2013 Gohap133, 142 (Joint), 165 (Joint), 205 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Acceptance of bribe;

1. (a) (c) ;

A

2. B

3. b. C.

4. (b) D.

5. (b) E;

6.2 b.F

7.(b) G.

8. A. H

The current status of movement (prosecution, public trial), Kim-young (prosecution)

Attorney I (for the defendant A)

J Law Firm

Attorney K and L (Defendant B)

Law Firm M

Attorney N,O (for the defendant B)

P Law Firm, Attorney Q Q (Defendant C)

Attorney R, S (for Defendant D)

Law Firm M.

Attorney T-O (for defendant D)

U Law Firm

Attorney V, W (for Defendant E)

Attorney X-Y (for the defendant F)

Attorney S, X, Y (for the defendant G)

Law Firm 2, Attorney AA (Defendant H)

AB Law Firm, Attorneys AC (Defendant H)

January 10, 2014

1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years and by a fine of 3,500,000,000 won. If the Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the said fine of 3,50,000 won into one day. The cash confiscated by the Defendant A (Article 602,50,000,000 won (Evidence 1 of 838,50,000 in the Dong District Prosecutors’ Office in Busan District Prosecutors’ Office in 2013) shall be confiscated. The amount of KRW 430,50,000 shall be collected from the Defendant A. The above fine of 3,50,000 shall be additionally

2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months;

3. Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the defendant C to provide community service for 120 hours.

4. Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

5. Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years.

6. Defendant F shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

7. Defendant G shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months.

8. Defendant H shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years and by a fine of KRW 1,050,000. Defendant H fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of three thousand won converted by one day.

A penalty of KRW 702,188,970 shall be collected from Defendant H. Defendant H. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine shall be issued against Defendant H.

Criminal facts

2013Gohap133, 1421 the Defendants’ status

On December 27, 2009, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Electric Power Corporation") ordered construction works of four nuclear power plants of US$ 18.6 billion from the UAE Atomic Energy Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "ENEC"), and entered into an agreement on the management of joint projects between the Korea Power Plant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Power Plant Corporation") and the two companies to jointly manage the UAE Nuclear Power Plant and jointly manage the Korea Power Plant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Power Plant") and the Korea Power Plant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Power Plant Corporation") to take charge of construction works of US$ 18.6 billion from March 7, 1983 to the Korea Power Plant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Power Plant Corporation"). Defendant A entered into a contract on the management of joint projects between the UAE Nuclear Power Plant Corporation and the Korea Power Plant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Power Plant") to work of 10.10 on January 13, 2009.

Defendant B: (1) had been employed from 2.1 to 2.1.2: (2) from 2.1 to 1.2:2: (3) from 2.1 to 1.2, from 209 to 1.2, from 2.1 to 3.2, from 2.1 to 1.2, Defendant 2: (1) had been employed from 2.1 to 1.2 from 3.2 to 1.2, from 2.1 to 1.2 to 3.2, from 1.1 to 1.2, Defendant C had been employed from 2.1 to 1.2, from 2.1 to 3.2, from 201 to 1.2, from 2.1 to 3.2, from 201 to 3.2, from 1.207 to 1.2, respectively.

2. Crimes related to emergency diesel power generators and alternative exchange power generators 3).

A. Defendant A and H

Defendant A, as the head of the department in charge of assistive devices for UAE Team AE team, was in charge of the review of purchase technical specifications prepared by the Korea Electric Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Electric Technology Co., Ltd.”) for the purchase of approximately 180 assistive devices to be supplied before UAE source, and was in charge of the review of technical specifications required for the purchase of assistive devices, review of technical evaluation submitted by Korea Electric Technology Co., Ltd., and technical evaluation 4).

On November 9, 2010, the UAE Bureau published a tender for an emergency diesel power generator and alternative interchange power generator (hereinafter referred to as "emergency diesel power generator, etc.") to be installed in the UAE nuclear power plant, and three companies, such as AF Heavy Industries (hereinafter referred to as "KG") and HG 5, submitted a bidding document between November 10, 201 and January 7, 201, during the bidding period. Defendant C, who was the head of the AF Heavy Industries Electronic System Headquarters, was aware of the technical capability of Defendant AF headquarters from 10 to 2000 to 200.3, Defendant C, one of the technical capability of Defendant AF headquarters, who was the head of the AF Industries Headquarters, had been aware of the technical capability of Defendant AF Industries, which was well known to the effect that the AF Heavy Industries would be awarded a successful bid, and Defendant C had been able to participate in the 28th of the 20th of the 20th of the 201.

Accordingly, at the AJ ceremony located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul AI around that time, Defendant C met with Defendant C or agreed to deliver the money to Defendant A when paying the service payment by stating that “A will assist the AF Heavy Industries in the successful bid process, such as the evaluation of technical capabilities in progress, or in the future supply process.” Defendant C also agreed to the introduction of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant introduction”). From August 201 to September 201 of the same year, Defendant H consulted Defendant B with the same purport and agreed to provide the service payment at the CC hotel coffee shop located in Ulsan-gu AK from around the same year to around the same year. Defendant B reported the above contents to Defendant G, a general manager of engine development business, and obtained the consent.

After that, UAE Bureau concluded a supply contract with 12,72,00,000 won on October 14, 201 and selected AF Heavy Industries as successful bidder on November 20, 201, 200. On November 30, 201, 201, 30,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 12,722,00,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000,00 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 36,01,000,00 won,00 won,0

After that, Defendant H made a withdrawal of KRW 15 million from AG’s corporate account via several occasions, and prepared KRW 50 million each time, around November 2012, around December 2012, around 2013, and around January 1, 2013, Defendant H paid KRW 150 million in total to Defendant A for three times at “AL restaurant in Gangnam-gu Seoul”, which was deposited with AF Heavy Industries; on September 30, 2012, Defendant H made a service agreement similar to the instant service agreement with Defendant NN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), which is located in the Human Resources for AF Heavy Industries, to transfer KRW 100,000 to Defendant A, which is deemed to have been given and received KRW 150,000,000,000 in total to Defendant 130,000,000 to Defendant 130,000 won in cash, which is deemed to have been given and received to Defendant A’s public official.

B. On August 9, 2011, Defendant B, C, and G Defendants (referred to as “Defendant B, C, and G” in Article 2-b) concluded the instant service contract with AG operated by Defendant H on March 16, 201 and transferred KRW 1,02,18,970 in total five times from July 10 to March 8, 2013 to AG enterprise bank account. Accordingly, Defendants conspired to perform the duties of executive officers and employees of the market-type public enterprise, who are deemed as public officials, in collusion.

A total of KRW 1,002,188,970 were given a bribe.

3. Crimes related to voltages for electricity;

A. On November 2010, Defendant E, the chief of the power department of Defendant AF Heavy Industries Electrical System Business Headquarters, was expected to offer a bid for the power transformers to be installed in the UAE nuclear power plant in Korea, and Defendant A is expected to participate in the power transformers tender on the first floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the first floor in the Han-gu, Seoul CD, and it is anticipated that Defendant A will be awarded a bid at the company. It is anticipated that it will be certain that our company will be awarded a bid. Defendant A and E will be able to assist our company. Defendant A and E requested that the budget should be sufficiently allocated to our company. Defendant A will assist the AF Industries in the process of the successful bid or supply of the power transformers by allocating the budget sufficiently. On the other hand, Defendant A and the AF Heavy Industries ordered the preventive diagnosis system production and distribution company at the request of Defendant A to enter into an agreement on the specific method of payment corresponding to AP, and the AF Heavy Industries will be paid the specific amount corresponding to A's payment method.

Defendant E: (a) around that time, at the Seoul Office of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City located in Jongno-gu AF Heavy Industries, reported the above agreement to Defendant D, a manager who was in charge of the business of the headquarters of an electrical and electronic item item, and Defendant D agreed to the effect that Defendant E: (b) around November 2010, the first floor of the 1st century, Defendant E: (c) called “AF Heavy Industries,” ordering Defendant A to the effect that “IF Heavy Industries, a manager, who was in charge of the business of the headquarters of the headquarters of an electrical and electronic item, sought money to pay to Defendant A; and (d) Defendant E agreed to the same effect as AF Heavy Industries, at the Seoul Office of the AF Heavy Industries around that time, agreed to the effect that the AF Heavy Industries would pay money to Defendant A.

After that, on January 25, 2011, the UAE Electric Power Complex published a tender for the power transformers to be installed in the UAE nuclear power source, and the AF Heavy Industries and the CF Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. submitted a tender between January 26, 201 and March 11 of the same year, the bidding period. The UAE Electric Power Complex Management Bureau requested the KAE Technology to conduct the technology evaluation from March 11, 201 to May 11 of the same year, and conducted the technology evaluation from May 201 to June 8 of the same year, 201, the AF Industries was selected as a successful bidder after conducting a price inspection on June 9, 201, and after obtaining the approval of the ENEC around July 26, 201, the supply contract between the 201 and the 3rd Industrial Technology System from July 18, 2011 to the 103rd Industrial Technology Construction System from July 25, 2011.

On August 201, 201, immediately after the conclusion of the supply contract, Defendant A promised to the effect that Defendant E at a AS restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant D and F shall be KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000

Since August 201, from around January 201 to January 2012, Defendant F had been frequently contacted with AP’s representative AP and directors who are its employees, and agreed on the amount and method of AF Heavy Industries to be preserved for AP. On January 2012, Defendant F and AF Heavy Industries agreed to provide 30 vehicles of heavy gas analysis devices to be installed in AF Heavy Industries (hereinafter “instant agreement”). At around January 2012, Defendant F and AF Heavy Industries agreed to compensate for the amount and method of AF Heavy Industries’s conservation (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Then, around the beginning of February 2012, Defendant A received cash of KRW 200 million from Defendant F in the near AW apartment complex, which was prepared by Defendant F, from Defendant F, and received KRW 700 million in cash from Defendant F in the first floor of Han-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, at the end of February 2012, Defendant A received KRW 200 million in cash from Defendant F in the first floor of Han-gu, which was prepared by AO from Defendant F, and received KRW 300 million in cash from Defendant F in the front of the Han-gu office around March 2012. Accordingly, Defendant A received bribe of KRW 700 million in cash from Defendant F in the middle of the Han-gu office.

B. Defendant D, E, and F

Defendants (referred to “Defendants” in Section 3-b) prepared KRW 700 million first between November 201 and August 201, 201 as set forth in Section 3-A, and delivered it to Defendant A on the face, but thereafter offered bribe in order to Defendant A in a manner that the AF Heavy Industries compensates for the amount of KRW 1 billion to AP. From the beginning of February 2012 to the end of March of the same year, Defendant A delivered KRW 700 million in cash in the vicinity of Defendant’s residence and office.

As a result, the Defendants acted in collusion for the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations.

A total of KRW 700 million bribe was given.

2013Gohap165

4. Property in breach of trust by Defendant A;

(a) Status of the persons concerned;

Defendant A, who was employed before March 7, 198 and was in charge of nuclear power generation business around 200,000, and worked as the head of Korea-U.S. CG 1 Construction Headquarters from January 25, 2007 to December 31, 2009, took overall charge of supervision over CF electrical construction as an employee of the CF 1 Construction Headquarters from April 2005 to May 2009. AX was employed from around 205 to around 205, and was in charge of supervision over CF 20,000,000 from May 25, 2007 to January 10, 2009, and was in charge of supervision over CF 20,000,000 from around 25, 205 to around 10, 200,000 G 20.

On the other hand, in the case of design change products, AY and AX draft, and Defendant AD director, Defendant A, the director of CF 1 Construction Office, made an interim decision, and BB, the director of CG Nuclear Energy Headquarters, made a final decision. However, in substance, CG Nuclear Energy Headquarters, B, the director of CG Nuclear Energy Headquarters, obtained the final approval of the director of CG Nuclear Energy headquarters, and thus, the final decision-holder can be seen as Defendant A in a substantial sense.

