beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. No person shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official of the facts charged;
On December 9, 2008, the Defendant stated that “D” office operated by the Defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that “A victim E may win a lawsuit, such as confirmation of invalidity of the appointment of a clan representative of Seoul High Court No. 2007Na86404, which lost in the appellate trial, may have the Defendant win a lawsuit without any framework. Here, if a trial is held, a clan member does not have to do so, and the case may take place due to bad faith. Accordingly, upon the request of the Justice, the Defendant changed KRW 20 million for entertainment expenses to come to contact with the Justice of the Republic of Korea.”
However, even if the defendant received money from the victim for the purpose of entertainment expenses, he did not have the intention or ability to make a judgment favorable to the victim by visiting the Supreme Court or requesting the Justice to do so.
As above, the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of deceiving the victim as above and acquiring 20 million won for the purpose of entertainment expenses by Justice Park Gyeong-sung, and at the same time soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public officials, as well as by obtaining them from the victim as entertainment expenses.
2. The E’s statement is grounded on the fact that the Defendant told that he would contact with the Justice around December 9, 2008 and received KRW 20 million on the same day under the name of Justice Contact with it.
(F) The statement of F is the content of E’s statement and is inadmissible as long as E testified in this Court). However, the following social status and experience of E, sex items, E’s infiniteness, uncertainty, attitude of statement, relationship between the Defendant and E, and the Defendant, which are acknowledged by the evidence investigated by this Court: