2017Gohap449 A. Fraud

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Korean Racing Association Act;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a) B

3.C.

Clerks (prosecutions), Korean commercial leaps (public prosecutions, public trials), transfer to other schools (public trial).

Law Firm Yang Jae-in (for Defendant A)

Attorneys Kim Yong-sik, Kim Jin-Jin, Kim Gi, Gi-Gok, and Han-gu

Law Firm Csan (for Defendant A)

Attorney Cho Jae-hoon

Law Firm Household (for Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Hyun-il

Attorney Kim Jong-su (for the defendant A)

Law Firm Dogwon (for the defendant B)

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Lee Jae-young, and Kim Na-young

Attorney Kim Yong-Nam (for the defendant C),

May 25, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and by a fine of 20,000,000 won. If Defendant C fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The penalty of KRW 22,00,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant A. Defendant A and C. The amount equivalent to the above fine and additional collection charge shall be ordered against Defendant A and C. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud against Defendant A, violation of the Korean Racing Association Act (hambling, etc.), and Defendant B shall be acquitted, respectively.

The summary of the acquittal part in this judgment shall be publicly notified.

Criminal 1)

1. Defendant A (career, etc. of the Defendant);

The Defendant, while attending D University, was working as a G player for the E-year F Asian Games by participating in G event as a national representative of G items and acquiring H medals, was retired from the movement in 2002, and thereafter, the Defendant discontinued the sale of clothes and the operation of the main store from around 2008. From around 2008, the Defendant, while establishing and operating a new-term sales company, such as “I,” he was released from J in order from J in 2012.

The Defendant: (a) around the beginning of the year of 2013, K K K’s possession of a bank sold to J and came to know of the private friendship between J and the President; (b) around the mid-2013, the Defendant, upon the request of J, set up a separate work room in Gangnam-gu Seoul and employed a designer, foundation, etc., and produced the president’s significance and bags.

The Defendant received a demand from J around April 2014 to May 5, 2014 to find a suitable person who can plan and produce various promotional materials to improve national brand, and the Defendant’s advertisement, etc. via a person who knows.

He introduced M and introduced M to J.

The Defendant was aware that there was a de facto friendly relationship with the President, as a member of the Presidential direct speed committee of M, and that there was a de facto friendly relationship with the President, such as appointment of P as a senior secretary to the President, and appointment of S, a senior secretary to the President of the Office of Secretary, who is the external third village of M, who was a senior secretary to the President.

On the other hand, around the beginning of the year 2014, the Defendant leased the Seoul Gangnam-gu U.S. U. office under the direction of J, and the J frequently reviewed official documents, etc. obtained from the Cheongdae and used them as a place of meeting with M, etc. Around July 2014, the Defendant established the UN Entertainment Company V with the funds received from J and M, and the name of the representative director was introduced at that time in the name of W.

Around October 2014, the Defendant was determined by the J as a result of infertility with the allocation of the establishment funds of Co., Ltd., Ltd., but around December 2015, upon receiving a request from J to assist in the establishment of a company, the Defendant established JJ and X, Co., Ltd. around January 2016.

The Defendant, as a director of X, assisted by J to pursue the private interest of J. On January 2016, the Defendant was appointed as the director of the division of AAA as an incorporated foundation upon recommendation of the Z introduced through the Y which had been born before his birth, and around that time, Y upd Co., Ltd., a sports business planning company established by Gangnam-gu Seoul AB, and tried to devise a plan for pursuing the private interest of J along with Y on the background of J as well as Y.

Since 2013, the Defendant had been involved in pursuing private interests of the J, which was entrusted to the President without any special occupation in the vicinity of the J.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant was instructed to find out whether there is a person to be appointed as a customs collector, which is a position newly established by the J, from the Haman on December 2, 2015, and was willing to request money and valuables, interest coupons related to customs, business convenience, etc. on the recommendation of the personnel of public officials.

At that time, the Defendant identified the person recommended by the Director of AD Customs Investigation (AE Grade) AF as the head of AD customs office. At the time, AF confirmed the wish of the head of AD customs office to AD, a customs officer of AG level who was in the Central Public Officials Education Center at the time, and delivered Y through Y, the Defendant expressed that “AH is recommended to the head of AD customs office.”

around December 29, 2015, the Defendant and Y directly received AF’s residence address, etc. from AF and prepared a resume of AH, and delivered it to J, and “AH will be appointed as a customs collector,” and AI police officers were appointed as the head of AD.

On January 28, 2016, at the restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant became the head of AD with a lot of difficulties in drinking AH and AF, and thus, I would not be forgotten.In addition, the Defendant demanded that AF, etc. pay KRW 50 million in return for the deposit of the personnel administration.

On February 4, 2016, AH directed AF to transfer KRW 2 million in cash to the Defendant, and AF, on the same day, remitted KRW 2 million to AP bank account in the name of the principal, AP bank account (Account Number Q) in the name of the principal.

WW received instructions from Y, etc., around February 5, 2016, withdrawn KRW 2 million deposited in the deposit account in the name of the above principal and exchanged the same amount as the merchandise coupon in the same amount and delivered it to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to create the AF Head of the AF Customs Office, but it is too little time to 200,000 won. It does not mean that the Defendant sticked to that place. The degree of KRW 50,000,000 from KRW 40,000 to KRW 50,000 is not necessary, and the Defendant demanded the consideration for personnel solicitation.