B. From the end of June 2008, AY received an illegal solicitation from BC, the representative director of the CF 1 Construction Complex, at the site of the CF CE located in the Busan Metropolitan City, to the end of June 2008, to the effect that “AY was engaged in personnel management for the upper end of the AZ to make prompt any change in the design,” and that “AY confirmed the shopping bags containing cash located in the back of the AY, and delivered the shopping bags to AX, the director of the CF 1 Construction Center located in the Busan Metropolitan area CE, to AX, and the director of the CF 1 Construction Center located in the Busan Metropolitan area CE, and the head of the CHX delivered the shopping bags to AX, the president of the AD department, and the AX immediately stated it as the head of the AD department, and the AX as the head of the AG office, and delivered it to A, as it is, as it is.

Then, Defendant A confirmed that there was a cash of KRW 30 million in shopping bags, and according to Defendant A’s decision-making, Defendant A divided KRW 18 million in the CF 1 Construction Complex AD office, and KRW 6 million in each case. Accordingly, Defendant A, AY, and Defendant A acquired KRW 30 million from BC in collusion with illegal solicitation in relation to their duties.

2013 Gohap205

5. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant A

BD is the representative director of BE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BE”) and BE entered into a contract for the supply of water treatment facilities for the period of 1,2,3, and 4 UAE BE Nos. 9,27. The defendant A received a bribe of KRW 15 million with respect to the duties of executive officers and employees of the market-type public corporation deemed public officials and employees deemed public officials by the defendant A around November 201, 201.

Summary of Evidence

Crime No. 2)

1. Defendant H’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, C, and G

1. Each legal statement of the witness H;

1. The witness BI’s partial statement, the witness A, B, and C’s partial legal statement; 1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of examination of the defendant B, each of the suspect interrogation of the defendant, each of the defendant A, C, G, and H, each of the prosecutor’s protocol of examination of the defendant B;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement against BJ, BI,K, BL, BM, N, and Defendant B;

1. Each statement prepared by the BO, the defendant C, and B;

1. The report on the investigation report, the copy of the written opinion of review (the document of review on actual AG review) (the document of review on the other Defendants except the accused G), the report attached to the investigation report supplier’s written opinion of review (the document of review - the document of review excluding the accused G), the report attached to the written opinion of review on each supplier’s books, the investigation report (the document attached to the service contract for technical assistance between the accused GGN), the report of investigation (the document attached to the notice of purchase, the 'BNP 1-4 emergency diesel power plant and the alternative exchange power plant' prior to the date), the report of investigation (the document attached to the contract for technical service between the AF Heavy industry-AG), the report of investigation (the document attached to the report of cash withdrawal of the H), the report attached to the business technical team, the report on the results of investigation (the report attached to the score calculation report), the report attached to the report on the results of investigation (the report attached to the contract for emergency diesel power generation), the report attached to the work report attached to the attached report);

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, D, E, and F;

1. Each legal statement of the witness AO, AM, BP, and AV;

1. Partial statement of the witness F (except for the defendant A separated from his pleading, to the other defendants) and some of the witness A, E, and D's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on BP, defendant A, E, F, and D;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against the BJ, AV, and AO;

1. Each statement prepared by AM, AO, Q, AV, and Defendant D;

1. Each written statement of AM, BO, AV, Q, Defendant E, and D;

1. Investigation report (report on the division of duties of the technical team), investigation report (report on calculation of price points), 1.0 billion won attached to AMF statement, investigation report (related to 1.0 billion won attached to the AMF), data transaction contract document attached to the data analysis system), investigation report (the separate contract document for material transaction related to the contract for heavy gas analysis device), public notice of tender related to the nearby voltage system of the UAE source, public notice of tender at the close voltage system of the UAE source, statement of technical capability evaluation of the tender related to the UAE source, statement of investigation report (the attachment of attached documents with F in the investigation report out of the cell phone restoration contents of the AO), 5 copies of estimates for supply of material of the AF industry and the APE, 1.0 billion won attached to the APE statement, 1.0 billion won attached to the APE report, 1.00 billion won attached to the APE report on the investigation records, 1.000 won attached to the APE report prior to the investigation report, 1.

Criminal facts No. 4

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Y, and BC;

1. Each prosecutor's examination protocol of the accused AX, AY, BC, and the accused;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against AX;

1. AX-making statements;

1. An investigation report (report on attachment to the register of the family register of the family history), an investigation report (report on attachment to the statement and the protocol of suspect's interrogation related to the GuY), an investigation report (report on attachment to the name of the ZBC and the photograph), an investigation report (report on attachment to the AY personnel record card), an investigation report (report on attachment to the AY personnel record card), an investigation report (report on presumption of illegal subcontract to the AZ of the family record record), an investigation report (report on attachment to the AZ register of the CF 1.2), an investigation report (report on confirmation of work price deposited to AZ from the Ho-electric power for the cF 1.2 house and the Ho-electric power power for verifying the subcontract between the Z and the construction between the Zs), an investigation report (report on the timing of provision and the source of funds submission), an investigation report (report on attachment to the CF 1 Construction Table of 208), an investigation report (report on modification of the AY's personnel record, reporting on attachment to the AY card);

Criminal facts No. 5

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol against the defendant A;

1. A written statement prepared by the defendant A;

1. Determination as to admissibility of evidence of the second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant B (hereinafter "the relevant protocol of interrogation of the suspect") in the preparation of a copy of investigation records, such as each investigation report and attached contract status, investigation report, attached personnel record card, investigation report, and written statement of investigation record, etc.

1. Defendant G’s defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant B explicitly expressed his intention to have the defense counsel at the time of interrogation of the suspect, but the protocol was prepared without the defense counsel, and thus, the relevant protocol of interrogation of the suspect constitutes illegally collected evidence by infringing the right to have the defense counsel of the arrested suspect.

2. Prosecutor's assertion;

A. Unlike the contents written in the suspect interrogation protocol in question, Defendant B consented to the investigation without the presence of the defense counsel at the initial stage of the investigation upon the recommendation of the person in charge of investigation who is likely to interfere with the investigation. Such consent can be sufficiently confirmed through the fact that Defendant B consented to the use of the suspect interrogation protocol as evidence in this court and the fact that Defendant B consented to the use of the suspect interrogation protocol as evidence in this court.

B. At the time of the investigation into Defendant B, if the counsel of Defendant B, who had been an in-house lawyer of the AF Heavy Industries, was present, there was a concern that the AF Heavy Industries might divulge the fraud on the side of the principal investigation, and thus, there was a justifiable reason to restrict the prosecutor from participating in the interrogation of the suspect in accordance with Article 243-2(1)

3. Determination

(a) Matters entered in the interrogation protocol of the relevant suspect, including defense counsel’s participation in interrogation, and whether the relevant attorney participates in interrogation;

1) On July 10, 2013, Defendant B responded to Defendant B’s question of whether Defendant B should exercise the right to assistance of counsel?

2) The prosecutor continued the interrogation of the suspect without the presence of a defense counsel.

3) The interrogation protocol of the suspect concerned did not contain matters concerning the attorney’s participation in interrogation and the limitation thereof.

B. First, we examine the prosecutor's assertion that Defendant B did not want the presence of counsel.

1) In a case where the prosecutor submits evidence to prove the defendant's conviction in criminal law, the evidence prepared by the due process and method must be proven by the prosecutor. In this case, inasmuch as the defendant B clearly expresses his intention to have the defense counsel at the early stage of the interrogation, it cannot be inferred that the defendant B expressed his previous opinion prior to the examination of the suspect in question prior to the examination of the suspect in question, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the prosecutor's assertion in this part is without merit. Next, it is examined as to whether the relevant suspect interrogation protocol can be seen as a protocol prepared in accordance with the due process and method.

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, any person shall not be punished or forced labor without due process, and any person shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel when he/she is arrested or detained pursuant to the main sentence of Article 12(4) of the Constitution. Article 243-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “the public prosecutor or judicial police officer shall, upon the application of the suspect or his/her defense counsel, have a defense counsel meet with the suspect or have a defense counsel participate in the examination of the suspect unless there is any justifiable reason.” Article 243-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The purpose of Article 243-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to ensure the equal relationship between the suspect and the investigation agency and the suspect to substantially guarantee the principles of due process under the Constitution and the right to assistance of counsel, and such procedure shall be strictly observed (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do359, Mar

On the other hand, Article 243-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the public prosecutor or judicial police officer shall enter matters concerning the participation of counsel in interrogation and restriction thereof in the interrogation protocol of a suspect," and Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a protocol in which the public prosecutor makes a statement of a suspect who is the defendant, may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement made in the protocol was made in a particularly reliable state, in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods, and the same contents as the defendant stated are stated."

2) Reference legal doctrine

Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a suspect interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency, other than a prosecutor, to be admissible as evidence, must be "written in accordance with the proper procedure and method." The term "legal procedure and method" means that a suspect complies with all the procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, such as notification of the right to refuse to make a statement in the course of preparing the protocol, and does not go against the method of preparing the protocol (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do757, May 24, 2012).

In light of Article 12(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Articles 244-3(1) and (2), and 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if a judicial police officer informed a suspect that he/she can exercise the right to refuse to make statements and asked a suspect whether he/she exercises the right to refuse to make statements, the protocol prepared by a judicial police officer who does not indicate the suspect's answer as a self-written reply in violation of the method stipulated in Article 244-3(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the suspect's name and seal or signature are not attached to the answer, cannot be deemed as a protocol prepared in accordance with the "legal procedure and method" stipulated in Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do359, Mar. 28, 201

3) Conclusion

As seen earlier, even though Defendant B clearly expressed his/her wish to attend the relevant interrogation and expressed his/her wish to do so, the prosecutor proceed with the interrogation of the suspect without the presence of the defense counsel, but did not enter the matters concerning the "Restrictions on the Participation of Defense Counsel in Examination" under Article 243-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the relevant interrogation protocol.

Ultimately, the protocol of interrogation in question was prepared in violation of the method stipulated in Article 243-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In light of the above legal principles, it cannot be said that the protocol was prepared according to the ‘the procedure and method of law' under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether there is a justifiable reason to restrict the participation of counsel at the time of the investigation of this case, or whether it is illegally collected evidence, and further examine whether there is a justifiable reason to restrict the participation of counsel at the time of the investigation of this case. The second protocol of interrogation of Defendant B prepared by the public prosecutor cannot be admitted

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the occupation of acceptance of bribe at the time of the market, comprehensively including the occupation of acceptance of bribe, Article 53 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management, etc. of Public Institutions (the occupation of acceptance of bribe at the time of the market, comprehensively including the occupation of acceptance of bribe, Articles 357(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the selection of imprisonment)

B. Defendant B, C, and G: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 (Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act at the time of sale) of each Criminal Act (Article 133(1), 129(1), and 30(Article 133(1), 129(1), and 30(Article 129(3) of the Criminal Act at the time of sale)

D. Defendant H: Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1), Article 30, and the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act; Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (Article 53 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, referring to the acceptance of bribe at the

1. Imposition of fines concurrently;

Defendant A and H: Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (as to the acceptance of bribes under paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of the Decision against Defendant A)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in cases of imprisonment, punishment and punishment shall be aggravated, and punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of the same Act (in cases of imprisonment, punishment and punishment for concurrent crimes) shall be aggravated, and with respect to fines, punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in the Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant H: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant C and F: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (each of the following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

Defendant C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

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

B. Defendant H: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A and H: Judgment on the major arguments of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination as to Defendant B and GI’s defense counsel’s assertion 10 in Defendant B and G

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The instant service contract is a legitimate service contract concluded by the needs of the AF Heavy Industries, and the AF industry paid reasonable remuneration for services.

B. The Defendants did not have the intent to offer the bribe to Defendant A.

1) Defendant B had been able to enter into the instant service contract, and did not know about granting money between Defendant A and H at the time of entering into the instant service contract. Defendant G did not receive a report on the offering of bribe from Defendant BO.

