2013, 422 A. Misappropriation

(b) Property in breach of trust;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.(a) C.

4.2.D

5.2.2. E

6.b)F

Imsesecin (prosecution) and Noh Jeong-ok (public trial)

Law Firm G, Attorney H (Defendant A)

Attorney I (National Assembly for the defendant B)

J Law Firm, Attorneys K (Defendant C)

L Law Firm, Attorneys Min (Defendant D and E)

Law Firm N, Attorney Kim Jae-soo (for defendant F)

July 11, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months, Defendant B and C, and six months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years for Defendant A, and for Defendant B and C for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Each sentence imposed on Defendant D, E, and F shall be suspended. 26,50,000 won from Defendant A, 11,100,000 won from Defendant B, and 10,90,000 won from Defendant C shall be collected respectively.

Defendant A, B, and C are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional charges. The name of the trader on October 15, 201 of the facts charged in the instant case shall be P, and the fact that the receiver increased KRW 2,00,000 to A shall be acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

The Defendant, as a senior senior officer in charge of guiding, controlling, supervising, supervising, supervising, and supervising Q from Q to around September 2007 to October 2012, the trial division and the sports division belonging to Q, may attend the Q Q board and select and appoint the chairman of the sports division and the chairman of the sports division, and the grades may be determined through evaluation of the farming districts. The Defendant is in a position to exercise considerable influence on Q-related persons, including Q-gu trials, such as requesting disciplinary action and making a decision, and the Defendant is in a position to guide and supervise the trial to prevent the trial from committing unlawful acts, such as receiving money and valuables from the leaders of the farming team of the farming district in which the trial participated in the game and making a fair evaluation of the judges, etc., so that the farming-gu competition held in Q from a fair and neutral judgment to ensure that it is a desirable amateur farming-gu competition that makes the winning party correct.

However, even though the defendant was well aware of the fact that he should not receive money or valuables from the leaders of the Oral Team Team in Q in relation to the Oral Games held in Q, the defendant would be able to protect the so-called "R High School" (hereinafter referred to as the "RR")'s team cocodds of the Oral Team of the Gu and the so-called "Mise Women's Vocational Women's Vocational Women's Team E", and the so-called "Mise Women's Vocational Team T", which were known through D, to the effect that he does not make any unfavorable judgment to the team that he instructs in Q, and that in the next deaf-gu competition, the defendant would receive money or valuables in the name of "Mison money", "Mison money", and "Mison money".

On January 15, 2008, the Defendant, a vice-chairperson of Q Q, received illegal solicitation of the above contents from Co., Ltd. in relation to his duties and received 1,00,000,000 won in the name of the Defendant using a new bank account (U) in the name of the Defendant in return for such illegal solicitation, and acquired 26,50,000 won in total from D, T, and E 16 times in total from the above date to March 2, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes (1) in attached Table 2012 and attached Table 1.

2. Defendant B, C

(a) Circumstances of crimes;

The defendants, as a trial by Q, are those in charge of the sports promotion designated in accordance with a certain schedule in various competitions held in Q, and the judgment of the trial in the case of the deaf-gu competition in comparison with other competitions, has an absolute influence on the success and failure, so there was a duty of fair and neutral inquiry in accordance with the rules of the deaf-gu competition and the regulations of the deaf-gu competition.

Nevertheless, the Defendants were able to receive money and valuables in the name of "food service expenses", "brue expenses", "brue money", "brue money", and "use money", which are provided to the trial decision for the purpose of giving convenience to the trial decision by making a decision more favorable than the counter team in unclear circumstances where it is unclear whether the Defendants are anti-vid in the field of agriculture-gu competition held by Q from elementary, middle, and high schools, universities, and vocational team leaders of the nation.

B. Defendant B’s crime

On May 201, 201, the Defendant received a request from the Z, which is a leader of the Y Middle School Team at the national small and medium-sized sports games, etc. (from May 28, 2011 to May 31, 201) held in Sacheon-si, to the effect that “I am well-time to be allocated from the national small and medium-sized youth to the trial of the Y middle school games”, and thereafter, the Defendant was assigned the Z to the AA who has the authority to be tried for the head of QJ, with the first, second, and second, to be tried for the trial. The Defendant was given 0% of the total amount of KRW 10 under the name of the YGF team in the name of 10th, 200, 100, 100, 200, 10,0000, 10,0000,000,000,000).

As a result, the Defendant acquired KRW 11,100,000 in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties as a member of Q Q.

C. Defendant C’s crime

On May 14, 2007, the Defendant received 200,000 won from the 13 deaf-gu leaders in the attached Table of Crimes (3) from the above date and time to April 24, 2012, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes in the following Table of Crimes, for the convenience in the adjudication, such as making a decision more favorable than the other team in a situation where it is unclear whether it is a violation in the competition where AC middle school participates in the future from AD, which is managed by the Association of the deaf-gu Association, in the future.