AF, around July 2016, was promised from AD head appointed as the head of AD to issue a personnel order as the head of AD's leader at AD Customs CR team, a preferred position in a scheduled scheduled regular period period of personnel management, and the defendant's refusal to issue a personnel order may not be issued as a commitment due to changes in the status of AH, if the defendant's refusal to issue a personnel order.

In addition, around May 2016, AF recommended CM, which was known to the general public, as AT at the request of the defendant, as well as the defendant's influence on the personnel affairs of the Korea Customs Service.

On May 26, 2016, the AF issued a cash of KRW 20 million to the defendant at the 'AV' restaurant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, upon the request of the head of AD to the effect that the case of appointment of the head of AD and the promotion of the principal in the future are difficult, and the defendant sent the AF a sex to the effect that "IF will be allowed to attend the future."

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables of KRW 22 million in total for the good offices of customs officers, which are matters belonging to the duties of public officials.

2. Defendant C.

On April 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2017.

A person, other than a marina society, shall not engage in any act similar to a riding vote in connection with a racing conducted by a marina society, in paying property or financial benefits to the winners of such racing.

On January 2014, the Defendant established a computer and Internet network at the office located in Guri-si AW, and around that time, operated the so-called ‘Center' (the subordinate organization of this company) by acquiring access numbers, etc. from 'AY' operating an Internet private horse headquarters, which is the Internet private horse headquarters, using the results of the horse racing of the Korean Racing Association, and moving the above site to AW and the Z, etc., and acquiring a certain ratio of sales amount as a fee, while opening the office in order to attract and manage private horse customers.

As a result, even though the Defendant was not a marina society from January 2014 to May 2016, the Defendant committed an act similar to the riding voting, thereby allowing the enemy to engage in the act of paying property or financial benefits.

Summary of Evidence

[Article 1] - Defendant A

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness BA;

1. The statement of witness AF in the second protocol, the statement of part of witness AH in the third protocol, the statement of witness AS in the third protocol, the statement of witness BB in the fifth protocol of the trial, the statement of witness W in the sixth protocol of the trial, the statement of witness BC in the seventh protocol of the trial, the witness Y in the eighth protocol of the trial, the statement of witness in the eighth protocol of the trial, the witness J and BD in the nine protocol of the trial;

1. (Investigation and Public Trial Records of Related Cases) One copy of the records of the case, including the case No. 2016-type No. 99473, among copies of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, three copies of the A' Statement, and two copies of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office' 2016-type No. 99473, and one copy of the Written Statement, among copies of the records of the case, such as the case No. 2016-type No. 9473, and one copy of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office' Office' 2016-type No. 99473, Dec. 12, 2016; five copies of the A Statement of Evidence No. 2016-type No. 1202, Dec. 1, 2016;

1. One copy of the phone call details AH 1, one copy of the phone call details AH 2, one copy of the phone call details between A-BE, one copy of the phone call details between A-AF, one copy of the domestic transaction approval inquiry (BG card, between 18 and 2016 January 18, 2016) 1, one copy of the contact details between AH-2, one copy of the contact details between AH-2, one copy of the contact details between AH-2, one copy of the contact details, one copy of the contact details between AH-2 and AF, one copy of the contact details, one copy of the contact details between AH-2, one copy of the contact details, one copy of the contact details between AH-2 and 50, one copy of the contact details, one copy of the contact details between AH-2, one copy of the contact details, one copy of the contact details between AH-related Internet printed out, one copy of the mobile phone text content, one copy of the contact details;

1. (Language Recording Data) One copy of the recording file in W as of February 18, 2016, April 2016, and May 22, 2016, and one copy of the recording file in W, May 22, 2016, as of February 18, 2016, and one copy of the recording file in W, February 6, 2017, one copy of the recording file in W, February 6, 2017, each CD-Call-A-20160218 - 04635 - 04635 - Outago-A-20420 - 2304 -20543 - 2053 - 253 - 2015 - 253 -4 -25 -25 -4 -6 -4 -25 -25 -2015 -20

1. (press Report) One copy of BN Report dated February 3, 2017, one copy of the BO Report dated February 3, 2017, one copy of each BO Report dated February 6, 2017, one copy of the BP Report dated January 13, 2017, one copy of the BP Report dated January 2017, one copy of each BP Report dated February 8, 2017, one copy of the media news report, one copy of the media media news article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media article, one copy of the media article, one copy of the media article, one copy of the media article, one copy of the media article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media news report from February 15, 2017, and one copy of the media news report [the one copy of the media news article, one copy of the media article [.

1. (Investigation Report) Report on confirmation of telephone call details between AH and A, analysis report on PC voluntarily submitted, attachment of related case records, X registry confirmation, attachment of the entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea (entry as of April 2, 2017) and attachment of AO account statement, attachment of separate case records against a suspect, which has remitted KRW 2 million to W;

[Attachment 2] - Defendant C1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of the witness CF and CG;

1. Copy of the protocol of examination of CH by prosecution;

1. Details of account transfer (456 pages of evidence), photographs of screen pictures after closures, and details of account transactions (from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, details of disposition of cases, and application of statutes governing printed matters;

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

(a) Defendant A: Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

(b) Defendant C: Articles 50 (1) 1 and 48 (1) 2 and (1) 2 of the Korean Racing Association Act (generally and collectively, selection of fines)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (as to Defendant A), grounds for conviction under Article 334 (1)

1. Summary of defense counsel's assertion;

A. As the Defendant received gift certificates worth KRW 2 million from Y and delivered them to J as they are, the Defendant is not liable for the crime of acceptance of good offices.