2. Relevant principles;

In the event that a contract for the provision of services between a broker and a receiver is made to arrange matters that fall under the duties of a public official, and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax is paid in return for the brokerage act, the amount equivalent to the service price and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax received by the broker is all the money and valuables that are received in connection with the brokerage. Thus, regardless of whether the broker has actually paid the value-added tax under the service contract, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall also be deemed as the brokerage payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11660, Mar. 25, 2010).

Even if a public official contributed part of the amount equivalent to the value of a bribe to the other party for the purpose of acquiring a bribe or provided other economic benefits, it shall be deemed that it is merely an incidental expense incurred in receiving a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1638, Oct. 8, 199).

3. Determination

A. The process of concluding the instant service contract

The specific progress of the instant service contract, recognized by the foregoing evidence, is as follows.

1) On August 201, Defendant H stated to the effect that Defendant C may assist the head of the department in the process of awarding and delivering a successful bid for the current non-commercial diesel generator. As such, Defendant C, who received such a intent, introduced Defendant C, who works at the headquarters of the AF Heavy Industries, to Defendant H.

2) Defendant A delivered to Defendant H an intention that “A billion won is required” before Defendant H met with Defendant B.

3) On September 201, 201, Defendant H delivered Defendant B’s Mana service to the effect that Defendant B will help the AF Heavy Industries during the successful bid process, and suggested the service cost of KRW 2 billion on that spot. Defendant B reported such proposal to Defendant G, and newly presented the service cost of KRW 1 billion to Defendant H according to the order of Defendant G that was determined to be excessive in KRW 2 billion, but Defendant H refused this agreement. Since then, Defendant B presented KRW 1.5 billion according to the revised order of Defendant G, and Defendant H accepted the proposal with Defendant A’s approval, Defendant H agreed on the execution of the instant service contract between Defendant BF Industries and Defendant H.

4) On October 14, 2011, AF Heavy Industries was selected as the successful bidder of the instant emergency diesel generator. On January 201, 2012, Defendant H, upon introduction by Defendant B, set forth BI in detail the engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine headquarters and nuclear technology department director BI, and BI prepared and submitted a written estimate of KRW 1.5 billion to BI.

5) BI, around February 20, 2012, prepared a written statement of the instant service agreement that specifically attached the details of the budget for construction support technology and services, and obtained approval from the managing director of the business division, and obtained approval from Defendant G, who is a managing director of the entire engine engine. According to the construction support technology budget statement attached to the written statement of written request, according to the document of written request for construction support, BI stated 474 days for a special class engineer, 1274 days for a high class engineer, 1,275 days for a high class engineer, 1,905 days for a middle class engineer, 2,116 days for a middle class skilled technician (Evidence record 1221 pages) as required for the instant service (Evidence record).

6) On February 28, 2012, prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract, the director BT of the Department of Nuclear Energy in the Department of AF Heavy Industries conducted an actual inspection of AG on February 29, 2012, and prepared a business trip report as follows (Evidence Records 1277 pages).

As a result of evaluation of technology and quality with respect to preliminary suppliers:1) AF Engineering (State) nuclear power-proof 1st degree reinforced concrete structure, and a design supplier of a stePIC-SN acquisition and Hanwon as a design engineer prior to the mobilization, and the design and service management are maintained properly: Permission 2) AG (State) - AG (State) technical consulting service company as a technical consulting service company for CF 1,2 radiation audit equipment (2007). However, the technical consulting service company as a technical consulting service company did not have certification 901 and related Cert (Certificate 9001 and related Cert). However, the technical advisory manpower is not retained when performing the construction due to lack of technical advisory manpower, and the external manpower is recruited and managed when performing the construction, but the contents are composed of QAMan MIS ISO.As a result of technical evaluation and quality assurance evaluation, it is not acceptable.

7) On March 2, 2012, BI approved such a business trip report by BT, and “AG is fine due to the lack of the supply of a good,” and revoked the opinion of “unsatisfying” on the ground that it is fine,” and changed the results of the inspection by the opinion of the Party met (Permission).

8) On March 16, 2012, AF Heavy Industries entered into the instant service agreement with Defendant H with respect to the verification of technical data and consulting on construction support.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, when the specific progress of the instant service agreement as seen above is the falsity of the instant service agreement, it is apparent that the instant service agreement was a formally false contract that the AF Heavy Industries entered into in order to give a bribe to the Defendant A, and thus, the Defendants and the defense counsel’s arguments in this part are rejected.

1) The process of executing the instant service contract on a deferred basis

① Prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract, the Defendants decided to give Defendant H the services of the AF Heavy Industries to a business entity run by Defendant H without any prior review on the need for the services. The instant service contract was determined in advance prior to the successful bid of the instant emergency diesel generator, etc., which is the premise for the performance of the services.

② After first setting the amount of KRW 1.5 billion for the service of the service company and the service company, the Defendants determined the contents of the instant service agreement according to the services that AG performed. In other words, Defendant B demanded BI to enter into the instant service agreement by specifying the amount of the service cost of KRW 1.5 billion, and BI consulted with Defendant H on the specific contents of the instant service agreement under the condition that the amount of the service cost of KRW 1.5 billion was determined (Article 5 of the Examination Protocol for Witnesses in the fifth protocol of the trial). BI, in the fifth protocol of the trial, stated the amount of the estimate submitted in the AF Heavy Industries as KRW 1.5 billion for the first time, not for the demand for the reduction of the amount of the estimate written in KRW 1.5 billion for the performance of the department, and accordingly, Defendant H submitted the estimate to Defendant H by raising the amount of KRW 1.5 billion from KRW 1.5 billion to KRW 7 billion.6 billion.

③ The instant service contract is a contract with the main content of “technical data verification and construction support consulting,” and in light of its content, Defendant B, a business unit, among the engine power generation sector, was promoted by the Nuclear Technology Department among the engine power generation sector, and the Department of Nuclear Technology established only the content of the instant service contract at Defendant B’s request (Evidence Records No. 1960-1961). However, Defendant B, who actually promoted the instant service contract, was unaware of the details of the instant service contract, and the company AH did not think that it will perform services worth KRW 1.5 billion (Evidence Records No. 2027).

2) Improperity of the selection of the service company

① As a result of the Plaintiff’s inspection on AG prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract, BG concluded the instant service contract even when it became aware that it is a disqualified company, and cancellation of disqualified opinions.

In particular, this case's service contract was concluded without any specific complementary measures, recognizing the lack of technical advisory personnel required to implement the normal service contract.

(2) Article 7 of the "Technical Support Contract", which is the service contract of this case, provides for service performance workers with strict requirements for their qualifications and qualities, and provides that "if damage occurs to AF Heavy Industries due to failure to meet the qualifications of the service performance workers, it may claim compensation for such damage." However, considering that the other party to the service contract of this case is AG with insufficient technical human resources from the beginning of the service contract of this case, the contract of this case also seems to have been prepared formally.

Pursuant to the Defendants’ assertion that the contract of this case is concluded in the name of AFN and the Korea Electric Association, rather than for offering a bribe to Defendant A, there is no reason for the Defendants to conclude a contract with AG with the detailed AG that is not an official company registered with the AFN and the Korea Electric Association. Even according to the Defendants’ assertion that the contract is concluded by necessity, it is difficult to find grounds for the Defendants to obtain the payment of a contract with AF Heavy Industries, not AH, whose name is relatively known. Rather, in order to raise Defendant H’s legal statement related thereto, i.e., “in order to use the BG funds,” it appears that it is better for the Defendants to conclude a contract using AG that is a single shareholder rather than for a large number of employees of AH (32 pages of the 4th trial record).

3) Failure to provide the service

① Even if Defendant H, like Defendant H’s prosecutor’s statement, performed the instant service at a maximum of two hours a day on an average, Defendant H performed the instant service, Defendant H’s portion of the instant service was very minor in light of KRW 1,002,188,970, which was already realized. 12)

② Compared with the AF Engineering’s budget statement that requires much human resources compared to the instant service, it can be seen that the required human resources of the instant budget statement are considerably exaggerated.

The Defendants asserted that, unlike the initial plan, the estimate of service cost, including design and interview conducted by AF Engineering, exceeds 3.8 billion won, and that, unlike the initial plan, 1.5 billion won is reasonable compared to the initial beauty estimate amount of AF Engineering. (ii) The AF Heavy Industries added important items that were not included in AF Engineering at the time of requesting an estimate to the AF Engineering and the Korea Electric Power Technology to AG in the course of its service contract. However, the Defendants asserted that, as design-related technical document preparation service provided by AFNNing, the input of human resources is much more required than compared to the content of the instant service contract, and that, unlike the AF Engineering affiliate, the AF Heavy Industries and the AF Heavy Industries did not have concluded a new contract under the same terms and conditions as the AG-1 in itself, the Defendants’ assertion that the AF Heavy Industries did not have any sufficient condition to perform the AF Engineering’s own business or that there was no further agreement under the AFT-14 terms and conditions as the AG industry’s new technical human resources and office services.

Defendant H stated that “The budget statement attached to the “material” written by the prosecution was promptly 1.5 billion won (Evidence record 2977 pages) and that Defendant H also stated that the value of the service that Defendant H intended to perform in relation to the instant service contract reaches KRW 500 million in the prosecutor’s office and this court, but it is difficult to believe that there is no objective evidence supporting Defendant H’s unilateral assertion.

4) As to the nature of the part of the service that Defendant H performed on the basis of the instant service contract, since the instant service contract was concluded formally for the offering of bribe, it can be deemed that the first stage of the service was planned to provide “type”, and as seen above, the part of the service actually performed is very little. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the part of the service performed on the end or the corresponding part is merely an incidental cost incurred in receiving brain water under the legal doctrine as seen earlier.

C. The Defendants’ intent to offer the bribe

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendants’ intent of the offering of the instant bribe and the relation to the solicitation thereof can be acknowledged, and thus, the Defendants and their defense counsel’s allegation in this part is not accepted.

1) Unlike the statement in the purport of confession at the prosecution, Defendant B denied the intent of the offering of a bribe at the time in this court, and also states that the content of the report to Defendant G is unclear. However, in light of the following specific statements made by Defendant B at the prosecution, Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement is sufficiently reliable, and Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement is deemed to have been reversed intentionally by Defendant B, who is in the position of executive officer, likely to be at a disadvantage to the AF Heavy industry. Therefore, the part of the statement is difficult to believe.

○ 피고인 H을 만나기 전 상황에 대한 진술2011. 8.경 C으로부터 ‘A을 아는 사람이 있는데, 기술평가에서 우리한테 도움을 줄 수있다고 하니 한 번 만나보라'는 전화를 받았다. 당시 C의 말한 내용은 A이 입찰에 도움을주는 대신 대가를 원하고 있으니 A측 사람을 만나보라는 것이었다(증거기록 2016 1 2017쪽).피고인 과의 대화 내용 진술2011. 9.경 H을 만났을 때, H이 기술평가에서 도움을 주면, 우리한테 용역을 줄 수 있겠느냐'고 말했고, H이 말한 의미는 ‘A이 기술능력평가에서 AF중공업에 도움을 준다면, 자신에게 용역을 줄 수 있겠느냐'고 묻는 취지였다(증거기록 2025쪽).○ 피고인 G에 대한 진술 부분피고인 G에 대한 보고 상황과 관련하여, 이 사건 용역계약이 적법한 용역계약인 것처럼소개하면서 피고인 G에게 ‘수주과정에서 (HI) 도움을 주었으니 AG에 용역을 주면 좋겠다'는 식으로 뇌물성 여부를 불분명하게 보고한 것은 아닌지를 묻는 검사의 질문에 대하여, 피고인 B은 “당시 매우 구체적으로 보고했다. H으로부터 들은 대로 ‘H이 A과 친하다고 한다.H에게 기술자문 용역을 주면 A 부장이 기술능력평가에서 도움을 줄 수 있다고 한다'는 취지를 정확하게 전달하였다. G 상무의 제안에 따라 용역대금이 15억 원으로 결정된 사안인데, 구체적인 보고를 드리지 않았다면 15억 원으로 결정될 수 없었다. A 부장이 기술능력평가에서 도움준다는 약속이 있었기에 G 상무도 15억 원 지출을 결정한 것이다'는 취지로진술하여, 피고인 G에 대한 보고 정황을 상세히 진술하였다(증거기록 2859 | 2860쪽).