As a result, the defendant acquired 10,900,000 won in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties as the deaf-gu judgment belonging to the Agricultural Association.

3. Defendant D, E, and F

(a) Circumstances of crimes;

The Defendants were in an unstable position every year as the leader of the deaf-gu Team participating in Q to make a contract renewal according to the results of the deaf-gu team, and were aware of the fact that the deaf-gu team had an absolute influence on the success and failure in the judgment by comparing it with other items of the deaf-gu team. Accordingly, the Defendants were willing to offer money and valuables to the deaf-gu team, including AAA and an adjudication chairperson, who are in charge of the affairs of evaluation and assignment of judgment, and the adjudication secretary, who are in charge of the affairs of appraisal and assignment of judgment, with the aim of being given convenience to the judgment in the deaf-gu team participating in the farming-gu competition.

B. Facts of crimes committed by Defendant D

On January 15, 2008, the Defendant: (a) as a leader of the RJ Team, protected A from a disadvantageous judgment on a team that he instructs in the game; and (b) made an illegal solicitation that “a team is well placed in a group even at the EF competition,” and thereafter, (c) made parents V of the same school transfer KRW 1,00,000 to a new bank account in the name of A (AG) in return for the illegal solicitation, and (d) granted KRW 25,80,000 to the persons related to QA including A, including the above date and time, from June 21, 2012 to June 21, 2012.

C. Defendant E’s crime

On July 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) made an illegal solicitation to the effect that he was 90 times the National Sports Competition (2009.10, 21. - 10,26. - 10,26.) around July 12, 201 as the leader of the S viewing Women’s Farming Team; (b) that he was unable to make a disadvantageous judgment to a team that he was directed in the game; and (c) that he was able to give a team well-time in the next farming-gu competition; and (d) that the Defendant’s husband X transferred KRW 2,00,000 to a new bank account (U) from the above date to October 18, 2011; and (e) granted KRW 19,300,000 in total over 16 times in return for such unlawful solicitation to persons related to Q including A.

On June 15, 201, the Defendant recommended AH High School’s 6th, 201, the 100,000 won was transferred to a bank account in the name of the Republic of Korea (AL) using AH High School’s 6th, 201. In addition, the Defendant recommended AH High School (“AH High School”) to the effect that the said CF team was well-known, and that the CF, an executive secretary of the CF, would provide convenience in the determination of the adjudication in the above CF. In the future, the Defendant made a solicitation to the effect that the CF would not be disadvantageously judged to the team of the CH High School’s instruction in the EH High School’s 30,000 won, including the transfer of KRW 1,00,000 to the KF’s account (AL) from March 25, 2008 to October 20, 2011.

Summary of Evidence

○ Defendant A

1. The statement made by a witness AM in the second protocol of the trial, and each statement made by a witness, N and T in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect regarding T (Evidence No. 239), C (Evidence List No. 246), D (Evidence List No. 254, 267), and E (Baum List No. 257, 263);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning AF (Evidence No. 248), AA (Evidence No. 260) and AA (Evidence No. 260); a police interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 205) against A; and each police police interrogation protocol against E (Evidence List No. 54, 140, 182);

1. Each police statement on V (Evidence List No. 136), T (Evidence List No. 139, 166), AP (Evidence List No. 148), and N (Evidence List No. 194);

1. Each investigation report (No. 137, 270 No. 50);

1. Matters concerning appointment of president A;

1. Defendant B (No. 301 No. 501) related to a seizure warrant (No. 2012-11814);

1. Defendant B’s statement in the first trial record;

1. Each interrogation protocol of the prosecution against AF (Evidence No. 292), D (Evidence List No. 254, 267), and E (Evidence List No. 257);

1. Each police's protocol of examination of the suspect against AM (Evidence No. 56), AT (Evidence List No. 67), AR (Evidence List No. 119), Z (Evidence List No. 129), F (Evidence List No. 169), and AS (Evidence List No. 176)

○ Defendant C.

1. Statement of Defendant C in the first trial record;

1. Each suspect examination protocol of the prosecution concerning D (Evidence Nos. 254, 267) and E (Evidence No. 257);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant C (Evidence Nos. 59, 86, and each attached document)

1. Each police suspect examination committee on AD (Evidence No. 47,219), AU (Evidence List No. 110, 192), AV (Evidence List No. 107), AW (Evidence List No. 71), and AX (Evidence List No. 84);

1. Each police officer's protocol of statement about AM (Evidence No. 56), AY (Evidence List No. 96), AZ (Evidence List No. 124), BA (Evidence List No. 144), F (Evidence List No. 149 and 169) Defendant D1. C (Evidence List No. 246), AA (Evidence List No. 285), AF (Evidence List No. 292), B (Evidence List No. 293), and some prosecutor's protocol of examination of suspect of prosecutor's office about A (Evidence List No. 2666)

