(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.9.4.선고 2015노351 판결

A) ① The Defendant did not request R to grant a scholarship to U via R. (B) The statement of R consistent with this part of the facts charged is not reliable, and, in particular, the part that the Defendant understood to the effect that the Defendant’s wife N would be entitled to a scholarship if the Defendant’s wife N would provide a scholarship, and that the Defendant would be entitled to a scholarship if the Defendant’s wife N would provide a scholarship, is merely an expression of a subjective perception without any ground for R. ③ The statement of R’s wife Q Q with interest is not reliable.

B) On May 6, 2011, T’s amendment of T’s provision on the selection of scholarship students and the payment of scholarships (hereinafter “instant provision”) from abroad to ensure that graduates from overseas universities can be supported as scholarship students was not aimed at giving preferential treatment to S. ② Even if the practitioners of Q were to take the aforementioned measures under the direction of R, this would result from the misunderstanding of R’s U intent. ③ The Defendant did not know that there was no talking that “U is well prepared due to the fact that R was well prepared after R was delivered to the husband’s club on March 6, 201.” (iv) Even if T was to take measures such as amending the provision on the payment of scholarships to give preferential treatment to S, the Defendant did not know that there was no perception that the Defendant would receive a bribe. Therefore, the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that Q would receive a bribe.

C) The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The fact that S has obtained an opportunity to support the scholarship recipient’s selection process in relation to the grant of the opportunity to support the scholarship recipient, alone, is difficult to view that the defendant or S has obtained tangible and intangible benefits, and it is difficult to view that S has the possibility to receive scholarships at the time of subsidization of the above selection procedure, and it is not a bribe under the Criminal Act that S has obtained an opportunity to support the selection procedure of T scholarship recipient’s scholarship recipient. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. Public prosecutor: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the lower court)2

① From the beginning, the Defendant made a solicitation related to the scholarship, ② R consistently stated that “S received a scholarship from theU and delivered it to the Defendant.” 3 U also stated that “I would not refuse the Defendant’s demand in light of the relationship with Q.” ④ U made the S’s recruitment of scholarship students, and provided S’s study funds until before and after the adoption of the pre-employment of the pre-postless, and the “Support for Study Fund”. If the Defendant did not promise to receive a scholarship, the Defendant could be recognized as having promised to receive a bribe in connection with his duties, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to the scholarship student's opportunity to receive a bribe (determination on the legal argument)

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that U’s granting Defendant S an opportunity to support students studying abroad selected in T constitutes a bribe under the Criminal Act.

A) If a person who could not be supported as a scholarship student obtained an opportunity to select the scholarship student, this itself constitutes an interest, which is the content of the bribe in the crime of bribery, and even if such assistance was not guaranteed until the scholarship student was selected as a scholarship student, or it was not actually selected as a scholarship student, there is no reason otherwise.

B) Furthermore, in full view of the following circumstances, the amendment of the provision of this case is recognized to have been made to grant benefits to S who can not be supported as a scholarship student. If so, there was a discussion that there was an opportunity to provide support from the previous date to overseas universities, and even if such discussion was the background of the amendment of the provision, it cannot be deemed as a simple anti-private interest in the amendment of the provision that S would have obtained an opportunity to support scholarship students.

(1) R은 2011. 3. 6. 피고인 부부와의 골ㅍ 만남 직후 S에게 장학금을 지급하려고 하였으나, T 사무국장 W으로부터 이 사건 규정 상 국내 대학 출신에게만 지원 자격이 있으므로 외국에서 대학을 졸업한 S은 장학생으로 지원조차 할 수 없다는 내용의 보고를 받고, 그러한 사정을 U에게 보고하였으며, U의 지시 또는 승인 하에 S이 장학 생으로 지원할 수 있도록 이 사건 규정의 개정을 추진하였다.

(2) On May 12, 201, T publicly announced the recruitment of overseas scholarship students in 2011, and received a letter of support from May 12, 201 to May 25, 2011 (hereinafter “instant selection procedure”). Meanwhile, Article 4 (Qualification for Support) of the instant provision restricts the eligibility to be supported by “a graduate from a final school in the Republic of Korea” as “a person who graduated from a final school in the Republic of Korea. However, notwithstanding Article 4, “Article 9 (Special Selection 4)” was newly established on May 2, 2011, immediately before the receipt of the said letter of support, even to students who graduated from a foreign university, who can be specially selected as scholarship students through a resolution of the board of directors.

