(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.8.31. 선고 2018고합541 판결

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours.

Seized 50,000 Won (No. 2) shall be forfeited from the defendant.

Reasons

Criminal facts

around June 8, 2017, the defendant filed a complaint against D and E against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and sent the case under investigation to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2017-Type 77493 (HHF and G Prosecutor's Office) on March 20, 2018. On March 22, 2018, the main prosecutor referred the above case to the Criminal Conciliation, and the prosecutor sent the case to the Seocho Police Station on March 22, 2018, and is likely to be disposed of the same suspicion as the police opinion without any supplementary investigation if the criminal conciliation is not conducted, without any disadvantage, by inserting the written opinion of the defendant, stating that "I will not conduct a re-investigation without any disadvantage." There is no other meaning, and deliver the case by mail to the main prosecutor with the right to receive a bribe of KRW 10 million (hereinafter referred to as 25 million).

At around 10:00 on March 29, 2018, the Defendant delivered a document envelope containing KRW 10,000,000 in cash by registered mail at the office of the original central branch of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office located in the Dong of the Seoul Central District Court, and reached the G prosecutor's office of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office located in 158 according to the distribution of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City around 30th of the same month. However, on April 4 of the same year, the senior prosecutor discovered KRW 10,000 in cash, who discovered the above cash, reported it to the reading office of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and refused to receive it.

As a result, the defendant tried to deliver cash of KRW 10 million to the effect that he will re-examine the "case" related to the prosecutor's duties, and expressed his intention to offer the bribe.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Seizure records;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Postal Service Delivery Bureau, attached to a investigation report (related to the delivery of KRW 17 through 281 of the investigation record), a copy of the investigation report (related to the delivery of KRW 10 million bags), a copy of the written opinion and statement sent by A, a copy of the written opinion and statement attached thereto, a copy of the investigation report (related to the delivery of KRW 10,000,000,000,000) and a copy of the report attached thereto, a copy of the report of receipt of voluntary reports, such as money and valuables attached thereto, etc., a copy of the investigation report (related to the delivery of KRW 10,000,000,000,0000,000 won);

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

Articles 133(1) and 127(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59(1) of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Confiscation;

1. Reasons for the first sentence of Article 134 of the Criminal Act: 1 month to 5 years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] 1 of Bribery (less than 30 million won) for a bribe crime

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: Positive factors of mitigation of mines: Cases where the intention of promise or grant is limited;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 4 months to 10 months

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence; and

The defendant tried to give a bribe to a prosecutor for the purpose of obtaining favorable results in relation to the criminal case in which he/she filed a complaint. Such crimes violate the public office's integrity and integrity, and undermine the general public's trust in the criminal investigation affairs of an investigation agency, and thus, are not good. The defendant has no criminal records except the suspension of indictment once against the violation of the Medical Service Act. In light of the method and circumstances of the crime in this case, the defendant unilaterally attempted to give a bribe in an unstable manner that the investigation is not properly conducted, with a specific plan, in advance, the defendant does not seem to have reached the crime in this case. The prosecutor voluntarily reported cash, which is a bribe, led to the defendant's expression of intent to give a bribe, which does not reach the degree of the crime in this case, and the defendant made a voluntary declaration of intention to give a bribe, the defendant's mistake is divided, and other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, occupation, environment, family relationship, etc. shall be determined as per the order.