1. Each police suspect examination committee against AK (Evidence No. 40), B (Evidence List No. 41), BC (Evidence List No. 85), AF (Evidence List No. 22,22,234), and AO (Evidence List No. 205);

1. Each police statement on AP (Evidence List No. 52, 113, 148), AM (Evidence List No. 56, 161), BD (Evidence List No. 63, 142), BE (Evidence List No. 72), V (Evidence List No. 98, 136), T (Evidence List No. 166), N (Evidence List No. 194);

1. Investigation report (No. 137 No. 137 of the evidence list);

1. Defendant E of the Court Decision (2012Gohap 1163)

1. A prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of a suspect about C (Evidence No. 246), AA (Bas No. 285), AF (Evidence List No. 292), and B (Evidence List No. 293) and some protocol of interrogation of a suspect by prosecutors about A (Evidence List No. 266);

1. Each police interrogation protocol concerning AF (Evidence List No. 22,22,234), AK (Evidence List No. 40), BC (Evidence List No. 85), BF (Evidence List No. 179), AO (Evidence List No. 205), and BG (Evidence List No. 215);

1. The written statement of each police in relation to T (Evidence No. 166), N (Evidence No. 194), and 1. BG statement (Evidence No. 256);

1. Court rulings (2012Gohap 1163);

○ Defendant F

1. Statement made by Defendant F in the first trial record;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of suspect about C (Evidence No. 246), AA (Evidence No. 285), and AF (Evidence No. 290);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of a suspect about B (Evidence No. 37,204), AK (Evidence List No. 40), B (Evidence List No. 41), AO (Evidence List No. 44), BC (Evidence List No. 85), BH (Evidence List No. 147), and BI (Evidence List No. 152);

1. Documents related to a seizure warrant (No. 300 No. 2012-9259, 9680, 999) and replys to the details of financial transactions (Evidence No. 300);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (No. 2012, 1163); and

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

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment) for Defendant A, B, and C

○ Article 357(2) of the Criminal Act of Defendant D, E, and Franchising (Preparation of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A

Article 37 of the Criminal Code, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to the punishment concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of taking property in breach of trust in attached Form 12 No. 12.

○ Defendant B

Defendant C of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of taking property in breach of trust listed in the annexed Table No. 15 No. 15)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Concurrent Crimes in Relation to Crimes of Breach of Trust and Misappropriation listed in Attached Table No. 23 No. 23 No. 500, Jan. 2, 2005]

○ Defendant D

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in attached Table No. 23, No. 23, No. 37, No. 38(4) of the Criminal Act)

○ Defendant E

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes No. 11 of the Aggravated Punishment Table No. 11 of the Aggravated Punishment Table No. 5 of the Aggravated Punishment)

○ Defendant F

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Attachment 4 No. 6) of the Criminal Act: Suspension of Execution 1.

Defendant A, B, and C: each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below) 1. Suspension of sentence

○ Defendant D and E: Imprisonment for 6 months

○ Defendant F: Imprisonment for 4 months;

1. Suspension of sentence;

Defendant D, E, and F: To collect additionally Article 59(1) of each Criminal Code (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below) 1.

Defendant A, B, and C: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A, B, and C under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act by Defendant A, D, E and their defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A is not in a position to affect the judgment of the adjudication of the deaf-gu competition, and is not in the authority or responsibility of guiding and supervising the adjudication to prevent the deaf-gu adjudication from committing an unlawful act, and is not in the position of the adjudication chairperson or the standing chairperson, nor in the case of Defendant A.

B. The money remitted by Defendant D and E to Defendant A was purely used or loaned. Defendant A thought that the money remitted under the name of “BJ” was the money remitted by Defendant D and E to Defendant D and E, and did not receive an illegal solicitation from T.

D. The remittance of money to Defendant D and E is according to customary practice and did not make an illegal solicitation to the trial.

2. Determination

A. Legal principles on the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the meaning of "illegal solicitation"

The crime of taking property or property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business receives illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties and obtains property or property benefits. In principle, a person who does not have such status can be the subject of the crime. The "person who administers another's business" as the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust can be the subject of the crime only when he/she processes the crime. The "person who administers another's business" as the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust with another person means a person who is in a relationship with another person. It does not necessarily mean a person who is in a relationship with another person. It does not require that a person has the authority to carry out his/her business in an external relationship with a third person. It does not require that a person be entrusted with business, and the ground for taking property in breach of trust, that is, the ground for taking property in breach of trust, can arise through legal acts, customs or administrative management, and it includes not only the entrusted relationship with another person, but also its own authority within 1930.