(3) Furthermore, Article 9 (Special Selection) of the above provision provides that "the school from the scholarship applicant, the school from the scholarship applicant, the school from the scholarship applicant, the school from the school under the age of 22 in the case of a bachelor's degree course, the age of 28 in the case of a master's degree course, and Article 5 (in the case of a doctor's degree course, the age limit of the applicant is limited to only the age of 30 years in the case of a doctor's degree course, and Article 5 (in the case of a doctor's degree course, the age limit of the applicant may be exempted by resolution of the board of directors." This provision states that "W shall report the fact to R over 28 years in the process of the revision, the age limit of the S is a requirement for the age limit of the master's degree course, and R shall also make a special provision

(4) On May 12, 2011, T sent e-mail containing the content that “I would like to request external security maintenance and faithfully prepare a letter of self-introduction and a study plan to the extent that I would exceptionally give S an opportunity to students, and I would like to make sure that I would like to obtain good scores from the examiners.”

(5) In the notice of the recruitment of scholarship students abroad in 201, which was announced to the department in charge of the selection of school scholarship students at T website and each domestic school school, the newly established provision of Article 9 of the instant provision was not reflected, and so long as the contents of Article 9 of the instant provision were not individually received as S, there was no choice but to recognize that only the domestic university origin was eligible for support.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Relevant legal principles

Benefits that are the contents of a bribe in the crime of bribery include not only money, goods, and other property interests, but all tangible and intangible benefits that meet human demand and desire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3539, Nov. 26, 2002; 2013Do13937, Jan. 29, 2014);

B) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, we examine the following facts and circumstances that the court below and the court below acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, since the opportunity to support the scholarship student to S in this case constitutes a bribe under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles, and the defendant's assertion of this issue is without merit.

(1) The selection process of the instant scholarship students was conducted in the order of ① receipt of documents (see, e.g., May 6, 2011 to May 25, 2011); ② primary document screening (management secretariat; from May 26, 201 to June 2, 2011); ③ secondary document screening (management of the Review Committee; from June 3 to June 10, 2011 to June 10), ④ third interview (management of the Review Committee; June 14, 201); ⑤ Resolution of the Board of Directors (Resolution 1, 201; July 14, 201); ② the first document screening was conducted in the order of the resolution of the Board of Directors; ② the second document screening was conducted in the order of the number of executives higher than Grade 2; the third document screening was conducted in the third-class or higher; and the third-class 2 or third-class 3-class 2 or 3-class 2- were selected in the 16th session.

(2) On July 1, 2011, S excluded from the final resolution of the board of directors on July 1, 201, on the following grounds: (a) in the process of the selection of the scholarship students of this case, the team granting exceptional entitlement to support obtained benefits by adding to the flagpoles and passing through the examination of documents; and (b) during that process, S received specific support, such as T’s Secretary W, in receipt of R’s instructions in the process.

(A) At the time of the selection process of this case, W, who had worked as the Director, stated to the effect that “I will enter the U.S. university and graduate school,” “I would have received instructions from the public prosecutor’s office to 10th of March 2011,” and that “I would have to be selected as TW scholarship students,” and that “I would have to issue an order from the public prosecutor’s office to 3rd of July 1, 201, for the reasons that S would have to be selected as a foreign scholarship student at the point of time,” and that “I would have to issue an order from the public prosecutor’s office to the public prosecutor’s office to 1st of July 1, 201, for the reasons that K would not have been able to obtain a e-mail scholarship from the public prosecutor’s office to the public prosecutor’s office of the public prosecutor’s office.” Furthermore, I would have understood that I would have to be able to obtain a e-mail scholarship from the public prosecutor’s office to the public prosecutor’s office.

(C) In the process of the selection of the instant scholarship students, the first document review was conducted by W at the Secretariat that served as the Director General, and in light of W’s above statement, it is recognized that R’s above instruction had influenced even the first document review, and that the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was his father, the Defendant was the Defendant, and the fact that S was a graduate of an overseas university, unlike other applicants,” there is room for considering the above background in the second document review by the president of the J Group affiliated company.