B. As indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million from the AF on May 26, 2016. The Defendant’s statement that the Defendant gave KRW 20 million to the Defendant is merely a false appearance of the AF’s statement to escape from an investigation into his/her own borrowed account in the prosecution. The Defendant recommended AH to the JJ as a civilian, in accordance with the direction of the J, and did not have any direct solicitation to the public official since there was no delivery of the intent of solicitation or any direct solicitation.

D. The Defendant did not intend to demand or promise to receive money and valuables from AF before AH is appointed as a customs collector. Thus, even if the Defendant received KRW 20 million from AF, it is only an ex post facto grant and thus, it does not constitute a crime of good offices taking place.

2. Determination on the part received in the amount of two million won

A. Facts recognized

In full view of the various evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

1) On December 4, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “AH was investigated by a witness in relation to the instant case, such as abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, etc. against J, and that “AH was appointed by the prosecution and provided meals to BE located in BF after 1,2 weeks. At that time, the Defendant received gift certificates sealed as packaging paper from AH and delivered them to J, and that the amount of the gift certificates was not known (Evidence No. 364 pages), and later, on February 6, 2017, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “AF and AH was present as a witness in the instant trial, along with Y, and delivered the gift certificates to J via Y (Evidence No. 446 pages, 3).”

2) However, the J consistently states that there is no timely delivery of gift certificates from the Defendant from the investigation stage to this Court.

3) From this Court, AH and Y stated in this Court that, after they were appointed as the head of AD customs office, there was only a 2 million won meal with the Defendant and AF, but there was no fact that the gift certificates were wrong on the spot. Moreover, AF, Y, and W stated in this Court that: (a) around February 4, 2016, AH delivered to the Defendant; (b) around February 4, 2016, AF sent KRW 2 million in cash to AF; (c) on the same day, AF transferred KRW 2 million to Y with the Defendant; and (d) W withdrawn KRW 2 million from the following day to the Y’s account; and (e) purchased a gift certificate of the same amount as Y and delivered it to the Defendant.

4) At the time of delivery of the gift certificates, the Defendant was in a situation where it was economically difficult for him to receive the said gift certificates, and there were several occasions of receiving monetary support from hisJ. W stated in the investigation agency that the Defendant gave cash to the Defendant and himself, etc., and that he did not receive KRW 2 million for the gift certificates for a person whose money was originally high, and Y also heard that the Defendant sent the gift certificates to hisJ, but it was believed that the time was unclear and that it was false in light of the Defendant’s ordinary behavior.

5) The Prosecutor’s Office: (a) in collusion with the Defendant, conducted solicitation or mediation on personnel affairs of the head of AD and received KRW 2 million under the pretext of such solicitation or mediation [it was investigated by entering the J under the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but on May 2, 2017, the Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition to the effect that there was insufficient evidence to prove the fact that the J received gift certificates purchased at the above KRW 2 million from the Defendant.

B. Determination

In light of the perception and intent of KRW 2 million as indicated in the above facts, and the nature and delivery process of KRW 2 million from AF, AH, Y, W, etc., the subject who received or received money and valuables equivalent to KRW 2.2 million from AF or AH is the Defendant. Even if the Defendant delivered the gift certificates to J as alleged, it is merely a circumstance after the Defendant was established by the method of consumption or crime of money and valuables acquired (and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant delivered the said gift certificates to J when considering the above contents of the statement by the relevant persons, the relationship between the Defendant and the J, the Defendant’s economic situation at the time, etc.).

Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant received money equivalent to KRW 2 million under the pretext of arranging or soliciting the personnel affairs of the head of AD customs office.

3. Determination on the part received in KRW 20 million

(a) Evidence relationship and related issues;

The Defendant refused to make all statements concerning the whole of the instant case, including this part of the facts charged, at the public trial, and argued that the Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million from AF as the facts charged.

On the contrary, AF consistently stated that the defendant gave cash of KRW 20 million, as shown in the facts charged, from the time of the third investigation by the prosecution to the present court. Therefore, the issue of this part of the facts charged is collected from whether the AF statement, which is direct evidence, can be reliable in light of the statements of relevant persons and objective materials, etc.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) In determining the credibility of the statements made by victims, etc. supporting the facts charged, the credibility of the statements should be assessed by considering all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statements made in the open court after being sworn before a judge, as well as whether the statements are consistent with the rationality, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, or evidence or third party’s statements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). If the statements are consistent in the main part of the facts charged, the credibility of the statements made in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness who is participating in the witness in the witness examination in the open court after being sworn before a judge, is not denied without permission for the mere reason that there is little consistency in the statements made in other small matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201608Do1784.

2) On the other hand, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the defendant denies the fact of receiving money or valuables, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, in order to find the defendant guilty only by the statement of the person who provided money or valuables, the evidence should be admissible, and there should be credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. When determining credibility, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency in the contents of the statement itself, but also its human beings when determining credibility, and in particular, there is a concern about the suspect's suspicion of a crime against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or during the investigation.

In a case where there is a doubt about intimidation, return, etc. using such doubt and the admissibility of such statement does not reach the degree that the admissibility of evidence is denied, it is also necessary to also examine whether efforts to escape from a brupted position may affect the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009).