In relation to the prosecutor's question that the statement on the circumstances after the successful bid was made to question the contents of the specific learning received from the Defendant A in the process of assessing the technical ability of the instant emergency generator, etc., Defendant B stated to the effect that "after the bid of the instant case, I did not understand what items he would help in. There was no A's speech to help any item, and even after the bid was completed, I did not look at what kind of help could have been accurately. However, I did not help the similar part among the technical capability evaluation items."

2) Defendant G made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that there was no report on the offering of a bribe to Defendant A, and the prosecutor’s office stated that there was a person who assists in the tendering process from Defendant B, and that the said person would have changed the opportunity to participate in the service upon receiving the award of the contract (Evidence No. 2238 pages). Even according to Defendant G’s statement, Defendant G reported its content to Defendant G at the early stage of the instant medicine contract. However, Defendant B entered into the instant service contract with the aim of receiving the award of the contract, and there was no reason to discover the remainder of the facts to Defendant G while Defendant B entered into the instant service contract with the aim of obtaining the award of the contract).

3) In light of the fact that Defendant H and B stated the process of setting the price of the instant service contract as KRW 1.5 billion in KRW H’s proposal, B’s reverse proposal, agreement display, and B’s additional proposal of KRW 1.5 billion in KRW 1.5 billion in KRW, Defendant H and B’s statement that the payment of the instant service contract was set at KRW 1.5 billion in KRW is credibility.

4) While Defendant G consistently stated in an investigative agency and this court that the amount of service costs equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion has been proposed to Defendant B, or that this part of the report has not been received, Defendant G did not actively dispute only the credibility of Defendant H’s statement, and did not actively dispute the background of Defendant B’s false statement or the credibility of the statement. In particular, Defendant G did not state that “I would not make a false statement or cover a misunderstanding with another person in the course of an examination into the counter-examination with Defendant B by an investigative agency,” and “B would not have any falsehood,” but it stated that “B would be free from memory,” “B’s memory and her memory can be different” (Evidence record 2258 pages), and it did not state that Defendant B’s statement was passive, and did not explain the grounds for benefiting it related thereto.

Ⅱ Determination as to whether Defendant A and H have jointly committed the bribery acceptance

1. Summary of the defendant A, B, G and their defense counsel's assertion

A. Defendant A introduced Defendant H to enter into a contract for verifying equipment related to non-commercial diesel power generators, etc. to be supplied to the UAE nuclear power plant entity with UAE industry, and there was no fact that Defendant A received bribe related to his/her duties from the AF secondary industry. Defendant A had a vague expectation that Defendant H would pay personnel expenses to Defendant H after concluding a service contract with the AF Heavy Industries, but there was no fact that Defendant H requested to specify the amount of money.

B. Defendant A and H do not constitute the crime of offering of bribe to Defendant B and G on the grounds that there was no public offering of bribery from AF Heavy Industries.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant A, who had the intention to accept bribe, demanded Defendant A to pay KRW 1 billion at his own share, and entered into the instant service agreement with Defendant H to receive bribe in collusion with Defendant A and H to accept bribe KRW 1,002,188,970 from AF Heavy Industries. As such, Defendant A, B, and their defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable on a different premise.

A. Defendant H consistently stated Defendant A’s demand for KRW 1 billion and the falsity of the instant service agreement in the prosecutor’s office and this court. There is no reason for Defendant H to make a false statement unfavorable to the Defendants even when she has defined the real value of the service that Defendant H directly performed and been punished as the crime of acceptance of bribe. Some defense counsels asserted that Defendant H made a false statement necessary for the maintenance of public prosecution in order to obtain the prosecution’s non-prosecution decision in accordance with the first direction, such as the self-denunciation of the prosecutor’s office, etc. However, the defense counsels’s assertion that only the credibility of Defendant H’s statement is problematic in a situation where the specific statement of Defendant BI, B, and C on the process of concluding the instant service agreement and the statement of Defendant H coincide considerably with that of Defendant H’s statement is rejected.

B. Defendant H immediately rejected the proposal after receiving the first 1 billion won service proposal from Defendant H, and Defendant H did not intend to deliver the amount of KRW 1 billion to Defendant H, Defendant H did not have any reason to refuse a service contract of KRW 1 billion in annual sales of less than KRW 500,000. Defendant H sent the following contents to Defendant H several times from the negotiation process of the instant service contract to the conclusion of the contract. In light of the fact that Defendant A constantly confirmed the entire process of acceptance of bribe and promoted the acceptance of bribe, Defendant A could have led and planned the entire process of the instant service contract for acceptance of bribe from the beginning.

How has been done on January 18, 2012, Defendant A: The defendant H: The defendant is bound to communicate with and wait for the contract as soon as possible. The defendant A has been urged on the slina of the slina of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the slin of the 16th:

피고인 H: 아직 기다립니다.피고인 A : 무슨 이야기입니까?피고인 H: edg 계약이 아직 내부 결재중이라고 하네요,피고인 A : 뭐가 진행이 되어야 다음 일을 진행할텐데. 시간나시는 대로 잠깐 뭘께요.2012. 2. 22.피고인 H : 금요일에 AF에서 오라고 해서 가는데, 이번에 계약할지는 가봐야 알겠습니다.피고인 A: 어제 내가 본사 영업친구들 왔길래 점잖게 뭐라고 했어요.피고인 H : 예 암튼 요청하는게 많네요. 업체 등록하기 위해 QA 실사도 받는다고 하네요.2012.2, 27.피고인 H: 29일 AF에서 실사나옵니다.피고인 A : 네. 고맙습니다.2012. 2. 28.피고인 A : 내일 AF에서 상무, C 부장이 저녁식사하자고 하는데, 계약일정 어떻게 되죠피고인 H : 내일 오후에 실사옵니다. 이번 주에는 계약한다고 지난 주 방문시 말했습니다. 아마 내부규정상 실사 후 계약하려는 모양같아요.피고인 A: 실사 후에 나한테 올 모양이네. 금액 이런 거는 변동없죠?피고인 H: 예, 그런데 할 일이 장난이 아닐 것 같아요. 상무님(피고인 G) 만나시면 하도급업체 검증일을 부탁했으면 해요. 울산가서 이야기했더니 담당자들이 그 부분은 적극적이지 못해서요.피고인 A : 네. 잘 알겠습니다.2012. 2. 29.(피고인 G, C이 서울에서 피고인 A을 만난 날)피고인 H: 오늘 AF 만나시면 이 말씀도 부탁드려요. AF는 지금 국내 및 해외 원전 EDG에 관심을많이 가지고 있구요. 요즘 웨스팅인지 아레바인지 하고도 첩촉 중인데 실무자들이 원전기술능력이나 규제 요건 등에 미숙하여 걱정하고 있습니다. 이 경우 저회 용역통하면 한전, 한수원 및 AH 등이 보유하고 있는 노하우 제공받을 수 있어 좀 더 쉽게 진행 가능하다구요.2012. 3. 2.피고인 H : 실사는 잘 끝났는데 결과는 아직 안 나왔구요. 신용평가서도 제출하라고 해서 준비하는데 1주일 걸립니다.2012. 3. 22.피고인 H : 부장님 계약했습니다.피고인 A : 네 고생했습니다.2012. 3.26.피고인 H: 계약이행증권 끊는데 약간 문제가 있어 지체되다가 방금 발급받아 송부했습니다. 이제계약은 모두 완료되었습니다. 이행방법 및 기성청구 등을 협의하기 위해 금주 중 울산에다시 방문하려고 일정 협의하고 있습니다. 금주에는 함 뵈어야 할텐데 시간 봐주세요.피고인 A : 지금 CF 출장 왔습니다. 목요일쯤 뵙죠?

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A, and D (in Section II, the Defendants refer only to Defendant A and D) and their defense counsel (the judgment on the offering of a bribe for power shock machines)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A

Defendant A only introduced AP to introduce AP and Defendant E so that AP may receive an order for heavy gas analysis device from AF Heavy Industries, and did not receive a bribe from AF Heavy Industries in relation to his duties. Defendant A was unaware of “AF Heavy Industries” and “AP conservation agreement”, and Defendant F delivered KRW 700 million to Defendant A was considered as a money that AO prepared and prepared.

B. Defendant D

1) AF Heavy Industries did not prosecute AO that acquired significant economic benefits by concluding a supply contract for oil gas analysis devices with AF Heavy Industries, and only prosecuted Defendant E, F, and D, which constitutes abuse of public prosecution rights as a discriminatory indictment. This part of the facts charged is also the same in light of the comparison with the facts charged against Defendant A and H, who were charged as joint principal offenders of acceptance of bribe.

2) Defendant D did not have expressed the intent to offer a bribe to Defendant A, and there is no fact that Defendant D requested AO to deliver money to Defendant A with respect to the contract for placing an order for heavy gas devices. Defendant D only delivered to AO on or around August 2011 that “AF Heavy Industries ordered AP to pay an amount of KRW 700 million as agreed upon by AO,” and there is no fact that AO transferred to Defendant A the phrase that AF Heavy Industries subsequently preserved AP when it takes place KRW 700 million.

3) Since the source of KRW 700 million delivered to Defendant A in relation to the change of power pressure is AP, the subject of the offering of a bribe to Defendant A is AO and AV, and Defendant D constitutes the aiding and abetting of the offering of a bribe, separate from that of Defendant D’s aiding and abetting, the crime of offering a bribe to Defendant A is not established.

2. Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion of abuse of public prosecution power

A. In a case where the prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her discretionary power to prosecute a substantial disadvantage to the defendant, it may be denied the validity of the indictment due to abuse of his/her discretionary power. However, the mere negligence in the course of performing his/her duties is insufficient to recognize the arbitrary exercise of the authority to prosecute, and at least dolusent or complete intent is recognized. Meanwhile, the prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to institute a public prosecution in consideration of the suspect’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. in a case that constitutes the elements of a crime. Thus, the prosecution following the exercise of discretionary power cannot be deemed an abuse of the authority to prosecute insofar as it is deemed that the institution of a public prosecution significantly deviates from the discretionary power above. Accordingly, where a public prosecution is instituted against a certain person, the mere fact that a person who was not prosecuted despite having committed an act that constitutes the same or somewhat serious constituent elements as the person who has been prosecuted does not constitute abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do2194).

B. In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, the prosecutor’s filing of a prosecution only against Defendant E, F, and D without instituting A0 in the instant case cannot be deemed to have arbitrarily exercised his right of prosecution by significantly deviating from his right of prosecution discretion to discriminate against the above Defendants, and thus, the Defendant D and the defense counsel’s assertion in this part is rejected.

1) Defendant H received KRW 1,002,188,970 from AF Heavy Industries to a corporate bank account under the instant service agreement concluded by AF Heavy Industries and delivered KRW 48,50,000 among them (= KRW 150,000 + KRW 258,50,000) to AM and Defendant A, and used the remainder for his own interest. As such, Defendant H actively used the amount received from AF Heavy Industries, its nature and circumstances are distinguishable from AO.

2) Before receiving the price for goods under the instant order for heavy gas analysis device contract with AF Heavy Industries, AF Heavy Industries delivered KRW 700 million in cash to Defendant F. According to the instant crime, AP was terminated due to the termination of the U.S. contract with the U.S. Heavy Gas Supplier and the agency contract, which is currently a supply company of heavy gas analysis devices, and the prior disbursement of KRW 700 million cannot be compensated from AF Heavy Industries. 18)

② During the process of preparing KRW 700 million, AO was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months on December 13, 2012 from Busan High Court (2012-564) to partially embezzled the funds of AP corporation, etc.

3. Determination on the remainder of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Details of the instant case

The details of the instant case acknowledged by the foregoing evidence are as follows.

