the case is only one or two cases; the profits acquired from this case are not much high; in the case of Defendant ferry station, Park Dah, the Defendant’s violation of the Criminal Act Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act between each of the above Defendants’ crimes and the violation of the law on fisheries entered in the judgment that became final and conclusive; and in the latter concurrent crimes of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be considered at the same time and equality.

[Defendant Hobbe, Hobbe, Lee Inn, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin) along with the sentencing circumstances as set forth below, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, the environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The instant crime committed by the Defendants involved in, or aiding and abetting the distribution and sale of, the scrap machines illegally captured for the purpose of economic benefit; in light of the details, motive, content, method, and consequence of the crime, the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak; the act of distributing and selling the scrap machines acting as a motive for the planned capture of the mincing class, the international prohibition of international capture is prohibited; therefore, there is a need for strict punishment against the Defendants; there is punishment power against the Defendants for the same crime; and in particular, there are three or more kinds of punishment records in the case of the Defendant’s heating.

A favorable circumstances in favor of ○: The fact that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s act of committing the Defendant’s personal life and committed a crime of distributing and selling the same kind of illegal capture in this court, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes aiding and abetting in the case of the Defendant’s heating, that the Defendant’s red Hobbe, and the heat appears to be no longer involved in the operation of the high-speed restaurant, that there is no penalty force exceeding the fine in the case of the Defendant’s heating, arb, and arb, and that there is no punishment force exceeding the suspended sentence in the case of the arb, arb, and arb, there is no punishment force imposed on the Defendant who was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to exceeding the suspended sentence.

Judges Yu Jong-woo

1) If smoke occurs, climate change occurs due to global warming, and coinna 19 viruss which are officially replaced globally.

One of the reasons for the occurrence of one of the reasons for the destruction of the habitats of natural animals by humanity and the collapse of the natural ecosystem as a result thereof.

The voice of prestigious scholars and environmental non-governmental organizations can not escape from the voice.The simple economic benefits or the right of interest will come from the text of this title.

If the capture of an endangered species is permitted, the destruction of the ecosystem of the earth and the strong virus

It is impossible to deny the possibility of a vacancy, which could threaten the survival of the people of the country.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.