A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant entered F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) around June 200, and worked as the head of the design team around February 2015 at the time of retirement of F, and G was a person who worked as the head of the design team. G was a person who worked as the head of the H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”).

F was to proceed with the “J New Construction Project” at the G Geong-gu, Daegu on September 2013. The defendant was to select the design firm of the project implemented by F as the design team leader in accordance with the fair procedure.

Nevertheless, around September 2013, at the F Design Team conference room located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (a) requested by G to allow 50 million won in relation to “J new construction,” and (b) that “the convenience under the contract is changed; and (c) requested F to enter into a “J New Construction Design Contract” worth KRW 150 million in total down payment with H.

Since then, around October 28, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from G in return for receiving design services and providing other contractual convenience in the H response room located on the fourth floor of Songpa-gu Seoul building L, Songpa-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property in exchange for illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Copy of the prosecutor's statement concerning M;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Application of the statutes on design service contract;

1. Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act is highly likely to be criticized in that the defendant, on the grounds of the sentencing of new construction works, has promoted personal benefits in selecting a designer.

The above behavior of Defendant Appellant provides the design firm with wrong causes when giving priority to the offering of royalties and rebates for receiving stocks rather than focusing on securing the partial design competitiveness in relation to the construction work.