Meanwhile, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or profits from property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established unless there is an illegal solicitation between the donor and the purchaser of property or profits. The "illegal solicitation" in this context does not necessarily require it to the extent that it constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust. If it is contrary to social rules or the principle of trust and good faith, it is sufficient to determine that it is against the contents of the solicitation, the amount of the consideration related thereto, the form, and the integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, must be comprehensively considered, and such solicitation does not necessarily require an explicit solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006; 2008Do6987, Dec. 11, 2008).

B. The nature of money received by Defendant A from Defendant D, E, and T, and whether there was an illegal solicitation

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant D, E, and Q Vice-Chairperson, who are in a position to exercise considerable influence over Q related persons, such as the deaf-gu, and who are in the position of exercising their influence on them, are unable to make an unfavorable judgment, and in the next games, they provided money and valuables with an unfair solicitation that they have left their teams well and provided them with money and valuables, and Defendant A also received money continuously in return for such unlawful solicitation from Defendant D, E, and T. Accordingly, the above Defendants and their attorneys’ aforementioned arguments are not acceptable.

1) The defendant C, who was a trial belonging to Q, has a lot of cases where the trial was judged on the parts of the trial in the deaf-gu competition. Under the circumstances, the team where the trial was conducted and the team where the trial was conducted had been conducted according to which level of judgment was rendered in the deaf-gu competition, can be seen as a team where the trial was conducted and opposed. The application of the anti-regulation to a specific search is not possible, and the counter team can be put at a disadvantage by making a decision by applying the very strict standard to the counter team, and thus, the defendant C, who was a trial belonging to Q, stated that the specific team may be assisted in the direction of desired mind (Evidence No. 9319 of evidence record).

② Likewise, Defendant B, who was a judge of Q Q affiliated, has a lot of time to make a ruling on the following parts. In such a case, one team may move or set up depending on which the ruling was made, so that the ruling may help a specific team in the direction of wishing to take place (Evidence Records 10014 pages).

③ In light of these circumstances, the deaf-gu competition not only belongs to a relatively simple part of the sports rules, but also the types of anti-laws are diverse, and due to its nature, it can be recognized that the trial participating in the deaf-gu competition is in a position to exercise full influence on the outcome of the competition depending on which the judges who are involved in the Gyeonggi-do competition make a determination, and further, the trial is in a position to exercise full influence on the outcome of winning or winning a certain team participating in the game intentionally.

Defendant A in Q 2’s status

① From May 2005 to November 2006, Defendant A served as the General Director and Financial Director, from December 2006 to April 2007, and from September 2007 to October 2012.

(2) (Evidence Records 9444.2) However, A, who served as a director of Q review division and as a member of the review committee, was the defendant A in Q Q, and the defendant A served as a key role in the election campaign of Q Q B, which eventually led BK to a new relationship for four consecutive years (Evidence Records 9428, 9429) and the influence within the Association was significant (Evidence Records 9428, 9429). The defendant AF, who is the judge chairperson, and the review secretary, were assigned scores on the initial trial's experience and ability to judge each year. After evaluating the appropriateness of the points, the vice-chairpersons including the defendant A were involved in the trial by determining the grade of the trial at the board of directors included in the defendant A (Evidence Record 9430 pages). In addition, the defendant AF, who was the secretary of Q review, stated that the defendant A was also involved in the trial at the meeting of the review committee (Evidence Record 97.37).

③ With respect to the status of Defendant A within the Association, Defendant A, as a superior in the position of the president of the Association, has the authority to direct and supervise the overall affairs of the Association in relation to the affairs of the Association (Evidence Records 7546 pages), and Defendant C, a member of the Tribunal, who was a member of Q, had the authority to attend and decide on the meeting of the board of directors held in relation to the affairs of the Association (Evidence Records 7550 pages), and make a statement that Defendant C, a member of the Tribunal, who was a member of Q Q, has the authority to make a decision thereon (Evidence Records 750 pages), and Defendant C, a member of the Tribunal, who was a member of Q Q Q, may be excluded from the meeting of the Tribunal. As such, Defendant C, a member of the Tribunal, who was a member of the Tribunal, made a statement that Defendant A will take advantage of a new line (Evidence Records 9321 pages).

④ As to this, Defendant E was aware of the fact that Defendant A was in a position not to operate a biased competition (Evidence No. 6247 pages). Furthermore, when a large competition is in progress, it is difficult to judge when the president or vice president is absent and when the president or vice president is in an open space during the competition. In particular, Defendant A stated that he/she did not make this part of the ruling when the president or vice president is in attendance (Evidence No. 6247 pages). Defendant D also stated that he/she would be chilling psychologically and imposing considerable burden on the progress of the competition (Evidence No. 9526 pages of the evidence record). Furthermore, Defendant A, a vice president of the Association, has a considerable influence on Defendant A’s position in determining whether Defendant A did not exercise a specific mind, and Defendant A, a vice president of the Association, could have an influence on his/her affairs, and Defendant A, a vice president of the Association, who is the chairperson of the Association, could not exercise his/her authority over the affairs of the Association.