C. Facts recognized

In full view of the various evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

1) Circumstances that the Defendant and AF came to know

AF was introduced the Defendant by having become aware of Y through the relatives of 5 to 6 years before Y. From November 12, 2015 to Y around November 12, 2015.

2) AF에 대한 검찰 조사과정 AF는 이 사건 수사과정에서 검찰에 참고인으로 여러 차례 출석하였는데, 2017. 3. 24. 제1회 조사와 2017. 4. 1. 제2회 조사에서는 앞서 본 200만 원 교부 사실만 진술하고 2,000만 원에 관하여는 진술하지 않았다[위 제2회 조사에서 AF가 위 200만 원을 중국 지인인 AO에게 부탁하여 W의 계좌로 송금하였다고 진술함에 따라 검찰은 2017. 4. 3. AO의 출입국현황과 A0 명의 계좌의 거래내역을 조회 하였다(증거기록 730, 739)]. 그 직후 AF는 2017. 4. 3. 19:40경부터 다음날 01:10까지 담당 검사와 면담한 후 피고인에게 2,000만 원을 교부하였다는 취지가 포함된 자필 진술서를 작성하였는데, 그 구체적 내용은 '2016. 6.경 서울 강남구 CI 근처 한우고기집에게 피고인과 식사를 하면서 비상금 계좌에서 틈틈이 인출해 모아둔 현금 2,000만 원을 주었다'는 것이 다(증거기록 749쪽). AF는 이 법정에서, 위와 같이 2,000만 원 교부 사실을 말하게 된 동기에 관하여 '피고인에게 2,000만 원을 준 사실이 밝혀져 처벌받을까봐 조마조마했는데 면담 과정에서 검사가 민간인을 상대로 한 알선은 죄가 되지 않는다고 알려주어 이를 밝히게 되었다'는 취지로 진술하고 있다.

In the third investigation on the following day, AF made a statement with the same content as the above AF statement and recognized that AF’s account was its own borrowed account. However, the time of delivery of KRW 20 million was 20 million as the end of May 2016, 300, and 50 million as the CJ engaged in Russia’s revenue business, and 20 million as the end of March 2016 or on April 3, 2016, 2000 won was partially changed (the prosecution presented the transaction details of the AO account as mentioned earlier to AF).

AF stated on April 5, 2017 that 20 million won was returned through BI, the birth of CJ, and submitted a copy of the passbook in the name of BI.

3) AF at the time and place of delivery of KRW 20 million has consistently maintained the same statement from May 2016 to this court, which stated that “AV restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, provided the Defendant with a meal of KRW 20 million in cash, while providing the Defendant with a meal at around the end of May 2016.”

In fact, according to the monetary content (including the location of the base station) between AF and the Defendant and the settlement details of physical card linked to the AO account, the fact that the Defendant moved from Guluri-si to AU on May 26, 2016 to Guluri-gu, Seoul, and called AF three times, and the AF calls the Defendant at around 18:22 on the same day (Evidence Record 909 pages), and around 19:07 on the same day, the 79,000 won of the meal amount from the above cafeteria at the above cafeteria at around 19:07 on the same day is confirmed. In doing so, the Defendant and F appears to have been meals together at the above cafeteria from 18:30 on that day to 19:10 on that day.

(iv) the source of KRW 20 million;

As above, the AF stated that 20 million won was returned in cash from the investment funds to CJ on March 2016 or April 2, 2016 and delivered it to the Defendant. According to the account under the name of AF and the AP bank account (Account Number CK) account in the name of BI, it is confirmed that the sum of KRW 50 million was transferred from AO to BI account from May 26, 2015 to April 28, 201 (Evidence Record 774 pages), and that the sum of KRW 20 million was released from BI account on April 1, 2016 and April 2, 2016.

5) Method of delivery of KRW 20 million;

AF는 이 법정에서, 현금 2,000만 원을 중(中)봉투에 넣어 식당에 가져갔는데, 위식당은 주차장이 식당 입구 바로 앞에 있고 위 돈봉투가 양복 안주머니에 잘 들어가지 않아 차에서 내릴 때 손에 들고 식당으로 들어갔고, 위 식당의 마루 테이블에 앉아 피고인과 식사를 하다가 식탁 옆으로 돈봉투를 건넸으며, 당시 식당에는 손님이 별로 없었다고 진술하고 있다.

In addition, the above restaurant is installed at the right 12 parking spaces in front of the entrance of the restaurant in a way that is far longer than the front and rear side on the basis of the entrance, the 400 square meters in the upper part of the restaurant is composed of 50 square meters in the envelope, and 400 square meters in the upper part. The floor of the above restaurant is divided into 6 square meters in the upper part of the restaurant, 12 square meters in front of the entrance of the restaurant, and 12 square meters in front of the floor (6 square table), the floor (12 square table), and the room (20 square table), and the floor of the school is divided into slid door.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant and AF’s meal hours appear to be approximately about 30 to 40 minutes, and the said restaurant had three teams before and after the time, and one of the teams was presumed to have been a meal in a room.

6) The AF voluntarily reported the fact of delivery KRW 20 million, as above, stated that the prosecution granted the Defendant KRW 20 million in return for personnel solicitation or good offices, and subsequently voluntarily reported to the Korea Customs Service along with the aforementioned fact of delivery KRW 2 million. Accordingly, the AF was transferred to the CL Customs on April 2017, and was investigated by the Korea Customs Inspection Team at the Korea Customs Service, and was referred to the Central Disciplinary Committee on May 24, 2017 by the Central Disciplinary Action (AF disciplinary proceedings also maintained replacing the existing statements).