(3) The Defendant asserts that, if the scholarship student is an independent corporation, T is selected through the resolution of the board of directors comprised of persons unrelated to the J group, (2) U did not attend the board of directors on the selection procedure of the scholarship student of this case, and there was no instruction from directors to the effect that S scholarship student would be selected as S scholarship student, and (3) S did not withdraw at the board of directors’ stage after undergoing an examination equivalent to 145 other scholarship applicants except himself/herself, it is difficult to see that S would have been selected as scholarship students and received scholarships, and therefore, it is difficult to consider that S would have been given an opportunity to support the selection procedure of the scholarship student of this case. However, the facts are difficult to be considered as tangible and intangible interest. However, in the first and second document examination of this case, S could not be considered as having received support such as R, etc. differently from other applicants, and that it could not have an effect on U. 1's decision-making process at the time of the appointment of the scholarship student of this case but could not have been able to have been 18 U.

B. Regarding the criminal intent of acceptance of bribe and acceptance of bribe (Judgment on the assertion of a mistake in fact)

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s acceptance of a bribe and the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of bribery at the time.

A) On March 6, 2011, R received a request from the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court of the lower trial, ① from the golf gatherings with the Defendant’s husband and wife, “to be selected as a foreign scholarship student who is selected in T,” and reported that he received such request from the Defendant immediately after the receipt of the request from the Defendant, and subsequently, U stated that “I will assist and assist the Defendant,” and ③ to the effect that “I will deliver to the Defendant that I would make a well-known preparation.”

B) As regards the date and time of solicitation, the Defendant appears to have consistently changed the Defendant’s statement from 1st 201 to 201, 2011 to 4th 2011, 201, 201, 3th 5th 6th 201, 3rd 201, 4th 1st 6th 201, 3rd 6th 201, 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1st 19. m m s.

C) On March 6, 2011, the Defendant argued that, rather than requesting R to allow R to be selected as a scholarship student, the Defendant was merely a general question about the schedule of the scholarship project operated by J Group or the eligibility for support. However, ① in the fourth prosecutor’s investigation on May 19, 2014, the Defendant asked the prosecutor’s question, “I do not think that the Defendant is merely a mere fact to ask the possibility of selection.” If I would like to ask the prosecutor’s question about the possibility of only assistance, I would like to know about the above fact and to help the U.S. Chairperson would not have any further connection with the company, and ② I would like to ask the prosecutor’s questions that “the Defendant’s wife would simply ask the eligibility for support,” and the reasons why I would like to ask the prosecutor’s questions that “the Defendant’s wife would not simply request the selection of the Defendant,” and the reasons why I would like to answer the prosecutor’s answer to the prosecutor’s questions that the Defendant’s wife would not have any other reasons.”

D) If the Defendant’s husband and wife, as the Defendant’s assertion, was merely a question about the possibility of funding or eligibility for selection to R, it is difficult to understand that the reason why R reported the fact to U.S. president of the Group and intended to give S a scholarship or an opportunity for supporting scholarship students until the amendment of the instant provision, or that it was newly established even after S went away from the selection of scholarship students, and that there was a reason why the MBA funding was given to S.

E) In light of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily testified that S had been aware of the scholarship students’ resources-related notes from TO as “T”, the Defendant’s bribe was given to the Defendant.

The intent of acceptance is also recognized.

B. Judgment of the court below

A) Relevant legal principles

Although the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act), it should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of conscience of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not likely to be doubtful (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as probative value without any reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt in this context is a question based on the logical and empirical rule as to the probability of a fact inconsistent with the facts requiring proof, which must be based on the theory of sexual prosecution that is grasping the circumstances favorable to the defendant in relation to the fact finding. Thus, any doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is not included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do22211, Jun. 25, 2004; 201Do1718, Jul. 21, 2018).

B) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination on this part is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there was any error of misconception of facts, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the Defendant received a bribe and that there was an intent to commit a crime of bribery to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this issue is without merit.