1) Defendant E paid the amount of KRW 700 million out of the successful bid price to Defendant A when the AF Heavy Industries is awarded a successful bid for the instant power transformation machine between Defendant A and Defendant A, while paying the amount of KRW 700 million to Defendant A through AP.

2) Around August 2011, Defendant F decided that Defendant F personnel 1% when Defendant A awarded a contract for an alternative voltage period for power use. He finally heard that the amount was determined as KRW 700 million, and reported the content of Defendant F to D (Article 4 of the 7th trial record on the witness F);

3) Around August 2011, Defendant D demanded the delivery of KRW 700,000 to Defendant A, as agreed upon, around August 201.

4) Around August 2011, Defendant D expressed his intent that he would be treated without any problem in return for the promise to exclude Defendant E from his business (Evidence Records 1879 pages) when he was aware of Defendant A’s misconduct (Evidence Records 1879 pages).

5) Around January 2012, Defendant F reported that the sum of the corporate tax and financial expenses to be paid to D was confirmed to prepare approximately KRW 1 billion with AP (Evidence No. 1881 of the evidence record).

6) Defendant D made phone calls to the BP of the Design Division on January 2012, 2012, and agreed in the Design Book. The F will have been delivered to the partner staff and the F will have been able to consult about the lower examination (the second page of the 7th trial record).

7) Defendant F, upon receiving Defendant D’s instructions, should pay BP prior to making the rebates from “AP” around that time, and us should preserve it. Upon consultation with AV, TPP was to make up for its operating expenses by means of additional order order or adjustment of the scope of duties, not a unit price discount, rather than a unit price discount method. At the time, TPP was to be examined with pride on AV that is likely to cause unclear preservation commitments of AF Heavy Industries. Continuedly, Defendant FF Heavy Industries delivered an intention to “AF Heavy” (Evidence No. 1882 and 7 of evidence record No. 10 of the Examination Protocol of Witness BP among the trial records).

(b) Relevant legal principles;

The realization of the intent of accepting acceptance of a bribe by a donor is the realization of the donor’s contribution, and the specificness of the donor should be understood from the perspective of the beneficiary’s burden of benefit related to the act of duties. Thus, even if money, valuables, and property gains are not necessarily required to be directly received between the donor and the consignee, and among them, a third party received money in the manner of redemption from the donor after the third party first paid the money to the donor on behalf of the donor and then received the money from the lender, the mere fact that there exists an agreement between the donor and the consignee about the provision of money and the understanding as to the method of payment is recognized, cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of acceptance of bribe solely on the ground that the money and valuables have not been directly received between the donor and the consignee (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8568, Jun. 12,

C. Determination

In full view of the above legal principles and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant D, in collusion with Defendant F, E, and the instant bribe offering crime, offered a bribe of KRW 700 million in total to Defendant A, and Defendant A fully recognizes the fact that the said Defendants received a bribe of KRW 700 million from the said Defendants, and thus, the Defendants and their defense counsel’s allegation on this part is rejected.

1) Defendant D consistently denies the instant criminal facts in the prosecution and this court.

However, Defendant D made a statement to the effect that “A” requires money from the prosecution, and that it takes a benefit through AP, and that “AF Heavy Industries ordered AP to provide benefit to A” (which is 806 pages of evidence records) and “AF Heavy Industries ordered AP to provide benefit to A” (which means that AF Heavy Industries cannot directly deliver the money of AF Heavy Industries, but the AF Heavy Industries cannot directly deliver it to AP, which means that “AF Heavy Industries ordered a witness to provide part of the price on the face of the week” (Article 20 of the Examination Protocol of D in the 7th trial record), separate from its criminal facts, AF Heavy Industries is affirmed.

2) With respect to the contents of consultation with AV, BP stated that the investigation agency and this court did not discuss the way for AF Heavy Industries to minimize its profits and to compensate for its losses if damage occurs, not the way for AF Heavy Industries to provide a legacy gas analysis device to AP (Article 9.3 of the Examination Report on Witness BP in the 7th trial record) and that "AM, who managed the cash of the Defendant, was unaware of "AF or AP" through AF in the prosecutor's office and this court, was aware that "AF was aware of money received from AF," and that "AF was aware that part of the money it kept was money received from AF" (Article 7 of the Examination Report on Witness AM in the 7th trial record).

4) Since orders for heavy gas analysis devices are in charge of development department, even though there was no reason for Defendant F to participate in the order of the AP heavy gas analysis device after the award of the change pressure device for the instant power generation, Defendant D and F were actively involved in this part of the order and the cooperation with BP in preserving business expenses (Evidence No. 2041 of the record).

5) In addition, in light of the circumstances such as ① the amount of the offer of a bribe to Defendant A was reduced according to the final award amount of the instant electric voltage change, ② the amount of the offer of a separate monetary offer requested by Defendant E to the AF Heavy Industries; ③ the amount of the bribe of KRW 700 million was already determined before the specific contract was concluded between AP and the AF Heavy Industries, the AP’s offering of a bribe cannot be deemed as the subject of the offer of a bribe to Defendant A. Meanwhile, Defendant D and the defense counsel did not approve or instruct the delivery of KRW 700 million to Defendant A, and there was no fact reported by Defendant F after the fact. Defendant F also reported the delivery of KRW 700 million to Defendant D, unlike the explicit statement, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s direct statement to the effect that it did not directly deliver the money to Defendant D’s attorney for the offering of a bribe to Defendant D without any specific instruction to Defendant D’s 1, 2000 million. However, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that it did not directly comply with the aforementioned Defendant D’s assertion.

IV. Judgment as to Defendant C (In IV., the Defendant refers only to Defendant C) and his defense counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

A. At the time of delivering Defendant H’s contact information to Defendant H, there was no perception or intent of offering of a bribe at the time of the Defendant’s delivery, and the Defendant thought that Defendant H intended to enter into a service contract by using the connection of Defendant A without knowing that Defendant A demanded a bribe in the AF Heavy Industries.

B. Since the Defendant’s act of introducing the instant case cannot be deemed as an act of crime, there is no functional control over the Defendant through the intrinsic contribution of the instant crime of offering of bribe. Even if the Defendant is recognized as a joint principal offender of offering of a bribe, the Defendant’s proposal was deemed to be beneficial to the AF Heavy Industries, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as having to introduce B head office to Defendant H, and thus, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of offering of a bribe as there is no likelihood of expectation for lawful act.

2. Determination

A. The offering of a bribe at the time of the introduction of the instant case was conducted 22)

In light of the above evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the defendant can be found to have intentionally provided the offer of a bribe to the defendant A, and thus, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion in this part is not accepted.

1) The Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the instant service was not reported by the low-income bracket, but that “A was expected to receive help from A and that the service was given at the low-income level” (Evidence Records 2052-2053 pages) and acknowledged that Defendant H’s proposal was clearly aware at the time of the instant introduction.

2) At the time of “the public prosecutor’s question asked for the reasons why Defendant H’s illegal offer of bribe was not rejected by the prosecution, the AF Heavy Industries was paying considerable attention to the pre-company in order to be awarded a successful bid for an emergency generating machine, etc. AF Heavy Industries first proposed by the tendering officer. In the situation where A, a tendering officer, first of all, he stated to the effect that “it was difficult to see the contact point of the forfeited head office B, with the forfeited head office B, because it was not improper,” and that “it was difficult to see the situation in which he should personally operate the business and raise the performance (Evidence Record 1573 pages),” and refers to the specific situation at the time when the AF Heavy Industries could not refuse the proposal of Defendant H due to the expectation of the personal performance.

3) Meanwhile, the Defendant’s confession in the prosecution against the intent and awareness of the offering of a bribe

Unlike the statement, the defendant's statement is denied in this court, but it is difficult to believe that the defendant's statement in court is in light of the specific and consistent statement in repeated investigative agencies several times.

B. Whether functional control exists

In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion in this part is rejected, as it is acknowledged that the Defendant had functional control over the instant crime of offering of bribe through its essential contribution.

1) Upon Defendant H’s request for the offering of a bribe to Defendant A, the Defendant informed Defendant B of the contact details of this part of the forfeited right within the head office, and introduced Defendant H to Defendant B.

2) Ordinaryly, a bribe is being delivered closely so as not to be exposed to the outside. In particular, inasmuch as a bribe crime is highly likely to be easily exposed to a large scale of organization members, it is very important to find out the core members with positive intent and authority regarding the offering of a bribe within the organization, and the process is also to be carried out closely. Nevertheless, among large enterprises in Korea, the Defendant, who is the major director of the large company in Korea, requested a bribe expected to be high in amount from Defendant H to the effect that the head office in charge of decision-making on the offering of a bribe directly connected to the request for the offering of a bribe and the result of the introduction of a bribe and the crime of offering a bribe were conducted immediately after the conclusion of the service contract. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been aware of the instant act of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s final act of contributing to the offer of a bribe through the contract of this case, i.e., the degree of functional control after the conclusion of the service contract of this case.

C. Whether there exists a ground for exclusion from liability

As above, the Defendant intentionally introduced the offer of a bribe to Defendant A, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the Defendant does not have any possibility of expectation of lawful act, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel do not accept this part of the allegation.

V. Determination as to Defendant E (the defendant in V. refers only to Defendant E) and his defense counsel’s assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The crime of offering of a bribe by Defendant D and F is a separate offer of a bribe separate from the Defendant’s act of offering a bribe to be excluded from the UAE project of this case, which is a transformation for the military power of this case, around September 201, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had functional control over the crime of offering a bribe by Defendant D and F.

B. On September 201, the Defendant excluded from the Defendant’s military force voltage service, and went away from the recruitment relationship with Defendant A, and thus, is not liable as a joint principal offender with respect to the offering of a bribe. At the time when the Defendant was excluded from the instant service, the Defendant clearly expressed his intent not to receive any more money to the Defendant, and Defendant D, the Defendant’s commercial name, also made clear that he would no longer proceed with the Defendant’s business of giving money. Thus, it is unreasonable to demand that the Defendant make efforts to restrain the Defendant from offering of a separate bribe, which was made after the Defendant escaping, against Defendant D and F.

2. Facts

A. The details of the instant case acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence are as follows.

1) The Defendant agreed with Defendant A to pay to Defendant A an amount equivalent to 1% of the successful bid price for the transformers for the instant electric power plant (Evidence Records 1423, 1878 pages) where AF Heavy Industries is awarded a successful bid for the instant electric power plant (Evidence Records 1423, 1878 pages).

2) At the time, the Defendant received a demand from Defendant A to create money through AP (Evidence No. 993 pages), and the amount of KRW 1 billion is to be paid to Defendant A after the successful bid of the change voltage device for the power of this case. At that time, Defendant F began consultations with AO and oil gas analysis devices according to the Defendant’s instruction.

3) At the time of consultation with Defendant F, the AO gradually raised the amount to be compensated through a contract for the supply of oil gas analysis devices (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”), as KRW 1.2 billion, KRW 1.5 billion, and KRW 1.7 billion. In light of such AO’s attitude, Defendant F was suspected of not obtaining personal benefits through the instant contract.

4) After receiving a proposal from AO to pay KRW 700 million to A around August 201, the Defendant proposed that the amount of bribe would be KRW 700 million to Defendant A, and around that time, AO tried to first provide money to Defendant A, which would incur a lot of financial costs, and as E would demand personal money, E would be able to prepare a degree of KRW 2 billion, which would be borne. After that, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that “IO and the Defendant would not have any personal benefit because they would be doubtful that they would have obtained personal benefit by using them,” and that “I would not contact the Defendant” (the fifth public trial record).

5) Around that time, Defendant F was exposed to the suspicion of Defendant D, a commercial person, and confirmed that Defendant A was to take 1% of the successful bid price and that Defendant A was to take 700 million won through AP according to Defendant D’s instruction.

6) Defendant D, which confirmed the Defendant’s misconduct through A0 and Defendant A, said to the effect that around September 201, Defendant D did not make the Defendant, and that “she would not make and deliver money without making it possible to see all the Defendant’s losses from the instant business.”