7) Defendant’s continuous demand for payment

피고인은 평소 씀씀이가 컸던 것으로 보이는데, 2016년 초경에는 별다른 수입이 없어 경제적으로 어려운 상황이었다.

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant discussed that he had received gift certificates of KRW 2 million from AF and AH, but did not receive due consideration in relation to personnel affairs, and W was required to take personnel affairs on February 18, 2016, and IF or the head of the customs office upon considering that Y did not receive money, and IF or the head of the customs office did not perform the business upon receipt of Y’s receipt of money. Since there was no concept of personnel affairs, the Defendant was 5 million won at the end and said amount was 2 million won for gift certificates. Accordingly, the Defendant also did not come to the head of the customs office on April 20, 2016, and thereafter, he did not come to the effect that Y did not go to the customs office.

As above, after H was appointed as a customs collector, the Defendant first demanded money and valuables to AF through Y, but Y did not demand money and valuables actively due to a long-term relationship with AF, the Defendant appears to have commenced to demand money and valuables directly from AF to the extent of KRW 400 to 50 million. In other words, the Defendant, on May 22, 2016, announced to W on May 22, 2016, to the effect that it would have come to fall short of, and come to fall short of, the next, to the head of the customs office, and was babbling so far. Dobbbling so far. Dobling so far, the Defendant continued to demand money and valuables to the head of the customs office for the purpose that he would have been able to make it difficult for the Defendant to make a statement to the effect that he did not have any influence on the personnel administration of AD, such as “I would have to have been able to make sure that I would not have been able to know more than 26 years of evidence.”

8) The instant personnel contents of AH, AS, and AF were not included in the list of candidates for the head of AD customs office originally submitted by the Korea Customs Service to the BD branch, and thus, according to a usual senior executive method, the head of AD could not be appointed by the head of AD. However, the J sent a resume to the CN President Non-President of CN, and as a result, he/she was appointed as the head of AD customs office. ATS was often appointed by the head of ATS, rather than internal promotion, and AS was finally retired from CM on March 2015, and for more than one year thereafter, his/her appointment was accepted as a very exceptional personnel from the inside and outside of the Korea Customs Service. The AF stated in this court that AS was appointed as ATS, and that the Defendant was granted KRW 20 million immediately after the appointment of ATS, and that the head of AF was also deemed to have consistently announced at the time of the ATS’s regular customs office’s submission of the results.

9) Defendant’s business rights and other interests

The Defendant and Y consistently attempted to obtain an objection to the Korea Customs Service’s business rights, etc., separately from the demand for money and valuables as seen earlier, and in fact, AC Co., Ltd., which is operated by Y, intended to plan the CS in charge of the Korea Customs Service (Evidence No. 424 pages). In addition, the Defendant demanded AF to provide convenience in using AL, requested for the submission of a case discovered by his family members without high-priced visibility, and requested the submission of a transaction partner for the export-import-related business of China or the U.S. on July 2016.

10) On April 2017, CT, the Korea Customs Service of the City/DoF’s contact with AF in the course of investigation, stated that there was no fact that the defendant’s defense counsel was paid KRW 20 million from the head of the AF division, while the head of the AF division stated that the defendant was paid KRW 20 million from the head of the AF division. It is different from what is how the defendant and AF were used. The defendant and AF are the same position, and they are the same that "I would know that IF would end well well," and they are transferred to AF.

Accordingly, the AF gave money to the defendant clearly as "influence and IF has given money to the defendant. After giving money to the defendant, the defendant stated that all of the truth is true in the prosecution. Because CU lawyer had already talked about the truth in the prosecution, I asked to the effect that "if the contact should no longer be made, the contact should no longer be made" (CT witness witness page 3.4).

D. Specific determination

1) The above facts and arguments revealed in the facts and various circumstances, especially ① the statement of AF that delivered KRW 20 million to the defendant, from April 4, 2017 to this Court, are consistent and especially unnecessary data are not found. ② AE public official stated the fact that he was at a disadvantage of his status, and voluntarily reported to the Korea Customs Service. ③ The AF stated that he was aware of the fact that he was not punished as a crime through good offices in the process of his interview with the public prosecutor, and that it was not acceptable in light of empirical rule that the above 20 million won was delivered to the defendant (the time and method of delivery of KRW 20 million to the defendant, and the fact that the AF’s statement of KRW 20 million was issued to the public prosecutor’s office by the defendant, and that it was not possible to accept the motive of the statement in light of empirical rule, and that there was no other objective data, such as the defendant’s telephone call and food supply of KRW 20 million among the defendant and the defendant, and that it appears that there was no other objective data for the defendant’s demand for delivery of the above AF.

2) Meanwhile, the defense counsel asserts that the AF’s statement is not reliable because the prosecutor had induced the AF to make a false statement with respect to the Defendant instead of not investigating the AF account. 5) The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by various evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the AF’s statement that the AF delivered the AF account in cash for the purpose of hiding the existence of the AO account from the first investigation (or the circumstances in which the AF made the aforementioned false statement with Y). The prosecutor started an investigation into the AF account revealed in the second investigation, and the AF made an interview over several times and stated that the AF issued KRW 20 million to the Defendant only, and the AF did not have any strong desire of the other party to the above AF account, such as refusing to testify in relation to the AF account.