(1) The credibility of the R’s statement

(A) The existence of reasonable consideration of the R's motive for false statements

The Defendant asserts that R has motive to make a false statement in order to avoid indictment for breach of trust in connection with the funding support for J group affiliates. However, in the court of the court below, R is difficult to find out the circumstances where R made the first statement on April 23, 2014, stating that “the prosecutor had already been aware of the contents, and only one of its executives appears to have been stated in the prosecutor’s office. I think it would not have been known that only three of the parts related to the finance have already been made.” The prosecutor had already been carrying out an internal intent to the Defendant before R was investigated, and R appears to have complied with the prosecutor’s investigation on July 1, 200, it is nothing more than a mere doubt or abstract doubt that R is the subject of the offering of a bribe in this case, in light of the abstract doubt or abstract doubt that R is the subject of the offering of a bribe.

(B) Whether the statements are consistent

Defendant’s statement: (1) The date the Defendant requested the R to grant the scholarship; and

② In the event that the defendant made a statement by telephone, whether or not the above request was made by the defendant, or whether or not the defendant made a statement by the request by the defendant, the place, ③ the time when R delivered the contact information by the defendant to U, and ④ the process how the contact information was known, etc., are inconsistent with the statement by the defendant. However, ① The defendant and R provide golf-friendly meals in P on March 6, 2011, and the fact that there was a conversation between the defendant and R wanting to support the selection process of the scholarship student of this case is recognized. However, the defendant is also the only dispute over the specific conversation at the time of the defendant, ② The statement that R delivered the contact information by the defendant to U is consistent with the statement by the U.S. The defendant's statement that R delivered the contact information by the defendant at the request of the defendant at the time is not objectively related to the credibility or credibility of the entire indictment by reason of the following reasons.

The defendant stated that R's initial scholarship request was "the defendant's wife after the statement was made" and then changed to "the defendant's wife" was false statement that there is no possibility of confusion. Thus, the plaintiff argued that R's statement is not consistent and that "the defendant was the defendant because he did not want to be involved in the defendant's wife" as it was properly pointed out by the court below. However, the plaintiff's statement is sufficient in light of R's relationship with the defendant, the defendant's wife's situation where the defendant's wife made the above request. Thus, the plaintiff's statement is not consistent or it cannot be viewed as a false statement based on these circumstances.

In the statement of R, the Defendant asserts that the part of the statement that “AP, on or after the beginning of March 201, when the Defendant reported the receipt of a scholarship from the Defendant to U, was inconsistent with objective facts.” However, U.S. also stated that “AP was in front of the time when the Defendant was reported on the Defendant’s request for the scholarship from R, but the Defendant was in front of that time.” 23 IR stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the lower court that “The Defendant was only in front of that time, but the Defendant was only in front of that time.” At the time, I would not be readily concluded that there was a possibility that the Defendant exceeded clothes due to the issue of small and medium-sized vessels, etc., and that there was no possibility that AP would directly be in front of that time when the Defendant was reported on the Defendant’s request for the scholarship from R, and that there was no such objective statement that AP would have been in front of that time.”

(D) On March 6, 2011, among the statement of the circumstances R, supporting the credibility of the statement of R, the part of the amendment of the provision of this case, which was consistent to the prosecutor's office and the court below's decision, on the part of the defendant's husband and wife, received a request for selection of scholarship students from the defendant's husband and wife, reported the fact to the U.S., and subsequently, required to revise the provision of this case to be selected as S scholarship students, is consistent with the statements of U, W, Z, etc.

(2) Defendant’s crime of acceptance of bribe

(A) At the time of S’s approval for admission to the MBA course 27 (U.S. No.S. No.S. No.S. 26) , the Defendant was to bear the S’s school expenses between S and S, and thus, it was closely related to the Defendant’s understanding that S was given an opportunity to support the selection process of the scholarship students of this case.

(B) At the prosecution, the Defendant stated that “AR couple and golf-friendly to her resignation on April 20, 201, during the period from 2011 to her resignation, the Defendant was not entitled to support for the selection procedure of T scholarship students. However, on May 29, 2011, the Defendant stated that “Around 2011, the Defendant heard that S would have been able to give support from S, and thought that S would have been able to give support.” 30) At the court of the court of the lower trial, the Defendant stated that “S would have been in contact with S, and considered “T would have operated the regulations related to the eligibility for scholarship” in a form in which T would operate the regulations related to the eligibility for scholarship grant flexibly. 31) In light of these statements, at least, at the time of the Defendant’s request to the scholarship student, the Defendant was found to have been specially entitled to support, as the result of the Defendant’s request made the scholarship student.

