2010Gohap549 A. Preparation of false official documents

(b) Exercising any false official document;

C. Acceptance of bribe

(d) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

(e) Offering of bribe;

1.(a). (b) O (77 years old, South) and a public official;

Accommodation-si

[Reference domicile-si]

2. D. e., gambling (64years, South Korea) and the head of A Q Examination Agency;

Accommodation-si

[Reference domicile-si]

South Korean nationals

법무법인 ▦▦ 담당변호사 최◎◎ ( 피고인 오◇을 위하여 )

법무법인 9 담당변호사 양 ( 피고인 오◇을 위하여 )

Attorney Lee O-O (for defendant Park Ba-ok)

February 18, 201

Defendant ○○ is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and imprisonment for 10 months.

except that from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, for one year for the defendant's office, and for the defendant's office,

For two years, the execution of each sentence above shall be suspended.

The amount of KRW 1 million from the defendant's wrong shall be collected from the defendant's gambling, and KRW 20 million from the defendant's gambling shall be collected respectively.

The above order the defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection.

Facts of crime

【Status of Defendants】

Defendant O was in charge of duties such as permission for development while serving as the urban building and urban development district in ○○ City from November 10, 2007 to January 15, 2009, and from January 15, 2009. From January 16, 2009 to January 16, 200 to ○○ City Construction and Urban Development.

Defendant Park Poe-young is a person who worked for 88 reporters (O viewing) from July 2008 to February 2010.

【Criminal facts】

1. Defendant’s mistake

(a) The preparation of a false official document and the display of a false official document on November 28, 2008;

1 ) 피고인은 2008 . 11 . 28 . 경 용인시 88구 ○○로 94 소재 용인시 88구청 도 시건축과 사무실에서 , 2008 . 11 . 5 . 경 오◎ 명의로 신청된 용인시 88구 ○○면 식 금리 산○○에 대한 산지전용허가신청서에 첨부된 평균경사도 조사서상의 평균경사도 가 21 . 59도로 되어 있어 개발행위허가 기준인 17 . 5도를 초과한다는 사실을 알고 있었 음에도 불구하고 위 식금리 산1 X X에 대한 출장보고서에 첨부되어 있는 개발행위허가 기준 검토조서의 경사도 검토결과란에 ' 저촉없음 ' , 비고란에 ' 저촉없음 ' 이라고 각 기재 하여 허위 내용의 사실을 기재하고 , 출장보고서 하단에 ' 보고자 : 88구 도시건축과 오○ ' 이라고 기재하는 방법으로 출장보고서 1장을 작성하였다 .

Accordingly, the defendant prepared a false business trip report, which is a public document, for the purpose of exercising his duties.

2 ) 피고인은 위 일시 및 장소에서 위와 같이 허위로 작성한 출장보고서를 용인 시 88구 도시건축과장 박♠♠에게 제출하여 결재를 득함으로써 이를 행사하였다 .

(b) Preparation of a false official document and the display of a false official document on January 15, 2009;

1 ) 피고인은 2009 . 1 . 15 . 경 OO시 88구청 도시건축과 사무실에서 , 2009 . 1 . 5 . 경 조♠♠ 명의로 신청된 OO시 88구 00면 ○○리 70 - XX외 1필지에 대한 산 지전용허가신청서에 첨부된 평균경사도 조사서상의 평균경사도가 21 . 19도로 되어 있어 개발행위허가 기준인 17 . 5도를 초과한다는 사실을 알고 있었음에도 불구하고 위 식금 리 70 - X 외 1필지에 대한 출장보고서에 첨부되어 있는 개발행위허가 검토조서의 경사 도 검토결과란에 ' 해당없음 ' 이라고 기재하여 허위 내용의 사실을 기재하고 , 출장보고서 하단에 ' 보고자 : 도시건축과 오○ ' 이라고 기재하는 방법으로 출장보고서 1장을 작성 하였다 .

Accordingly, the defendant prepared a false business trip report, which is a public document, for the purpose of exercising his duties.

2) The Defendant submitted a business trip report prepared in a false manner at the above date, time, and place to the head of the HongUA of the city construction division at this time and held the report upon approval.

C. Acceptance of bribe

On December 3, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 in cash from gambling in return for providing assistance to other applications for development activities, etc., as described in paragraph (1) 1-A, at around 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○, 88 o’s o’s 88 o’s o’s o’s 88 o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s 88 o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2. Defendant’s gambling

(a) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

피고인은 2008 . 9 . 경 ○○시 88구청 입구에서 OO시 88구 ○○면 소재 부 동산의 개발행위허가 신청을 준비 중이던 조 ♠으로부터 ' ○○시 88구 ○○면 소재 임야의 개발행위허가를 받으려고 하는데 알아 봐 달라 . ' 는 취지의 부탁을 받고 조♠♠ 에게 ' 담당공무원에게 한 번 알아보겠다 , 허가가 나면 허가 성공에 대한 사례금 등의 명목으로 3 , 000만 원을 달라 . ' 는 취지로 말하였다 .

이후 피고인은 2008 . 11 . 10 . 경 OO시 88구 소재 농협 ○○지점 인근 도로에 서 조♠♠으로부터 로비대금 및 사례금 등의 명목으로 1 , 000만 원 ( 자기앞수표 100만 원권 10매 ) 을 교부받고 , 2008 . 12 . 3 . 경 위 농협 용인지점 인근 도로에서 조♠♠으로부 터 위와 같은 명목으로 재차 2 , 000만 원 ( 자기앞수표 100만 원권 20매 ) 을 교부받아 합 계 3 , 000만 원을 교부받았다 .

As a result, the defendant makes a solicitation for a case handled by a public official.

received goods.