3) The relationship between Defendant A, Defendant D and E

① Defendant A had been able to take disciplinary action against Defendant D and Scambling with Defendant D while in office as the supervisor of the former BL Bank’s farming team. Defendant E was subject to Defendant A’s disciplinary action around May 2002, and it was known that Defendant A was scambling with the phone, and that Defendant A was scambling with Defendant A’s new address (record 7561, 9349 pages). ② Defendant A had been able to pay much attention to Defendant D and E’s farming team and Scambling with Defendant D, and that Defendant D and C were scambling with each other, and that Defendant D and C were able to have been aware of the fact that Defendant D and C were scambling with each other, and that Defendant D and C’s testimony were 5,75,000 of scambling with each other, and that Defendant A and C 47,000 of scambling with each other.

③ Defendant A, on October 19, 2005, had been able to bring a confusion directly with BM on the ground that Defendant D had made an unfair judgment (Evidence Records 7548, 7549) at the time of the R&D game (Evidence Records 7548, and 7549). Defendant A’s statement that Defendant A would not have been able to bring a dispute to the trial of a certain game (Evidence Records 7548, 7549, 930, 931). Accordingly, Defendant A’s statement that Defendant A had no effect on his or her behavior records at the time of his or her oral determination (Evidence Records 7548, 930, 931) was not a purely friendly one, and Defendant A’s statement that Defendant A had no effect on his or her own behavior records at the time of his or her oral determination (Evidence evidence 750,540) and that Defendant A had no effect on his or her behavior records at the time of the trial.

④ Furthermore, according to the statement of Defendant D, Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A did not know or assault other deaf-gu games than R&C and BN on October 19, 2005 (Evidence No. 9387) and that Defendant A was in a position to point out the problems as to the fairness of the determination of the adjudication (Evidence No. 7582, 7583). In light of these circumstances, Defendant A was the chairman of the adjudication committee and was not in such position (Evidence No. 7582, 7583). In light of these circumstances, Defendant A was more interested in R & S team, which was the deaf-gu team of Defendant D, E and its guidance, and it was more likely that Defendant A participated in the adjudication by the chairman of the viewing and viewing team, and Defendant A was more able to be found to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to participate in the trial.

4) The nature of the money remitted by Defendant D or E to Defendant A

① In receiving money from T, Defendant D, E, etc., Defendant A stated that not only the bank account under his own name but also the bank account under the name of his parent, etc., and that Defendant D and E would transfer money to Defendant A without his own name (the steam record 9496 pages). Defendant E also stated that he would not transfer money to Defendant A to his parent’s account, thereby resulting from the future tracking purpose (Evidence record 6249 pages) by sending money to Defendant 2 without his parents’ request. In relation to this, Defendant AP, whose father was 6,000 won and 50,000 won were transferred to Defendant B and 50,000 won were transferred to Defendant D and 6,000 won, and Defendant D and 6,000 won were transferred to Defendant C’s parents, and Defendant C and 6,000 won were also transferred to Defendant C’s mother.

In light of these circumstances and methods, Defendant D and E transferred money under the name of their parents or other persons unrelated to the field of agriculture to avoid the fact that Defendant D and E transferred money in relation to the exercise of influence over the trial participating in the games of R and the S viewing Farming Team, and Defendant A seems to have received money from one’s own or other persons without the field of agriculture.

② As to the circumstances in which Defendant D received money from Defendant E, Defendant E was subject to the past disciplinary action and suspended of qualifications for two years. At the time, Defendant E was aware of the fact that Defendant D’s telephone and asked Defendant D to take care of Defendant D, and then he was made to have been aware of the difficult situation and to have received money. However, Defendant E did not have any direct private relationship with Defendant A, and only 2.4 million won (Evidence No. 6239 of the Evidence No. 6239 of the Evidence No. 6239 of the record) paid money to Defendant E with the sum of KRW 10 million for two years, when Defendant E was gathered as Defendant E’s seat, it is difficult for Defendant E was aware of the fact that Defendant A was the Vice-Chairperson before he was investigated into the police, and that Q vice-chairperson was not aware of the status of Defendant A’s share and made it difficult to think that it was difficult to think Defendant E’s remaining before and after his arrival of the same case (Evidence No. 9464 of the record No. 9494.