(D) On March 6, 2011, the Defendant asked on the schedule of the selection procedure of the instant scholarship student or general support eligibility, etc. The Defendant asserted that R unilaterally amended the provision of this case unilaterally interpreted N's intention and provided S with an opportunity to provide scholarships. However, the lower court stated the following circumstances: ① R listen to the statement that N's selection procedure remains in the court of the lower court, and from outside, it confirmed the schedule of the selection procedure of the overseas scholarship student by telephone to outside workers, and then communicate the Defendant and N with the company.” ② At the time, the Defendant stated that "at the time, there was no specific dialogue regarding the eligibility or procedure for the selection procedure of T's scholarship student; ② in light of the status of R or friendly relationship between the Defendant and N, it is difficult to see that R unilaterally received a certain portion of the instant application or general support procedure from the Defendant or the Vice-Chairperson of the instant case.

(E) The Defendant alleged that T knew that T would have displayed Eup/Myeonmatic nature, the purport of the expression that T would have known that T would have been uniformly entitled to support, and that it would not have known that T would have given preferential treatment only to S. However, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit in light of the following: (i) the Defendant stated at the first prosecutor’s investigation that “I would like to have known that T would have been able to provide support from S in May 201; and (iii) the Defendant would have expressed that “I would have thought that I would have been able to give special assistance to S; and (iv) the Defendant would have expressed that “I would have been able to give students an opportunity to do so as to give them an exceptional opportunity to do so; and (v) in light of the fact that S would have naturally delivered such intent in delivery to the Defendant.”

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below held that in light of the fact that U.S. directed R to select as a scholarship student and that R has delivered U's intention to the defendant, although U is recognized, U stated in the court of the court below that "I would like to give the defendant a scholarship, but there is no direct promise to give the defendant a scholarship," and that "I would like to withdraw measures to ensure that S would receive a scholarship," with respect to the attorney's question "I would like to give the defendant a scholarship," the court of the court below stated that "I would like to give the defendant a scholarship," "I would like to give this opinion, and I think I did not think that I did not talk," it is difficult to prove that R would not have any reasonable ground to prove that there was a crime of "I would like to give a bribe" to the defendant without a relation between U's intention and that U would have been involved in the delivery of such intention."

B. Judgment of the court below

1) Relevant legal principles

The term "tender of a bribe", which is a constituent element of Article 129 of the Criminal Code, refers to an agreement between the parties to accept a bribe, and the term "agreement" in this context means any restriction and explicit means, but there is no need to do so, the declaration of intent of the parties to deliver and receive a bribe in connection with the duties of public officials in the future must be finally and conclusively consistent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9417, Nov. 15,

2) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

A) This part of the facts charged is that the Defendant and U have promised to pay USD 100,00 as a scholarship, and it is difficult to view that there was a specific agreement on such amount even after examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. Although T’s provision on the payment of scholarships stipulates USD 50,000 for each person, the actual amount paid is determined separately by considering the country in which the study was the subject of study, major department, TA (Tachingist, Teaching Assistant, Research Assistant, Research Assistant, etc.), whether the recipient of the scholarship has been engaged in the performance of the study, and whether the master’s degree should be determined every two years in case of the master’s degree, but it shall be two years in case of the master’s degree, and it is difficult to view that there was an agreement on the payment of USD 100,000,000,000,000,0000 in case where there was no agreement between the Defendant and U.S. to pay the above maximum amount.

B) Although S has received scholarships of USD 10,00 (US$ 19,602,38 and US$ 81,925) with the benefit of the 3th scholarship students' school expense support system after the 6th recruitment process, U's inquiry into the prosecutor's question, "I would like to find out other methods despite the rejection of the 3th scholarship by the 1st National Pension Foundation's board of directors, and I would like to find out the 5th anniversary of the 3th National Pension Foundation's rejection of the 3th National Pension Fund, it would be difficult to say that the 5th National Pension Foundation's new recruitment plan would have been adopted for the reason that the 1st National Pension Fund would have been withdrawn from the 6th National Pension Foundation's appointment process, and that the 3th National Pension Fund would have been withdrawn from the 5th National Pension Foundation's appointment process.