(1) However, in general, it is difficult to readily conclude that a person who made a statement was in an imminent situation as above, and the credibility of his statement should be assessed in consideration of various other circumstances. As seen earlier, there are many circumstances supporting the AF’s statement of KRW 20 million, and ② Above all, in light of the fact that it is not difficult to keep the fact of delivery of KRW 20 million to a person who was at a disadvantage in personnel affairs, when considering the status of AF, it is difficult to dismiss the credibility of the AF statement solely on the grounds cited by the defense counsel.

3) Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant continued to demand the AF for personnel solicitation and received KRW 20 million, such as the facts charged, in the process.

4. Determination on whether an act constitutes an act of good offices

A. Relevant legal principles

The term "mediation" in the crime of mediation and acceptance means the act of delivering the intentions of the parties to a certain matter belonging to the duties of a public official to the public official or promoting the convenience of such public official.

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established in a case where a public official in charge is specifically identified and is not subject to a public official’s request or arrangement, but is given or received under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement through an intermediate object capable of exercising influence, as well as in a case where the other party of solicitation or arrangement under the pretext of solicitation is not required to be specifically specified, and the other party of solicitation or arrangement is not subject to such solicitation or arrangement, and is not subject to such solicitation or arrangement, and it is not necessarily subject to such solicitation or arrangement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do6570, Sept. 12, 2013).

B. Determination

AF confirmed the wish of the head of AD customs office to AH, and delivered AH to the Defendant through Y, and the Defendant recommended AH as the head of the customs office to exercise his/her influence over the President, who is the personnel management authority, and subsequently, appointed AH to the head of AD customs office, the Defendant received money and valuables from AF in return for the above personnel request.

Therefore, even if the defendant, at the direction of J, received the above intention from AF and recommended the personnel management to J, who is not a public official, in the course of coloring a person suitable for AD customs collector, the defendant's act constitutes brokerage as referred to in the crime of good offices taking place, as long as he recommended AH with the awareness that the J is an intermediate material that may exercise the influence on the President, and thereby the head of a customs office is able to take place in the direction desired by AF.

5. Determination as to the assertion of ex post facto grant

“Good offices” refers to an act of arranging or promoting convenience between a certain person and the other party regarding certain matters, and such act is also included in cases where the act of good offices is subject to past or legitimate job practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7067, Jun. 12, 2008).

Therefore, even if there was no demand or promise for money and valuables between the defendant and the AF before the appointment of AH as the head of a customs office, as alleged by the counsel, it does not affect the burden of liability for the crime of acceptance of good offices as long as money and valuables are received after the act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A7

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years; and

B. The offense of this case involving the Defendant’s declaration of sentence involving the involvement of the so-called president’s personnel intervention in the Korea Customs Service, and upon recommending a customs officer introduced by J through his seal to be appointed to the head of a customs office actually, and then receiving money and valuables of KRW 22 million in total from the above branch, etc. in return for the above personnel solicitation or mediation. The public official’s duties subject to mediation are matters concerning the appointment of the head of a customs office who is not a customs office at the NN Grade Customs Office. In fact, the contents of solicitation have been realized by affecting the above public official’s personnel affairs, and the fact that the Defendant’s brokerage and solicitation’s compensation for the above referral and solicitation are heavier than the nature of the offense and criminal affairs.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the amount received as a consideration is not so large compared to the contents and results of mediation and solicitation, and that the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of punishment.

In addition, the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered.

2. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Fines not exceeding 70 million won;

B. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant, who has been punished for the same kind of crime in the past, is moving the place where the Defendant suffered damage to the legal network for a long time, and is operated by the Private Horse Center, and the nature and criminality of the crime are not weak in that social harm is high, such as encouraging the people’s spirit of gambling and impairing sound labor awareness.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant, and the crime of the defendant is concurrently judged in the concurrent relationship between fraud and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code with the judgment that became final and conclusive.

There are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the equality should be considered.

In addition, the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. The defendant A and B's fraud

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인들은 지인 사이이고, CV은 피고인 B의 지인으로서 피고인들이 함께 운영하던 'CW' 사무실에 출입하면서 피고인 A의 배경과 그가 주식에 투자하고 있는 사실 등을 알게 되었는데, 피고인 B는, 그때부터 수시로 피해자에게 피고인 A의 배경을 자랑하였고, CW 사무실에 드나드는 사람들을 가리키며 'CX(피고인 A의 가명)가 다른 사람들의 돈을 굴리면서 주식 투자를 해주고 있다. CY 주식 등을 통해 많은 돈을 벌어주었 다'라는 등의 말을 하면서 CV의 환심을 샀다.

From May 2015, the Defendants said that the CW office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City CZ called “the stock-related dialogue with CV and that the stock information source becomes soon effective.” The Defendants made investments in the shares of the CV called “DA” after making an interest in the CV. It is a company that has previously made M&A, and received the information from the inside of the company that would promptly bring the share price at the time of announcing a new business item. It is called that the Defendants would be able to invest high decentralization funds and operate them together.” Since CV remains in the amount of 100 million won at the present fund-raising target amount, it is difficult to make investments. On July 28, 2015, the Defendants sent money to the CV, which was designated by the inside company, before the closing of the stock market on July 28, 2015. The date on which the shares were issued, which would have no profit within 1 to 23 times the last three months.