7) After consultation with AV and BP, Defendant F agreed to additionally pay an amount equivalent to KRW 1.18 million in total, including the tax and financial expenses to be paid to Defendant A, KRW 1.8 million, in the instant contract amount.

8) Defendant F delivered KRW 700 million to Defendant A three times from February 2012 to March 2 of the same year.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a co-principal, when one of the competitors leaves from his/her competitive relationship before the others reach an action, he/she shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the following acts of the other competitors. However, the deviation from the competitive relationship is necessary to resolve the functional control over the person in charge of the contest. As such, when the contest participated in the leading process of the contest and has an impact on the execution of the others, the contest may not be deemed to have depart from the competitive relationship solely on the grounds that the contest was detained, unless he/she actively made efforts to prevent the crime, etc. and did not remove the influence on the execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6924, Sept. 9, 2010).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged in Section 2, and the following circumstances, the Defendant’s leading participation in the instant recruitment and had an impact on the execution of other competitorss, insofar as the Defendant did not block the crime of offering of the instant bribe by Defendant D and F, the circumstance that the Defendant was excluded from the instant business (it may be the circumstance that the Defendant did not meet the requirements of the suspension of his own free will, which can be seen as being contained in the foregoing legal doctrine) cannot be deemed to have withdrawn from the instant crime of offering of the bribe, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s allegation in this part is rejected.

1) After receiving a request for the offer of a bribe from Defendant A through AP, the Defendant: (a) provided money to Defendant A; and (b) led and planned the core tools of the instant offering of a bribe to preserve the amount of the bribe in the process of ordering the AF Heavy Gas Analysis Devices to AP.

2) At the time when the Defendant was excluded from the instant business, the amount ordered by the heavy gas analysis device against AP was not specified. However, with respect to the essential matters or important matters of the offering of a bribe, such as the method of raising funds in connection with the offering of a bribe and the method of paying the funds raised, there was an alternative agreement between the Defendant, the Defendant, the Defendant, the D, and the F involved in the instant crime. After the Defendant was excluded from the current pressure business of the instant case, the crime of offering a bribe conducted by the Defendant D, and F was determined within the framework of the Defendant’s fixed amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed a separate crime that is distinct from the crime of offering a bribe offered by the Defendant.

3) Defendant F did not first take part in the instant crime by the Defendant’s exclusion from the instant business, but rather took part in the instant crime according to the Defendant’s instruction even before the Defendant’s exclusion from the business, and thus, it is difficult to give separate meaning to Defendant F’s act performed after the Defendant was excluded from the business. In particular, even at the time of the Defendant’s involvement in the instant business, the Defendant thought that the Defendant would enter into a design with respect to the conclusion of a specific product supply contract for the oil gas analysis device (Evidence No. 536 pages), and the design division’s BP takes charge of the actual conclusion of a specific contract and the orders (Evidence No. 536 pages). Moreover, the essential part of the instant crime of offering of bribe does not vary.

4) Although it is deemed that the Defendant did not have any specific preservation amount and the amount ordered by the oil gas analysis device at the time of consultation between the Defendant and the Defendant, such circumstance is not based on the intent of Defendant A, a consignee, but rather due to financial conflict with the Defendant seeking to obtain personal benefits during the instant order, and it is difficult to have a great meaning in such inconsistency.

5) Although Defendant D said that he would not give more money to Defendant D, it is recognized that he would exclude the Defendant from the instant business, Defendant D would not give more money, Defendant D’s assertion appears to be merely an expression of the remainder of his labor, in light of the attitude that Defendant D had taken on the Defendant A immediately after that time. Moreover, Defendant D’s promise to pay a considerable amount of bribe to Defendant A who exercises a huge influence on the entire process of power transformation contract and purchase, and that it is not easy for Defendant AF Heavy industry to accept a considerable disadvantage in the future and at the successful bid price, it appears that the Defendant, who was aware of the situation of AF Heavy Industries at the time of the instant bribe offering, led to the instant bribe offering, was sufficiently aware that such expression of Defendant D was not a strong intention.

6) Although Defendant A also expressed that he would no longer receive any money from the Defendant around September 201, Defendant A expressed his intent to not receive any money. However, such intent is merely a reference from the process of Defendant A’s expression of extreme in favor of the Defendant, and from the perspective of Defendant A, who had been in charge of the business, the fact that Defendant A would not waive it without any condition under the circumstances in which the conditions of a large amount of bribe agreed in advance was fulfilled according to the award of the AF Heavy Industries. As such, the mere fact that Defendant A expressed such intent does not constitute the crime of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have deserted from the criminal act of this case.

VI. Determination on Defendant H (the Defendant referred to Defendant H only as Defendant H) and his defense counsel’s assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant only cooperates with the crime of bribery according to Defendant A’s instructions. As such, the Defendant is merely an aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the crime of bribery, and the Defendant cannot be held held liable for joint principal offense of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. As the Defendant constitutes a third party under Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act, the crime of acquiring a third party Bribery shall be applied to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant committed the crime of bribery as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment in collusion with the Defendant A, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s allegation in this part is not accepted.

1) The Defendant, in relation to the instant service agreement, tried at the prosecutorial office, to have the share in the instant service contract, as a matter of course, regardless of whether it is a form of contract or an actual contract with the service performance, and to have no share in the instant service contract. Na), stated to the effect that it would have been able to have a certain part of the contract (the eight pages of the suspect examination of the prosecution by the Defendant H on June 28, 2013), and recognized that the Defendant tried to promote considerable economic benefits through the instant service contract rather than simply intended to serve as a counter for delivering a bribe to the Defendant A (the eight pages of the suspect examination by the prosecutorial office against the Defendant H on June 28, 2013), and in fact, the Defendant proposed the service of KRW 1 billion, the amount the Defendant’s demand for the service was the same as the amount of the Defendant’

2) The Defendant: (a) actively negotiated and decided on the terms and conditions of the instant service contract with the AF Heavy Industries so that the instant service contract for acceptance of bribe can have a normal form of contract; and (b) was in charge of performing an important role in the completion of the instant crime of acceptance of bribe, such as changing the other company of the service contract from AH to AG for the convenience of preparing cash.

3) After the conclusion of the instant service contract, the Defendant offered to Defendant A a proposal of KRW 700,000,000, which was reduced to KRW 1 billion as originally demanded by Defendant A and carried out an active role in relation to the distribution of bribe received.

4) From July 10, 2012 to March 8, 2013, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1 billion from AF Heavy Industries for the instant service contract, but Defendant paid only KRW 300 million to Defendant A until January 2013, most of the remaining KRW 700 million for the business operation expenses and private purposes.

B. Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act provides that the act of delivering money or goods to a third party for the purpose of accepting a bribe or delivering a bribe delivered to a third party with the knowledge of the fact that it constitutes an independent element of the crime of offering a bribe under Article 133(1) of the same Act and the crime of offering a bribe is punished as a crime of offering a bribe. Of these, the crime of delivering a bribe by a third party is established when the third party, who is not a person who has received a bribe or a bribe, knowingly, knowing that it is money or goods to be delivered by a third party who is not a person who has received a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10601, Mar. 14

As seen above, Defendant H and A constitute a co-principal of the crime of acceptance of bribe, and it is evident that in light of the above legal principle, the defendant who is the consignee cannot be applied to the crime of acquiring a third-party bribery. Accordingly, this part of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1. The reasons for sentencing are as follows: (a) With respect to the ‘unfair action related to bribery' which is a special factor among the sentencing guidelines, the prosecutor asserts that there is a defendant AF Heavy Industries'''s illegal action related to the criminal facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ruling based on the Korea-China Audit and Inspection Report stating that if the defendant A could not become a successful bidder if the defendant did not look at the convenience of the AF Heavy Industries, the AF Heavy Industries could not be seen as both the emergency power plant of this case and the two military power plant of this case. The defendant A's illegal action related to the bribery of this case is not directly related to the criminal facts of this case because it is not included in the facts of this case; (b) there is a meaning of the ‘normal action' which becomes a special factor among the sentencing guidelines for the defendants; (c) therefore, it appears that most of the suspects in the prosecutorial office of this case did not appear to have been admitted as evidence in the process of the examination of the defendant's complaint related to the AF Heavy Industries of this case.

2. Sentencing criteria:

A. Defendant A1) The scope of applicable sentences under the law: Imprisonment of 10 to 45 years (a) (a fine of 2,004,377,940 to 7,516,417,275)

2) Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) - Crimes in Decision 2

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 6 (at least 500 million won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd : positive requirements

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, Imprisonment for not less than 11 years, arms

3) Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) - Crimes in Paragraph 3 of the Judgment

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 6 (at least 500 million won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd : positive requirements

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, Imprisonment with labor for not less than 11 years, acceptance of bribe

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribes, Type 2 (at least KRW 10 million up to KRW 30 million up to KRW 10 million) (the scope of recommending punishment), the basic area of imprisonment, one year to three years

(v) the scope of recommendations for all crimes;

At least 11 years of imprisonment (limited to the lower limit of the recommended sentencing criteria because there are concurrent crimes of breach of trust against which the sentencing criteria are not set according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes).

B. Defendants B, C. G

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2) Bribery - The crime of Paragraph 2 of the Judgment

[Determination of Type] Bribery, Bribery, and Type 4 (at least KRW 100 million)

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: A case where the receiver complies with the affirmative demand of the receiver.

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, 2 years to 3 years. Defendant D, E, and F

1) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment of one month to five years); from the offering of a bribe to the offering of a bribe, paragraph 3 of the judgment

[Determination of Type] Bribery, Bribery, and Type 4 (at least KRW 100 million)

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: A case where the receiver complies with the affirmative demand of the receiver.

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, 2 years to 3 years

(d) Defendant H: Offenses against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) - Offenses No. 2

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 6 (at least 500 million won)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 9 years to 12 years

3. Determination of sentence:

(a) Defendant A: 15 years of imprisonment and fine of 3,500,000 won; and

1) As to the prosecutor’s oral opinion

In light of the fact that Defendant A was already sentenced to five years of imprisonment in the case of forgery of test report, etc., Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight years with prison labor in consideration of the fact that Defendant A contributed to the reduction of nuclear power plant expenses by actively cooperating in investigation in the nuclear power plant case, etc. This is the statutory punishment of crimes (a life imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten years) under paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment, the sentencing guidelines (a period of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 11 years, which is the subject of aggravated punishment, and life imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 11 years), and the sentencing guidelines as above (a comparison 29 of the amount of acceptance of bribe to Defendant D, the person who provided the bribe of this case, and five years of imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor for Defendant D, the public prosecutor of Korea, who provided the bribe of this case, and for G, respectively, it appears that

Accordingly, we will examine whether Defendant A contributed to the establishment of the nuclear power plant and whether the contribution can be greatly reflected in the sentencing of this case.

Although the record of this case does not have any direct data to the effect that Defendant A actively cooperates in investigation in nuclear power plant cases, there is no direct data to find out the situation that Defendant A actively cooperates in investigation. However, in other cases of corruption crimes involving nuclear power plant, which are recently proceeding by this court, part of the circumstances that Defendant A actively cooperates in investigation is confirmed, such circumstance may constitute sentencing factors favorable to Defendant A (in principle, this part should have been submitted as sentencing materials of this case by the defense counsel or the prosecutor).

However, in full view of the fact that only the health team and the sentencing guidelines prescribe the weight of the sentencing factors as mitigation factors, but the cooperation in the investigation of other cases is not specified as mitigation factors, and the considerable part of the other Han-source corruption crimes revealed by the investigation cooperation of the defendant A is not only a crime due to the ordinary payment acts against the defendant's superior, etc., but also a crime due to the defendant's ordinary payments to the defendant A's superior, which is not large in this case, and the fact that the ordinary payment acts against the defendant A's superior confirmed in this circumstance seems to be considerably poor, it cannot be maintained that the defendant A was not prosecuted by his act until now, and that the defendant had already been subjected to the prior action due to the investigation cooperation in this part.