4. Conclusion

The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge and the judge;

Judges Singing on Board

Judges are accommodated in judges;

Note tin

1) The name of Q is called " Q" and the part of "stock company" is omitted in the name of the company for convenience.

2) On April 20, 2015, the part not guilty of the primary facts charged in the column of "the grounds for appeal" in the petition of appeal filed by the prosecutor: the rules of evidence

In the event of a violation or misapprehension of legal principles, the court rendered an acquittal by denying the criminal intent of U.S. bribe promise, and rendered an unfair sentencing on this Defendant.

Part: Statement that the sentence of the defendant is too excessive and that it is necessary to correct it through correct judgment.

However, in the statement of grounds for appeal dated February 27, 2015, the grounds for appeal on the part not guilty in the reasoning of the lower judgment were stated.

However, Article 361-5 No. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide a specific argument that the sentencing is improper.

Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "when there is a reason to find that the amount of punishment is unreasonable," and Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

"A statement of reasons for appeal or a reply shall specify in detail the reasons for appeal or the contents of the reply."

In that sense, without stating any other specific reasons, a sentence shall be imposed on the "Scope of Appeal" column.

B. The phrase “an excessive restriction” cannot be deemed as a legitimate entry in the grounds for appeal (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do8712 Decided September 25, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 Decided January 31, 2008, etc. As such, unfair sentencing is subject to unfair sentencing.

It is difficult to view that there is a legitimate ground for appeal by a prosecutor.

(iii) Article 4 (Qualification for Support);

Applicants for scholarship students of this Foundation shall be persons who intend to enter a university or graduate school of each country where study is to be conducted, and shall:

The eligibility of the Committee shall be met, and other recipients of scholarships related to study abroad shall be excluded from those eligible for the application.

1. A national of the Republic of Korea (excluding a permanent resident or a dual national);

2. A person who graduated from a high school or a university (including an expected graduate) in the Republic of Korea;

3. A person who has obtained permission for admission from an excellent university in a country to study;

(iv) Article 9 (Special Selection);

Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles IV through V, the international excellence of schools or departments studying abroad and the excellence of applicants;

Special selection may be made through a resolution of the board of directors, in consideration of the necessity of scholarship, etc.

(v) Article 5 (Limits on the initial age of assistance by course);

A bachelor's degree course shall be 22 years old; a master's degree course shall be 28 years old; a doctor's degree course shall be 30 years old or younger; a doctor's degree course shall be restricted to the first aid age.

section 3.

6) Granting support eligibility to S who was not entitled to support the selection procedure of the scholarship students of this case through the amendment to the provisions of this case

After receipt of the above procedure, and further passing through the first and second document screening procedure, the defendant's demand is sufficient.

It is reasonable to see that it is an intangible profit sufficient for satisfaction.

7) Evidence No. 1, 287, 288 of the evidence records

8) Part I, No. 147, No. 148 of the Evidence Record, the first document review in the selection procedure of the scholarship student of this case shall be conducted by the Secretariat, and the second document review

Category BF President, BG President, BH Representative, BI Vice President, BJ Vice President, and CJ Vice President, BK Vice-President, BL Director, BL Director;

BM directors and BN directors (the above four directors seem to be all directors) were selected respectively.

19) Evidence No. 1, No. 288 of the record

10) Evidence Nos. 1, 148, 291 of evidence records

11) Evidence Nos. 149, 152, 220 of the evidence records

12) Evidence No. 1, No. 155 of the record

13) Evidence No. 1, No. 158 of the record

14) Evidence Nos. 3, 1939 of the record

15) No. 3 of steam Records No. 2147

16) The board of directors discussed the need to select S as a scholarship student, and the “the scholarship foundation’s members become known.”

There is a problem that we will flow to another thing.", "(the defendant) will not end the term of office," and "ship financing".