In addition, Defendant D stated that he did not pay any money to other members than Defendant A (Evidence No. 9521) (Evidence No. 9521). Defendant E also stated that he did not pay any money to him (Evidence No. 9452). It is difficult to understand that Defendant D, and E continued to pay such money to Defendant D in light of his monthly wage, and that he did not receive a large amount of money to Defendant D’s monthly wage. Furthermore, according to Defendant A’s proposal B Q, BR, and BS, the above third party was 10 to 200,000 won as taxi for only one month of Defendant A (Evidence No. 956,957 of the Evidence No. 9531 of the Evidence No. 9531 of the Evidence No. 9531 of the Evidence No. 1).

③ The question was asked to question whether a member, who was the chairman of Q review committee, paid a large amount of money of KRW 3 million for three years, which was less than KRW 1,000,000,000, from the standpoint of a third party, to a member of Q review committee, who did not engage in the duties of executive officers or umpires, etc. in AAdo and Q, as the leader of Q review committee, and the question was asked whether there was a case that he paid a large amount of money to KRW 3,000,000,000, which was less than KRW 1,000,000,000, from the standpoint of a third party, from among the executive officers of Q, was not considered. However, there was a expectation that Defendant A would not have been involved in the pending trial due to Defendant A’s witness, etc. (Evidence record 9435, 9436 pages).

④ In light of such circumstances, Defendant D created a telephone number book stating the contact number, account number, etc. of the referees in his room room, and contacted the referees, or transferred them to the referees, etc. using it. Defendant A’s account number was also stated (Evidence No. 9388 pages). In particular, Defendant E stated that Defendant A had the mind that Defendant A was able to prevent a decision on the part of the trial due to going to the start of the Stong Team (Evidence No. 6247 pages of the evidence record), it is difficult to view that Defendant D and E transferred money to Defendant A was purely used money. Likewise, Defendant D and E transferred money to the referees under the name of the players, their parents, or her husband, etc., to the effect that Defendant C and E was unable to make a decision on the team that Defendant C directed in the game, and that Defendant E was given a favorable favor to Defendant E’s own team, and thus, Defendant C and E were also ruled to have been given a decision to transfer money to Defendant E.

5) The amount of KRW 2 million that Defendant D remitted to Defendant A on September 30, 2010 (No. 10 per annum (1) and No. 14 per annum) and the amount of KRW 2 million that Defendant E remitted to Defendant A on September 10, 2010 (No. 11 per annum and No. 5 per annum).

① As to the fact that Defendant E received KRW 2 million a year 6,00,000 per annum, Defendant E lent money to his account in the name of “W” as a result of the need for money by leaving his phone at around that time, and Defendant E returned money through Defendant D-friendly BT when there is a nationwide physical competition at Scheon-si (Evidence 9463). However, it is difficult to understand that Defendant A did not choose a method of returning money that Defendant A borrowed from his bank account to the bank account that he returned the money to Defendant E and then transfers it to the bank account that he remitted (Evidence 9463).

② Furthermore, examining the details of Defendant A’s account in W’s name that Defendant D and E borrowed KRW 4 million in total, around September and October 2010, Defendant D’s transfer of money from Defendant D and E, and the withdrawal of KRW 7 million from November 5, 2010 (No. 6, 3299 pages of evidence records). In light of the foregoing, Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A borrowed money from Defendant D and E and returned money through Defendant D-friendly BT at Sacheon-si with a view to not being one’s own circumstances, and that Defendant A’s transfer of money was difficult to obtain.

③ Considering the above circumstances, Defendant D and E’s monthly salary of KRW 2 million through KRW 2.4 million, Defendant A received 2 million from Defendant D on September 30, 2010, and KRW 2 million transferred from Defendant E on October 4, 2010, not Defendant A borrowed from Defendant D and E, but Defendant A’s exercise of influence over the deaf-gu trial, thereby protecting the deaf-gu trial against disadvantageous judgment on the team directed by Defendant D and E, and as a result, the trial is favorable to Defendant D and E.

It should be deemed that he has been transferred to the purpose of solicitation for giving an adjudication.

6) The nature of the money remitted to Defendant A and whether there was an illegal solicitation: ① Telecommunications, at the time of deposit of money to Defendant A, had been on the part of the R, who had been on the part of the deaf-gu Coco, Ltd., was not related to and not well aware of the fact that he had been on the part of Defendant A, and Defendant D had the personnel of Defendant A through Defendant D; at the time, R was expressed that, while entering the Republic of Korea before the body of the Republic of Korea, there was a conviction that R would enter the fourth lecture if it performed the games solely with the ability to conduct the games (Evidence No. 6205 pages of evidence record).

② On July 18, 2008, in relation to the remittance of KRW 2 million to Defendant A, T introduced and asked Defendant D to offer to Defendant D if the RJE team, which was held from May 30, 2008 to June 3, 2008, is not at a disadvantage due to the ruling of the dissipation of the trial. He heard Defendant D’s talk that Defendant A would be at the end, and then remitted the money to Defendant A as above, and it is evident that Defendant D told Defendant A that “I would know well that I would be “I would know well” (Evidence record 9266 pages).