Therefore, even if the court in a criminal trial determines the amount of punishment for the defendant identical with or lower than the prosecutor’s previous opinion, and the court imposes a sentence higher than the prosecutor’s previous opinion, it takes full account of the circumstances in which the defendant or his family would not suffer a considerable mental pain, it cannot be said that the defendant A, who is arguing that, without any reflectivity in this case, he merely received money from AO and Defendant H for personnel expenses, and that he did not receive any bribe related to his duties from AF Heavy Industries, cannot be punished to reflect the purport of the prosecutor’s previous sentence in a criminal trial.

2) As to the sentencing factors favorable to Defendant A except the Prosecutor’s previous opinion. Defendant A was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years in the recent case, such as fabrication of the test report by this court. In this case, Defendant A may be sentenced to a fine for most of the Defendant’s property, as well as imprisonment with prison labor, is concurrently imposed, or may be confined in a labor station for a prolonged period corresponding to the amount of fine that has not been executed after the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor. Defendant A is a deemed public official.

3) Unfavorable factors of sentencing

① Defendant A was the person responsible for the purchase department in charge of the entire process from bidding of core parts supplied before the center to the contract, and was seriously damaged in fairness in performing duties concerning the purchase and execution of core parts that require high level safety due to the instant crime.

② Defendant A actively demanded a bribe to AF Heavy Industries by taking advantage of his/her position, and planning and realizing the crime of bribery to which he/she would directly conclude a service contract and a contract for the issuance of goods is very poor. In particular, Defendant A may not be found to have any reflective aspect, such as denying most of his/her criminal conduct during the instant trial process, and disputing the subject of the offering of bribe.

③ Defendant A’s total amount of bribe received as a crime under paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment of Defendant A reaches KRW 1,702,188,970 (i.e., KRW 1,002,188,970 + KRW 700,000,000, and each of the above individual crimes also constitutes the category 6 (at least 500,000) of the bribe accepted as a crime under paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment of Defendant A;

④ In particular, even though Defendant A was the chief of Hanwon, the officer of the large enterprise located in the Republic of Korea’s territory directly Cheongnam in order to obtain her work between them (Defendant D) and to directly conduct personnel management (Defendant G), Defendant A was under the influence of taking advantage of his occupational position against those related to the nuclear power plant (the Defendant G).32)

⑤ In light of the fact that Defendant A’s strict injury and enormous amount of acceptance of bribe, etc., Defendant A does not seem to have a practical point in the recent corruption crimes related to Hanwon.

4) Conclusion

Punishment of 15 years of imprisonment and fine of 3,500,000,000 won corresponding to the criminal facts committed by Defendant A shall be imposed against Defendant A.

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months; and

Defendant B was directly in charge of the crime of offering of a bribe in this case, which pretended to be a service contract. In that sense, the nature of the crime is not weak. In particular, unlike the statement made by the prosecution for the purpose of a specific confession, Defendant B, in contrast to the statement made by the prosecution, denies his criminal act without any explanation that it would be acceptable in this court, and there is also poor circumstances after the crime. Defendant B was not in the highest position in the decision making process within the AF Heavy Industries, and considering that there was no special criminal record other than the previous one, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months is inevitable.

C. Defendant C and F: (a) The crime of offering of a bribe of this case by Defendant C and F for three years of suspended sentence of two years for each of the two years of imprisonment is not against the nature of the crime. In particular, in the case of Defendant C, the crime of offering of a bribe of this case is not good after the crime is committed, such as denying the intent of offering a bribe of this case, and denying one’s criminal act. However, in consideration of the favorable sentencing factors, Defendant C’s participation in the crime of offering a bribe of this case is relatively weak; (b) Defendant F is against the confession of one’s crime; and (c) Defendant F is against the other’s participation in the crime of offering a bribe of this case; and (d) Defendant F is against the other’s involvement in the crime by his commercial instruction, the suspended sentence against Defendant C is imposed

D. Defendant D and G (hereinafter the Defendants in this paragraph d.): The maximum section of the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court with respect to the offering of bribe in March 3 and June is not less than KRW 100 million. The Defendants offered the bribe amounting to ten times the maximum amount of the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court (Defendant G) and seven times (Defendant D) to Hanwon who is a public official, and the applicable method is also very poor in the nature of the crime by undermining the service contract and the goods issuing contract. Although the Defendants should pursue corporate social responsibility, such as ethical management, etc. as the officers of large companies in the Republic of Korea, the Defendants were led to the instant crime, and the investigative agency took the lead in the instant crime even though they were required to pursue corporate social responsibility as its officers until this court, and the investigative agency has set up statements that do not fit the common sense while denying most of their involvement in this court, and the Defendants shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six years, which deviate from the basic sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court in terms of strict punishment for the offering of bribe to the Defendants.

(e) Defendant E: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

In the case of Defendant E, there is no record of criminal punishment except for the previous conviction of fine, and it constitutes a favorable sentencing factor to the effect that Defendant E was excluded from the instant business and did not participate in the actual bribe of KRW 700 million. However, the exclusion of Defendant E from the instant crime is not by the Defendant’s arbitrary consent, but rather by the Defendant’s arbitrary consent, and is merely a passive exclusion from the business. Therefore, Defendant E was led to the instant crime of offering of a bribe, attempted to obtain personal benefits in the course of the commission of the instant crime, intended to obtain criminal benefits in the course of the commission of the crime, and Defendant E who does not seem to have any reflective character in the investigation agency and this court is inevitable to punish Defendant E. It is inevitable to punish Defendant E with imprisonment for two years.

(f) Defendant H: Five years of imprisonment;

1) As to whether voluntary reduction or exemption is granted

Defendant H and defense counsel asserted that Defendant H’s punishment should be mitigated or exempted in accordance with the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act, as Defendant H and defense counsel had Defendant H report the forgery of the CB’s test report to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, and accordingly, the Prosecutor discovered and investigated the instant crime while the prosecution expanded the relevant investigation due to the former defense. As such, Defendant H and defense counsel asserted that Defendant H’s punishment should be mitigated or exempted, and that Defendant H’s punishment should be mitigated or exempted in accordance with the Criminal Act as Defendant H voluntarily surrendered.

In light of the records, it is difficult to view that Defendant H constitutes a whistleblower prescribed by the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act, or Defendant H voluntarily surrenders to this case. Moreover, mitigation or exemption of punishment prescribed in Article 14 of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act and Article 52 of the Criminal Act constitutes grounds for discretionary mitigation. This court held that there is no need to additionally reduce or exempt Defendant H’s punishment in addition to discretionary mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act. Thus, Defendant H and defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

2) The crime of this case committed by Defendant H, in collusion with Korea-U.S. employees, was committed by a large company in the form of a service contract, and the nature of the crime is very poor. Defendant H performed a considerable role in the implementation of the instant service contract. Defendant H realized a certain portion of his own interest in relation to the distribution of the bribe. However, Defendant H led to the confession and in depth of the instant crime, Defendant A’s active proposal was commenced, and Defendant H’s investigation agency revealed the conspiracy of the instant bribe crime, which is the accomplice of the service contract.

Considering the fact that active statements have contributed considerably to the sentencing factors that are advantageous to the sentencing criteria set by the Supreme Court, the defendant H is sentenced to five years of imprisonment, who deviate from the lower limit of the sentencing criteria set by the Supreme Court.

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

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges 00 00

1) As from January 24, 2011, Hanwon is designated as a “market-type public corporation” under Notice 2011-1 of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the date and time of such designation.

Officers and employees of the Korea Water Supply Agency under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act from the date of the operation of public institutions

In the application, it shall be considered as public officials.

2) The name of this department was changed to the original EPC business office on February 19, 2012.

(iii) an emergency diesel generator is a power generator that supplies urgent electricity for the circulation of a short-time coolant and an alternative exchange;

The power generator is a power generator that operates if the emergency diesel power generator does not operate normally.

4) An enterprise which has the highest score on the total of 'technical ability evaluation' and 'price evaluation score' of the equipment related to UAE in bidding, as a successful bidder.

The technical ability evaluation shall be selected: performance records (30 points), management status (20 points), technology (20 points), proposal

Conformity (if the results of the technical evaluation requested by an ordinary 0 points, -15 points if they are disqualified, -15 points if they are not suitable) and a new delivery evaluation room (execution room)

-0.5 points per case, and maximum -3 points per case, if there has been an overdue or inappropriate matter.

5) It is a Finland company.

6) With respect to this part of the facts charged, the Prosecutor had the head of the AF Heavy Industries Electronic System Business Headquarters and the Department of Engine robot Business.

Defendant C, around January 201, 201, was found to be Defendant A’s Chinese electric power plant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul CD and was found to Defendant A’s fallen to Defendant A.

The request to the effect that "AF Heavy Industries may receive a successful bid on the same attitude as that of personnel management in receipt of the bid."

Defendant A also responded to the purport that “Defendant A was aware of” and Defendant C expressed his intention to offer a bribe at that time.

Defendant A was indicted to the effect that it had already been indicated. On August 201, 201, Defendant A had Defendant H immediately before the end of the year.

In light of the fact that contact with C and confirmation of whether the offering of a bribe is possible, this part of the defendant A's investigation agency

Whether Defendant C had already expressed his intent to offer a bribe to Defendant A around January 201, 201, such as the statement in the statement

Although there is a considerable doubt for Defendant C to offer a bribe to Defendant A from Defendant H, Defendant C has the purpose of offering a bribe.

H’s legal statement on the attitude taken by Defendant H immediately after the delivery of the intent to conclude a service contract;

In other words, "C" is not a problem of decision on the proposal, but a matter of decision at the head office, and "B, the head office of the main office."

The contact point is known to the public, and the contact point is "h", and it has not been well understood at the time.

at the time, in light of the content of “the same” (as at the time, paragraphs 2, 30 pages of the fourth protocol of the examination of the witness H)

Defendant C’s attitude is difficult to see it as the response of the person who already expressed his intention to offer a bribe.

Defendant A only with the statement made by the investigative agency of this part of this part of Defendant A, which is hard to believe with a hot line, Defendant C around January 201.

It cannot be readily concluded that the offer of a bribe was expressed since the day, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it;

This part of the facts charged cannot be accepted.

7) The term “electric power plant” means the electric power plant that sets the voltage of the electricity produced at the atomic power plant for long-range transmission.

8) AV’s period of KRW 1180,000,000,000 to Defendant A, as stated in the notice of acceptance in this Court.

The sum of taxes, financial expenses, etc. at KRW 700,000,000,000 which are stated by an investigation agency, shall be paid by mistake.

'1.180 million won in light of the fact that the statement is made to the effect that it is stated that it is a witness (46 pages of the 7th trial record of witness AV).

This seems to be more correct.

9) Defendant B’s objection to the interrogation of the suspect at issue after consultation with H during the third interrogation of the suspect.

It is clearly memoryd that a report is filed and that a report is received by him, but as stated earlier, G General Manager (Cooperation with H)

(B) Whether there was an accurate memory as to whether there was a talk that he reported to the President of the R or the President of the BS.

(No evidence record 1155 pages), "G General secretary has reported to the head of the headquarters or the president," and shall appear accurately.

Whether or not it was known that the words they reported are not memorys (Evidence No. 1157 pages). The purport is that the phrase “I am not memorys” (Evidence No. 1157 pages).

In light of the stated facts, the relevant suspect interrogation protocol contains the instant bribe against Defendant G’s superior.

It is stated that the fact of grant was reported, which is the content of Defendant B.

the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are not written and are written only in the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution.

In this case where Defendant G’s superior was not prosecuted, the relevant protocol of examination of a suspect in question is eventually concluded.

Defendant G’s circumstances in relation to whether Defendant G impliedly reported the offering of a bribe to his superior companies

It will be meaningful as evidence related to the evidence.

10) However, the argument regarding the "whether the defendant A and H have committed a joint principal offense" as determined in Section II.

11) According to the computation details, the estimate of the AF Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AF Engineering”) attached on the same day is estimated.