I do not easily resolve." It is time to pay the scholarship by creating the scholarship separately as possible. The scholarship funds will be provided.

I have made a statement that is not a problem to be solved in the same way (No. 291 of the evidence record No. 1) and W.

In the court of the first instance, "one of the directors must be the scholarship foundation as the public interest foundation of this year", which is so pressure that the scholarship foundation should be the public interest foundation of this year.

If you enter the meeting, Neibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibii

In the future, it is rejected that these applicants can prevent or prevent selection security in the future.

“The statement was made.”

17) Class I trial records No. 100, 101

18) Evidence Nos. 3, 2142 of the evidence records

19) R requested Q to contact by requesting the wife of the Defendant to contact with it, which was conducted by the prosecution, 5.13, 2014.

On May 19, 2014, Q stated that the refusal to do so was colored by "(Evidence No. 2, No. 1481)" (Evidence No. 2, No. 1481), and Q was a prosecutor's office.

After the R stated that “the fact that such request was received by the R is not memoryd”, three copies of evidence records shall be given.

2095, Nos. 2096) “S contact point” is clearly memoryed, but contact through Q.

The contact information was directly received from the Defendant because Q did not receive contact information or contact information.

Whether or not it is not memory (No. 3 No. 2114 of the evidence record) and the court of the original trial are the same as in the court of the original trial.

The second statement of R, which was made (No. 92 of the trial record, No. 92 of the trial record), is how the contact point of S is accurately informed.

It is difficult to conclude that it is contradictory to the aforementioned statements by purporting that it is not memory.

20) Evidence Nos. 3, 2131 of the evidence records

21) Furthermore, the Defendant, as R, has conducted an investigation into the participants of golf meetings on March 6, 201 at the time of the investigation as R, which eventually led to the investigation into the participants of golf meetings.

Inasmuch as it was sufficiently predicted that the Defendant’s wife N made the above solicitation, “the Defendant’s wife”

The phrase " does not want to be involved in the wife" argues that the statement of R is not reasonable, but in the circumstances at the time, R is not reasonable.

It is difficult to see that the investigation is carried out against the spouse or the spouse of the defendant.

The above assertion by the person is without merit.

22) Nos. 2, 1738, 1749 of evidence records, the Defendant, on September 201, whose expiration date by the prosecutor’s office was around September 201, was the date on which the prosecution’s office expired.

With respect to the reason why the resignation was made, small and medium-sized vessels supported by the sudden decline in the second half of 2009.

There have been a lot of problems in the lawsuit, and the Board of Audit and Inspection has collected a concentrated audit over several months from the 2010s.

On March 2011, the first Vice Minister of Knowledge Economy was removed from the delivery of a resignation certificate, as the cadastral issues were submitted.

In addition, after the report was made to the press on April 201, it was accepted on June 29, 201."

was stated.

23) No. 146 of the trial records

24) Nos. 3, 2113 of evidence records, No. 1, 109 of court records

25) Meanwhile, the entry of the AP statement (Evidence No. 7) submitted by the Defendant at the trial is consistent with the Defendant’s above assertion.

B. The AP and the defendant's personal relations (AP and the defendant together worked as H, and the defendant was limited to AP and one year.

Two times of golf, and even after the commencement of the investigation of this case, AP does not meet or perform meals and campaigns several times.

(B) In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to readily conclude that R’s statement alone is false against objective facts.

Each description of evidence Nos. 5 (Public Notice of the Board of Audit and Inspection) and 6-1 and 2 (each newspaper technician) submitted to the trial of the political party shall be alone.

D's statement that there was a question that the defendant would resign from his office on March 2011 is false.

appropriate.

26) Northwestern Univity, Kelog Schlog Management

27) Business Management Foundation and Business Management Masters and Masters Association

28) Evidence No. 2, No. 1767 of the record

29) Evidence Nos. 1772, 3, 2181, 2212, of evidence records

30) Evidence Nos. 2, 1744, 1773 of the evidence records

31) Class I trial records No. 275

32) Class I trial records Nos. 89, 90

33) Evidence No. 2, No. 1744 of the evidence records

34) Evidence No. 2, No. 1786 of the record

35) Evidence No. 3, No. 2149 of the record