③ It is reasonable to view that Defendant A received KRW 2 million from the “BJ” bank account under the name of the “BJ” which is unrelated to the farming field on July 18, 2008, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A received KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff on June 5, 2008 from the R, and (b) Defendant A received KRW 2 million from T in the name of the “BJ,” which is irrelevant to the farming field on July 18, 2008; and (c) Defendant A received from Defendant D the money in return.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the nature of the money remitted to Defendant D and E to the trial and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, Defendant D, E, and T may sufficiently recognize the fact that they have made an illegal solicitation for Q including Defendant B and C to make a disadvantageous decision with respect to the farming-gu competition of the team directed by them to Q including Defendant B and C, and that they have transferred money under the pretext, such as “the cost of bathing” and “the amount of money reduced,” and it cannot be deemed that the remittance of money falls within the scope permitted by Q regulations or it does not go against the social norms. Accordingly, the above allegations by the above Defendants and their defense attorneys are rejected.

1) Defendant D, as R, stated that the local team, such as R, has a 7:3 or 8:2 level monthly performance compared to the Seoul team, and that there is an unstable atmosphere that the referees with good real ability may take place at any time following the competition (Evidence No. 9371). Thus, without giving money to the referees, a specific inquiry may be at a disadvantage in the following competition. Furthermore, since the pedcos, such as R, etc., do not have good performance in large games such as the national body or juvenile body, etc. in the next year, they stated that the team was provided with money in the name of 7:427,9370). Defendant D did not receive any money in the future (Evidence No. 9370), and thus, Defendant D did not receive any money in the future, and thus, Defendant D did not receive any money in the fair competition (Evidence No. 1).

2) In addition, Defendant E also stated that “I have a huge influence on the trial for the question whether I will ask the AF Trial for the reasons for each delivery of KRW 1 million and KRW 500,000 to BC,” “I have a great influence on the trial for the trial. I have a warning that I first attend S audience as S audience, had a large number of unfair competitions while living for ten years, and should have a certain amount of personnel for the trial in the deaf-gu, and I have a view to having a certain amount of money for meal expenses even in the mind that I would have to be evaluated at the end of the trial (Evidence No. 3482 of the evidence record).” On the other hand, I would like to say that I would like to have a little amount of money when I paid money to the trial examiner (Evidence No. 3482 of the evidence record). I would like to have received money from the trial team after the end of the game, and it would be difficult for I would have to know that I would have received money from another person in the name of his own account (Evidence No. 43464).

3) With respect to the question of whether players received money from the Rin-gu Team as players at the Rin-gu Team, and customarily received money from the Kin-gu Team, BD stated that “it has become naturally known because it has been no longer possible to receive money from the parents of farmers-gu players,” and that sending money to the referees at all times constitutes a change in the following games because it prevents the influence of the referees. In particular, the above BD sent money to the referees even though it was in a place where it is impossible to use the bank account in its name as a bad credit holder, and thus, it was so stated that his father’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son and son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

4) On the other hand, AF, who was an executive secretary of Qua statement, stated that "the head of Qua statement, is a money containing the meaning of "at least 919, 920 pages of evidence records," "at least 99, 9920 pages)" or "at least 95 weeks of defendant C also stated that "at least 95 weeks of money was paid, after the end of the competition, it was said that "at least 3821 of the evidence records," "at least 95 weeks of money were not given to the referees," "at least 95 weeks of money should not be given to the referees," "at least 95 weeks of money should not be given to the referees," or "at least 95 weeks of money should be given to the referees," and the defendant C also stated that "at least 95 weeks of money will not be given to the referees, 95 weeks of money should not be given to the referees, 95 weeks of 95 weeks of money.

1. Defendant A

Considering that from September 2007 to October 2012, the Defendant worked as the Vice-Chairperson of Q Q, an incorporated organization of amateur farmers, and gave guidance to and supervision over Q and sports teams belonging to Q and does not engage in any unlawful act, such as giving money and valuables from the leaders of the farming team participating in the competition, and there was an occupational duty to fairly evaluate the judges, as well as to acquire any money and valuables or property benefits from the leader of the farming team or related persons in Q to maintain high level of integrity. However, considering the fact that Q have a duty to maintain high level of integrity as its officers, if the Defendant were to have been aware of the fact that Q were to have been responsible for the acquisition of the shares, the Defendant was unable to give more advantage of the circumstances that the Defendant would have been aware of the fact that Q and the Plaintiff would have been in the relationship with the supervisor and players, and that the Defendant could not have any more advantage of the Defendant’s reliance and trust in the sports team, and that the Defendant could not have any more advantage of the Defendant’s reliance and trust in Q.