However, at the time, the Defendants did not receive new business information, such as a new business item, from the inside of the DA company, and did not have any plan to attract funds from others, or there was no plan to do so. Since the shares were held for more than one month after the purchase of the DA shares, and there was no plan for the share price to move off, the Defendants did not all the said remarks. Even if they received money from CV, they did not have the intent or ability to make profits by making an investment in the shares as promised.

Nevertheless, the Defendants deceiving CV and transferred KRW 80,000,000 from CV to the deposit account (Account Number DC) in the name of W designated by Defendant A around July 28, 2015.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the victim CV to acquire 80 million won as a share investment.

B. Summary of the Defendants’ motion

The Defendants merely invested in the Category DA together with CV, and did not receive investment funds by deceiving them as stated in the facts charged, and even if the Defendants’ deception is recognized, there is no causal relationship with CV’s disposal act.

C. Determination

There are statements in the victim CV investigative agencies and this court. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, CV’s statement to the effect that the Defendants made an investment by stating that the Defendants would receive two or three times the profits within three months at the latest, as stated in the facts charged, would be difficult to believe.

1) As indicated in the facts charged, the Defendants recommended the Defendants to make an investment in return for the promise of 3 times the principal amount as set forth in the facts charged, and promised to make an investment, thereby remitting the amount of KRW 80,00,000 to W’s capital investment account. However, the Defendants consistently from the investigation agency to this court, and consistently stated that the Defendants did not make such a false statement to CV as above. Even if Defendant A’s cV, who expressed Defendant A’s complaint, falls at the price of DA and Defendant B’s complaint, stated that the degree of cV would be irrehly irreed, even if it would not ever be irresh (18 pages of the record of the B examination), it is doubtful whether it can be deemed as a legally binding guarantee of principal (i.e., whether it is a crime of fraud since CV’s delivery of KRW 80,000 in terms of capital investment to the Defendants).

2) As to the developments leading up to the investment of the DA in this Court, Defendant B and CV made a large number of stories in Defendant A’s office. Around that time, the Defendants and CV considered that DA items are fine without being raised first, and he heard that DA’s share price will rapidly increase from D’s large shareholder DD, which led to the formation of a consensus on DA’s investment (B examination record No. 45 pages).

3) As above, CV purchased DA shares by remitting KRW 80 million to the Defendant Company B, and then talking about the price fluctuation every day with the Defendant Company B, and requested D to find out information about DA’s price change, etc., and then the purchaser of the stocks invested in contact with the “S” and ordinarily took part in the act of the purchaser of the stocks invested, and also mentioned Defendant B’s information first.

4) From this law, CV stated to the effect that it does not believe that the commitments, such as guaranteeing the principal of, and guaranteeing the third times of profit from, the investors in multi-year business experience, were not reliable, and that it did not think that such remarks were in good faith or absolute in relation to the investment of the said stocks. In view of shares, losses may be deemed to have been incurred, and that no action was taken to the effect that it would cause losses to the public. There was no attempt to take any action. There was no atmosphere that the terms and conditions should not be nor nor be any condition. And even if it was the reason for the investment in DA’s category, it did not generally confirm such cases as the overall content of the public announcement even if it was believed that the investment was made in trust and investment in DA by confirming the shares of DA, and it was considered that the above statements and CV had been an issue of income for more than 10 years, and it was difficult to view that the Defendants were in the short-term or long-term investment of D in light of the facts charged.

5) Furthermore, the Defendants and CV did not make any agreement on the distribution of profits from the DA’s share investment. In this regard, in this court, CV stated that, if profits were to be earned, they did not consult with the Defendants, but did not intend to give the remainder to A and B, and that, if Defendant A’s profits were to be earned, they did not make a specific consultation with the Defendants. However, if Defendant A’s profits were to be earned, the Defendants stated that they only told Defendant A’s punishment (Defendant B) (CV witness examination page 16 pages).

6) On the other hand, Defendant B, after the investment of CV, partly withdrawn its shares, and invested in the private horse business run by C, as seen earlier, in mind that the DA’s share price will continue to drop differently from the expected amount, and subsequently, Defendant B lost all the amount invested in the private horse business run by C. However, Defendant B’s act of withdrawing the said shares was after CV delivered 80 million won of shares to the Defendants, and thus, it does not specifically affect the nature of fraud.

7) Meanwhile, the Defendants received an investigation at the Seoul Gangnam Police Station on charges of the same offense as the facts charged, and the police officers merely guarantee the principal and proceeds in light of all circumstances on March 15, 2017. On the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the Defendants sent KRW 80 million to the Defendants at the end of the Defendants, on the grounds that it was difficult to deem that they were given KRW 80 million to the Defendants. This part of the facts charged cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond the aforementioned CV’s statement, even if all evidence submitted by the Prosecutor were collected, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

D. If so, among the facts charged in this case, the facts charged against Defendant A and the facts charged against Defendant B constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, they are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Violation of the Korean Racing Association Act by Defendant A;

A. Summary of the facts charged

A person, other than a marina society, shall not engage in any act similar to a riding vote in connection with a racing conducted by a marina society, in paying property or financial benefits to the winners of such racing.

Around August 2015, the Defendant became aware of C, which operated a private horse center, as indicated in B, etc., as indicated in paragraph (2). On October 2015, 2015, when he/she operated a center from C in the coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheonggu, Seoul, he/she may be punished at a level of KRW 10 million per month to KRW 30 million. In investing money, he/she would divide half of profits into half of profits, and he/she accepted it, and the Defendant continued to use C’s money in the name of KRW 9 million from around November 2, 2015 to around December 16, 2015 (hereinafter “CF bank’s number of KRW 30 million from around November 13, 2015, KRW 10 million from around December 13, 2015, KRW 60,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

The act of paying property or property benefits was conducted.