(b) Bribery;

On December 3, 2008, the Defendant issued KRW 100,000 in cash to Lao in return for receiving assistance from other applicants for development activities in ○○○○-si 88, ○○○-si ○○○○○, as described in paragraph (a). In addition, the Defendant issued KRW 1,00,000 in cash to ○○-si 88, ○○-si ○○○, as well as the rest room in the office.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1 . 조♠♠에 대한 검찰 피의자신문조서

1 . 조♠♠에 대한 각 경찰 피의자신문조서 ( 제4회 경찰 피의자신문조서 중 피고인 박소

◇ 진술부분 포함 )

1. The statement of each police officer made to △△△△△△△;

1. Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Ordinance at Chicago-si (five pages of investigation records), application for permission, average slope analysis degree, withdrawal;

A copy of a report, a document of permission for development activities, etc. (15 pages 15 of investigation records), an investigation report (a check tracking, investigation)

Part 717 of the record, the response of request for investigation cooperation (No. 1133 of the investigation records), the use of cashier's checks (Fraud)

Record 2420 pages), Audit Report (Investigation Records No. 4161 pages)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant’s mistake: each Criminal Code Article 227 (Preparation of False Official Document, Selection of Imprisonment) and each Criminal Code

§ 29, Article 227 (Presentation of False Document, Selection of Imprisonment), Punishment

Article 129(1) of the Act (the point of acceptance of bribe and the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant’s gambling: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (in whole, a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and imprisonment;

elective) Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of offering of a bribe, the title of the offering of a bribe)

Hargue Selection)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant mistake: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments and Criminal Records)

The severe penalty prescribed in the crime of preparing a false official document on January 15, 2009

Aggravation of combined crimes)

(b) Defendant’s gambling room: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Punishment)

(A) Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment specified in the crime of offering of bribe)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant mistake: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act;

(b) Defendant’s domicile: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (a necessary confiscation under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act);

or additional collection shall deprive the criminal or a third person of money, valuables or other benefits -

(2) if such person does not have an unlawful interest, the

Since there is an enemy, there is a hearing about the affairs handled by the defendant.

Part of the money and valuables received under the name of entrustment is actually received;

A bribe has been given to the relevant public official in relation to the solicitation in accordance with the purport.

in the case of the benefit substantially attributable to the defendant

Therefore, only the remaining money except the part shall be confiscated or confiscated.

The value shall be collected additionally (Supreme Court Decision 93Do1569 delivered on December 28, 1993).

판결 참조 ) . 이 사건에서 피고인은 조♠♠으로부터 개발행위허

(3)0,000,000 won shall be granted to the public official in connection with the solicitation.

1,00,000 won among them shall be given as a bribe to ○○ as a public official in charge.

As such, the defendant, except the above one million won, 20 million won and 9 million won.

shall be subject to collection from a person;

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant’s mistake

[Scope of the applicable sentence in law] Imprisonment with prison labor of not more than 10 years and 6 months;

[Non-existence of Special Aggravation]

【Non-existence of Special Mitigation Elements】

[Scope of Recommendation and Punishment] From April to one year (the crime of acceptance of bribe, Type 1 (less than KRW 10 million), and the basic area)

【No General Aggravation】

[General Mitigation Measures] If the actual amount of profit is minor, it shall not be reflective or criminal punishment.

[Scope of the modified recommended sentencing] The acceptance of bribe and the sentencing guidelines set forth by the sentencing guidelines are not set.

between the crime of preparing false official documents and the crime of uttering of false official documents

According to the standards for handling multiple crimes related to former concurrent crimes Article 37 of the Criminal Act

The lower limit is set on the sentencing criteria for the acceptance of bribe for which the sentencing criteria are set.

The lower limit of the quantity range (four months of imprisonment) shall apply.

[Grounds for Suspension of Execution]

- Major reasons for affirmative participation: the amount of bribe is less than 10 million won;

- There are no adverse reasons:

- positive reasons for general participation: No history of criminal punishment;

- No reason for negative general participation:

[Determination of Sentence] 8 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution

Each of the crimes of this case is not only an official document related to permission for development activities as a public official in charge of permission for development activities by falsely preparing and exercising it, but also an official document related to the permission for development activities by receiving money and valuables in consideration of the fact that the defendant's application for permission for development activities that failed to meet the requirements for permission due to each of the above crimes was made, and thus the public's trust on the fairness in performing public duties related to permission for development activities has been damaged, etc.

However, the defendant did not actively demand money and valuables, and the amount of bribe received is only one million won, the defendant commits a mistake, commits a crime against the defendant, does not have any criminal history, and other factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case are considered in consideration of various factors of sentencing as stated in the arguments of this case.

2. Defendant’s gambling

이 사건 범행은 피고인이 공무원에게 청탁하여 개발행위허가를 받아주겠다는 명목 으로 조♠♠으로부터 3 , 000만 원을 수수하고 , 그 중 100만 원을 관련 공무원에게 뇌물 로 공여한 사안으로 죄질이 좋지 아니하고 , 피고인의 범행으로 인하여 공무원의 직무 공정성에 대한 일반 국민의 신뢰와 공무수행의 불가매수성을 훼손시켰다는 점에서 피 고인에게 그에 상응하는 책임을 물음이 마땅하다 .

다만 , 피고인이 잘못을 반성하고 뉘우치고 있는 점 , 피고인에게 아무런 범죄전력이 없는 점 , 피고인이 수수한 금원 중 일부를 조♠♠에게 반환함으로써 조♠♠이 피고인 에 대한 처벌을 원하지 않는 점 , 그 밖에 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 양형요소를 참 작하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다 .

Judges dedicated to judges

Impossibility of signing and sealing due to judge's retirement;

Judges Equitable