405.5, 1,216.5, 1,824.75, 1,824.75, for the personnel required for services of AF engineering;

The amount of 608.25 days for middle-class skilled craftsmen was calculated as direct personnel expenses (2978 pages to 2980 pages).

12) Defendant H’s average 2 hours per day from March 16, 2012 to March 8, 2013 with respect to the instant services by the prosecution.

The statement was made that it was "(Evidence No. 2982)" (Evidence No. 2982), which is the 274th working day excluded from holidays.

Defendant H, even if reflecting the claim of Defendant H to the maximum extent possible, shall be 494 hours in total with respect to the instant service.

As the number of days is 8 hours a day, 61.75 days a day, the defendant H of the High School at the time of the instant service contract

When calculating the required personnel expenses based on the unit wage of KRW 292,388 per day of "high-class skilled craftsmen", the defendant

J’s price for the instant service performance does not extend to KRW 20 million.

13) The inspection of the technical specifications No. 27, based on the "Adjustment of the scope of supply of engineering and technology support" submitted by Defendant G counsel.

Even if only "a summary of the terms of discussion, analysis, and overall priority," this part of the service is a technical specification of the terms of the contract.

Korea in all departments, with a contract in English, which is an overall summary and translated work in Korean.

The translation is conducted in order to properly understand, and the English version of the technical specifications written by Defendant H is translated.

It does not seem that this part of the services could have been properly performed.

14) AF engineering and a considerable number of initial estimates presented by the Korean Electric Technology, taking into account the changes in estimate.

AF Heavy Industries as at the time of the final inspection, only the services of the UAG have been changed to the services of the AF Heavy Industries;

Without any change, it appears that the content of the first estimate is finalized (in accordance with the witness BI’s statement in the court of law).

This part of the documents was prepared by the staff of the AF Heavy Industries on September 3, 2013 during the trial of this case.

(2) No credibility of such data may be easily granted

15) Unlike Defendant E’s behavior revealed in the instant case of voltages with electric power of this case, Defendant B’s service of this case

Defendant B did not reveal any circumstance in which the personal benefit was withdrawn. The service of this case

reporting to Defendant G on the contents of the General Agreement on the Conclusion of the Contract, and impliedly viewing only the bribe of the instant service agreement

No reason can be found.

16) UAE BNP EDG supply works.

17) Although it is irrelevant to the establishment of a crime against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Defendant A is not entitled to this Act.

In this case’s assertion related to the circumstances of this case, KRW 500 million out of the KRW 700 million received from Defendant F, from the beginning.

AO is agreed to be returned to AO, and only the remaining KRW 200 million out of KRW 700 million is received from AO as personnel expenses.

Defendant A asserts to the effect that “A” was granted KRW 70 million from Defendant F. However, Defendant A received KRW 700 million from Defendant F.

on July 3, 2013, 200,000 won among the KRW 700,000,000,000 at the time of interrogation of suspect by the prosecution, AO, and KRW 50,00,000,000,00

AX only stated that it was delivered to AX, but the commitment to return KRW 500,000 to AO was not stated, and this was the same.

his statement was maintained on July 18, 2013 as well as at the time of interrogation (Evidence Record 1426 pages) and changed

Defendant A’s statement in this part of the legal statement is difficult to readily believe. In addition, Defendant A who promised to return KRW 500 million to Defendant AO.

In addition, even though there is no reason to pre-paid only KRW 30 million, Defendant A’s assertion in this part is acceptable.

Defendant A may not return KRW 500,000 to AO at the later place in which Defendant F was present.

It is argued that AO returned only KRW 30 million to AO, but the officer of the Defendant F

Defendant A who was in superior position in the world (Defendant F is a prosecutor's office and in this court the strictness of Defendant A several times in this court.

Defendant F and AF Heavy Industries were aware that the decision was made; and that the decision was made.

Defendant A did not appear to have made any statement at all during the prosecutor’s investigation process in this court.

In full view of the fact that the defendant stated 50 million won as to BU, a subordinate employee, together with the fact that the delivery was made, the defendant

A’s statement in this part is viewed as a false statement distorted in order that Defendant A’s liability for his offense may be mitigated.

(c)

18) As to this, Defendant D’s defense counsel shall receive a return of KRW 530 million out of KRW 700 million delivered by AO to Defendant A.

A. We argue to the effect that a significant portion of damage has already been recovered. According to the AM’s legal statement, this paper argues to the effect that the damage had already been recovered.

The fact that Goin A received a request from APB Q for the return of KRW 500 million after the detention of AO is recognized, but this is so accepted.

The request for return shall be binding on occupational embezzlement and substantial damage recovery to AOP, which is placed in an imminent position.

Defendant A merely sought some assistance from Defendant A, the direct recipient of the embezzled money, and Defendant A

It is difficult to see the attitude to jointly enjoy the benefits of the bribe received by the Defendant. In fact, it is also difficult to see the Defendant.

A It is not clear that the circumstances giving KRW 500 million to AO are not clear (the defense counsel of the defendant A may give such a name from AM.

D. A.O. A.O. on the premise that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she had received KRW 400 million, etc.

Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, Defendant D’s defense counsel that most of the damages incurred to AO was substantially recovered.

We cannot accept the argument.

19) Defendant F denied most of the criminal facts in the prosecution like Defendant D, and Defendant F’s five times during the interrogation of suspect.

The contents of the report to Defendant D, the instructions of Defendant D, the subject of the offering of a bribe to Defendant A, and AV.

All criminal facts, including the contents of consultation with the BP, were led to confessions made by the Defendant F. The statements made by the Defendant F as to the intent of confessions

bP and AV’s specific statements, most consistent, and Defendant F’s denial of the fact of crime in the course of confession statement

in light of the fact that there is a risk of disadvantage to Defendant D and constantly unfortunate appraisal, etc., credibility may be given

High. Meanwhile, Defendant F’s partial statement is not clear, unlike the full confession made by the prosecution, unlike the Defendant F’s statement to the purport of the complete confession.

A statement is also included, but it appears to be based on the human relationship with Defendant D.

There is no great meaning in a partial statement.

20) The witness D’s statement in this part is written as evidence of guilt against Defendant A.

21) Even if this part of Defendant D’s assertion is reasonable, the burden of benefit associated with Defendant A’s occupational act is reasonable.

As long as the subject is obvious that it is a AF Heavy Industries, the judgment of this Court on the subject of the offering of a bribe

shall not affect the course of such activities.

22) Unlike the facts charged, the intent of offering a bribe to Defendant A until the Defendant met Defendant H, as stated in the facts charged.

As seen in the above facts of the crime, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant expressed the above facts of the crime, and therefore the defendant H

It is difficult to view that the defendant had the intention to offer the bribe.

23) The Defendant, prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract in the prosecutor’s office and the instant court, is the Defendant A.

statement that the relationship with H has not been confirmed and that it is not related to the implementation of the instant service contract from C

Defendant A’s statement to the effect that it was received, citing the credibility of the Defendant’s statement. In fact, the crime of bribery in this case was committed.

Gain A's significant statements in prosecutor's office and court are not consistent with the common sense and are not believed to be difficult to believe.

When limited to room or this part, Defendant H voluntarily introduced Defendant H as “A’s seat” from the perspective of AF Heavy Industries.

on the sole ground that it was not possible to enter into a large amount of false services contract without any prior verification procedure.

In the AF Heavy Industries Seoul Office, the defendant who served as a minor contact point is confirmed to the defendant A.

It seems natural to view that Defendant A sought the same. Ultimately, this part of Defendant A’s statement is credibility.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant and his defense counsel.

24) Whether the defendant and his defense counsel agree to give and receive bribe between the defendant and the defendant A.

Although Defendant A had been aware that he was to receive money only from AO, the amount of KRW 70 million delivered to Defendant A.

AF Heavy Industries, which is not AP, is the subject of the offer of a bribe, and therefore, this part of this case’s agreement on a different premise.

Sector The assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

25) The defendant and the defense counsel of the defendant are in the investigative agency and in the court of law the defendant's electrical power of this case.

As to the reasons for exclusion, the defendant tried to acquire personal benefits by consulting the ordering price with the AP.

The purport that there is no fact that the defendant was excluded from the business of this case solely by the misunderstanding of defendant D.

Then, this case’s heavy gas portion, including Defendant A and D who denies the pertinent criminal facts

under the circumstances in which all persons involved in the work of ordering the device are making a statement of the Defendant’s misconduct; and

It is difficult to find a special reason to state false negative facts only against the deceased. In particular, AV is an investigative agency.

In accordance with AO's instructions, "the defendant is entitled to increase the amount of KRW 1.2 billion in the supply contract of this case".

Although the defendant alleged that he should raise 1.7 billion won, he stated that he did not reach an agreement.

(Evidence Records 1508, 8. Examination Protocol 40 on Witness AV in the 8th trial records), personal benefits of the defendant

from the viewpoint of the AF Heavy Industries that preserve the amount of bribe to AP if the purpose of acquiring it is not to obtain it.

In that there is no reason to pay any additional amount in addition to the amount of bribe that should be preserved to AP, this part of this case

Defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

26) The defendant was dismissed from office by the representative director who committed an accomplice after he committed a part of the crime that is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime.

Defendant, if he escaped from the accomplice relationship, but other accomplices continue to commit the remaining crimes thereafter;

Co-operation with respect to the acts committed by the rest of accomplices, unless the rest of the offence was prevented by other accomplices.

The principal offender is liable for a crime (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9927 Decided January 13, 201).

27) The Defendant received the instant service payment from AF Heavy Industries for additional collection in the instant trial process.

The amount equivalent to KRW 193,321,026 was deposited in the corporate bank account (Account Number BV) in the name of the former AG, but the return of this part of the deposit was made (the return of this

In respect of claims, the disposition is prohibited by the court's decision on the preservation for collection) and the amount deposited by the actual defendant

It is the amount that is significantly short of the amount to be paid.

28) BW (the amount of acceptance of bribe KRW 126.5 million, the amount of acceptance of breach of trust KRW 29,755 million, and the amount of acceptance of bribe KRW 29,755 million) and BX (the amount of acceptance of bribe).

The amount of KRW 70 million, the amount of property in breach of trust of KRW 382 million, the amount of property in breach of trust of KRW 382 million, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of seven years, BY (the amount of acceptance of bribe of KRW 230 million, and breach of trust of KRW 20 million

Punishment of 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the amount of 12 million won or more, BZ (the amount of acceptance of a bribe of 100 million won or 330 million won or more, and the amount of acceptance of a bribe of 30 million won or more)

Determination of the preceding seven years' punishment;

29) If the amount of acceptance of a bribe is between KRW 100,000 and KRW 500,000 (basic 7 years - 10 years, aggravated 9 years - 12 years) and the amount of acceptance of a bribe

If 500 million won or more (basic 9 years - 12 years or more, 11 years or more, or 11 years or more), the type of the sentencing guidelines shall be strictly described in the sentencing guidelines.

has been divided.

30) The Defendant who participated in structural corruption causes an accusation of internal corruption from the voluntary motive that the Defendant intended to block a crime.

In this case, it is evident that Defendant A is not a person who filed an internal corruption.

31) On the other hand, Defendant A, in addition to the instant crime prosecuted, has a large number of businesses as much as the Defendant cannot associate with all of the instant offenses.

The defendant A seems to have received a large amount of money from the body (the defendant A shall be subject to three years in addition to the case at the prosecutor's office.

to the effect that 290,00,000 won was received in total from 6 enterprises.

32) In relation to the influence of Defendant A in this Court, Defendant F was primarily the other party to the class of executive officers. A’s large enterprise.

The chief of the department stated to the effect that he could not consult with AP even though he could not consult.

33) Defendant G issued specific guidelines at an investigative agency in the course of negotiations on the instant service payment, such as “B’s speech.”

In light of the fact that the disbursement of such a large amount is not a marable decision-making.”

In light of the above, the attitude of these Defendants is intended to call for or avoid suspicion of their superior's involvement.

No doubt may be raised as Do.