B. Summary of the defendant's lawsuit

The defendant has lent KRW 196 million to C in the facts charged, and the defendant has not suffered any damages due to the failure to return them, and there has not been any fact that he had operated a private horse center in collusion with C.

1) Some of C’s legal statement was made to the effect that the Defendant entered into an agreement on profit-sharing with the Defendant and operated the Private Horse Center as evidence consistent with or consistent with this part of the facts charged. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, such as the witness CF, CG’s respective statutory statements, and the account transaction details of DE, the following facts and circumstances can be revealed.

A) Around September 2015, B invested in a private horse business operated by C, while borrowing KRW 100 million from the Defendant (Evidence Record 673 pages), and DH invested in a private horse business operated by C, but some of them were subject to fraud, and some of them were stuffed by purchasing a horse ticket directly.

B) The Defendant asked C to whether B is actually investing in the private horse business operated by C by C, and the Defendant first told C that it was intended to do so for B, but later, notified the Defendant that B was making the loan of KRW 100 million with the loan money.

C) After that, C recommended the Defendant to make an investment in the private horse center operated by C, and the Defendant had difficulty in making a part of 100 million won of the above borrowed money to another person. In conclusion, CG has invested a total of KRW 196 million as stated in the facts charged, as in the facts charged. CG has been asked several times to determine whether the Defendant could pay money if he had her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers hers herss hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers hers her.

D) From this legal point of view, C used the investment money received from the Defendant for operating funds of the private horse center and its gambling funds, such as deposit for the establishment of a new "Center" and expenses for compensating for losses arising from credit terminations, and on December 21, 2015, it stated that the Defendant remitted KRW 4.65 million to the Defendant for the purpose of profit distribution as a result of the operation of the center (Evidence Record 388 pages, C Examination Recording Book 23 pages).

E) After that, the Defendant demanded C to prepare a loan certificate for the said investment amount on February 6, 2016, with a view to not making profits from C’s private horse business, and C intended to draw up and offer a loan certificate at the Defendant’s request. In this regard, C stated in this court that “C has been holding money of 20 million won, and only 40 million won, the Defendant made a statement that “C would have made a loan certificate with a view to making a loan certificate in an unfortunate mind (C’s witness examination record page 24).”

F) Meanwhile, the Defendant did not engage in any particular involvement in the operation of C’s Private Horse Center, and was only interested in receiving revenues. C also stated in this Court that there was no discussion about the operation of the Defendant and the Center, and that it did not think that the Defendant and the Center should be operated together with the Defendant, and that it did not think that the Defendant and the Center should be operated together with the principal due to the receipt of investment.

2) In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, a subjective requirement is the intent of joint processing and objective requirements, which requires the commission of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. The intent of joint processing ought to be one of the two intents to jointly commit a specific criminal act, and to shift one’s own intent to commit another’s act by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).

3) In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s investment in the private horse center of C in the amount of KRW 196 million, and further, it is difficult to deem that it was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant operated the above center with C through functional control with the intent of coprocessing as stated in the above legal doctrine with the intent of coprocessing as stated in the above legal doctrine, and even if all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor are gathered, it is insufficient to recognize it.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant A’s violation of the Korean Racing Association Act (hambling, etc.) constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons, and the summary of the part of acquittal among the judgment should be

The presiding judge and judges;

Judges Kim Young-ho

Judgment of the Prosecutor

1) To the extent that the facts charged are identical to the facts charged and the basic facts are not likely to substantially disadvantage the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense.

The facts are partially recognized differently from the facts charged.

2) This is a position newly established in the integration of the AK Customs and the AM Customs that had previously been in charge of AJ customs clearance services into a newly established position.

The above has been elevated from Grade AG to Grade AG.

3) Each of the statements by the Defendant is not only partly different from the details of the statement, but also inconsistent with the following financial transactions.

4) In this Court, AF also has a pro-friendly liaison with CT, which means that the position of CT has been similar to that of the situation, and that the dialogue has been made.

There was a statement that caused it.

5) The defense counsel asserts for the same reason that there is no voluntariness in the AF’s statement, but the circumstances described in subsection (1) and the AF’s identity as a customs officer of Grade AE;

In light of social status, it is difficult to see that the above statement of the AF is not voluntary.

6) The defense counsel also received the words that AF was unable to issue personnel orders of the CR team leader that AH promised before March 2016 to March 4, 2016.

Although there is a claim that the number of KRW 20 million, which was around, cannot be considered as a consideration for personnel assistance to AH, the above statement about AF is not considered as a consideration for personnel assistance.

It is doubtful whether AH’s statement may be reliable, and as seen above, AF demands the consideration for personnel assistance to AH.

Since high-ranking pressures were not separated and were given to KRW 20 million, the above assertion by the defense counsel is difficult to accept.

7) Reference to the sentencing criteria for the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act which punishs similar acts as the sentencing criteria are not set.

public.

[Determination of Penalty] Type 1 (less than KRW 30 million) for acceptance of money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation and good offices

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Where the method of punishment is extremely poor;

[Extent of Recommendation] Six months to one year and six months (Aggravated)