However, the fact that the defendant is relatively old as 64 years of age, the fact that he supports the mother of 94 years of age, the fact that there is no record of committing the same kind of crime other than a fine imposed over three times, and the fact that our country has contributed to the development of the deaf-gu in the reality of the poor amateur farming field in Korea. In the future, it seems that the defendant would be able to contribute to the development of the deaf-gu community. In addition, the suspension of execution shall be ordered only once by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's character, behavior and family relationship.

2. Defendant B, C

The defendants are responsible for conducting adjudication affairs fairly in Q as a judgment belonging to Q. In particular, since the determination of adjudication has absolute influence on the success and failure of the adjudication compared to other previous items in the case of the deaf-gu competition, the defendants' duties of conducting adjudication affairs fairly and neutrally in accordance with the rules of the deaf-gu competition and the regulations of the deaf-gu competition, even though they had occupational duties of conducting adjudication affairs in accordance with the rules of the deaf-gu competition and the regulations of the deaf-gu competition, in an uncertain situation where it is unclear whether it is against the team leader's team leader's duty to make a judgment more favorable than the other team's team's team's team's decision, it is necessary to punish the defendants with severe punishment in consideration of the fact that they acquired money and valuables under the name of Q for several years, thereby impairing the fairness, integrity, and uncertainty of adjudication affairs, and trust and trust of the general public, and even considering the status of the above defendants, period, methods, frequency of the crime, and acquisition amount of money.

However, the judges belonging to Q receive allowances according to the distance and frequency of participation (Evidence 9897 pages) only in cases where they conduct trial affairs in each competition without receiving a fixed monthly salary (Evidence 9897 pages). In the case of Defendant B, the annual allowances paid therefrom are limited to KRW 660,00 in 209, KRW 8,315,000 in 209, KRW 11,508,000 in 2011, KRW 5,256,00 in 200 in 2012 (Evidence 9905 pages); Defendant C’s 1,535,000 won in 208; Defendant C’s 8,729,000 won in 20, KRW 13,120,500 in 201, KRW 500 in 20 in 201, KRW 5012 in 209; Defendant C’s execution of criminal punishment under the following circumstances.

3. Defendant D, E, and F

The Defendants, as participants of the deaf-gu Team in Q, are in absolute influence on the failure of the adjudication by the adjudication of the adjudication by the adjudication of the adjudication by the adjudication by the adjudication of the adjudication by comparison with other items of the farming-gu games. At the time, the Minister of Q Vice-Chairperson, AAA, an inquiry secretary, etc. in charge of the evaluation and allocation of adjudications, who are in charge of A and the adjudication secretary, etc., who are in charge of the evaluation and allocation of adjudications, who are directed by the Defendants, made an illegal solicitation for the convenience of the adjudication in participating in the farming-gu competition, and remitted a considerable amount of money for a considerable period of time, thereby impairing the fairness, integrity, and integrity of the Q adjudication, and undermining the general trust in this context. Considering the circumstance and method of remitting, amount, frequency of remittance, and adjudication, the fact that the Defendants remitted money to A and other players’ children of a considerable part of the players, who are in need of considerable influence on the results of the promotion of their own ability to support them, which would eventually be difficult to support the entire parents’s.

However, the Defendants, once every one year, need to give good grades in the deaf-gu combination in a position of unstable renewal of contracts based on the results of the deaf-gu team, and if they fail to provide money to judges, etc., they appear to have been forced to make an illegal solicitation and transfer without any criminal records, Defendant E and F have no criminal records, Defendant D has no criminal records in addition to one fine, and the Defendants have contributed to the development of the amateur deaf-gu system by fostering the deaf-gu players in the reality of the very poor Korean deaf-gu system. In the future, considering the fact that there is room for the Defendants to contribute to the growth of the amateur deaf-gu system by releasing excellent deaf-gu players based on their guidance experience and know-how, they should select imprisonment as stated in the judgment of the Defendants, but suspend each sentence of imprisonment with labor only once.

The acquittal portion

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged on the increase in the amount of KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for Defendant D P, is that Defendant D, on the above date, transferred the name of the trader to Defendant A by using the name of the trader as “P” and provided two million,00,000,000,000 won for the illegal solicitation to Defendant A (No. 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for Defendant D). According to the following records, Defendant D received the request from P, who is one’s own child, and requested the transfer to Defendant A on October 15, 2011 (Evidence evidence record,749,748,747,757, and 925,000,0).

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Shin Dong-dong

1) As to the receipt by Defendant A of KRW 2 million in a bank account in W on October 4, 2010, at a 111-day rate per annum in attached Form of indictment (1).

Although the donor is written as 'D', in light of the records, the remittance of the above money in the name of 'X' is not Defendant D but Defendant E.

It is clear so, [No. 5] No. 6 per annum, and ‘D' No. 11 per annum, are corrected ex officio, considering that it is a clerical error of ‘E'.