2010 Highest 874, 2452 (Joint) Occupational Embezzlement, Forgery of Private Document, Forgery Document

event, offer of bribe, interference with tendering;

Note 00

nan

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of interference with business is acquitted.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, from September 3, 2007, from Seongdong-gu Seoul around September 3, 2007, managed the overall management of the Company’s funds as the representative director of Seongdong-gu, Seoul, a company entrusted with after-school computers and English classes.

[2010 Highest 874]

1. Occupational embezzlement;

A. On March 2009, the Defendant: (a) transferred money to the account of an employee for monthly salary, as if he were paid monthly salary to employees to use the money for the payment of honorariums for the selection of an after-school enterprise; and (b) received money from the Defendant to withdraw the said money in cash and use it for the purpose of paying monthly salary.

On March 20, 2009, the Defendant embezzled 137,594,100 won in total by arbitrarily using 57 times in the following manner from around that time to January 28, 2010: (a) the amount deposited in the account of the victim, Inc. 00 around March 20, 2009, to an O bank account in the name of 00, and deposited KRW 1,934,00 in the name of 1,934,00 in the name of 0, and used it at will during the occupational custody of the said company; and (b) around that time, from around that time to January 28, 2010.

B. On February 17, 2010, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 2770,000,000, which was deposited in the account of the victim corporation, around February 17, 2010 for the said company’s business purpose, and embezzled the money as the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis of the Defendant.

2. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

On June 16, 2009, the Defendant had expressed a mind to forge and submit a certificate of right to use authentic software, etc. as if he/she used authentic software while concluding a contract for the entrusted operation of a school computer classroom with 00 elementary schools and after-school schools.

At around June 16, 2006, the Defendant, who was not authorized for the purpose of exercising at the office of 00 (00), made this Hangul and computer licensing using a debate program, and submitted it to the person in charge of an elementary school who does not know of the purpose of exercising it, and then forged all the private document as shown in attached Table (2) from around that time to October 16, 2009, which is a private document about the certification of facts, and exercised it over 80 times.

3. Offering of a bribe;

A. The offering of a bribe to Kim 00

(1) On September 5, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe to a public official in relation to his duties by granting a honorarium of KRW 690,000 to the head of a school Kim 00 who was selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class in Gangdong-gu Seoul at around 00 elementary school principals located in Gangdong-gu, Seoul.

(2) On November 2, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by providing 5,480,000 won as a honorarium to the head of the school Kim 00 as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer curriculum in the above school room.

(3) On January 7, 2010, the Defendant issued a bribe of KRW 744,00 to the principal Kim 00 in the above principal school room as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class, who was selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school school, and granted a bribe of KRW 74,000 as to the official duties of the public official.

B. The offering of a bribe to 00

(1) On November 2, 2009, the Defendant granted 410,000 won as honorariums for the duties of public officials to the principal 00 elementary school principals in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who selected the principal as an entrusted business entity of after-school school computer classes, at around 00 elementary school principals.

(2) On January 7, 2001, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to the official duties by providing 560,000 won to the principal of the school to the principal of the school in the above principal of the school, who was selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer curriculum, under the pretext of a honorarium for the appointment of the principal of the school.

(c) Note* the offering of a bribe to *

On December 30, 2009, the Defendant issued a bribe to public officials in relation to the duties of the principal of the 00 elementary school located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government * a principal of the school * * a person selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class under the pretext of a honorarium for one million won.

D. The point of offering of a bribe to red00

On January 7, 2010, the Defendant issued a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by selecting 100,000 won as an honorarium for those selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class in Seocho-gu, Seoul at the principal school room of 00 elementary school in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

E. The offering of a bribe to 00

On September 5, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by providing KRW 7,050,40 as a honorarium for those selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the principal of the 00 elementary school in Nowon-gu.

F. The point of offering of bribe to MaximumO

(1) On September 5, 2009, the Defendant rendered a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by selecting 00 principal teachers as an entrusted business entity of after-school and English classes at the school principal of 00 elementary school located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and providing 7,50,000 won as a honorarium for those selected as an entrusted business entity of after-school and English classes.

(2) On November 2, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their official duties by providing a honorarium of KRW 7,95,000 to the Defendant’s car established in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an entrusted business entity for after-school education classes and English classes, which was selected as an entrusted business entity for after-school classes and English classes.

(3) On January 4, 2010, the Defendant granted a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties by providing 7,95,000 won as a honorarium to the head of the school who selected him as an entrusted business entity of after-school computer classes and English classes in the above school room.

G. The offering of a bribe to Kim*

(1) On September 1, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe to a public official in relation to his duties by providing a honorarium of KRW 4,235,00 to a person selected as an entrusted business entity for after-school English classes in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul around September 1, 200.

(2) On November 2, 2009, the Defendant issued a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by providing 3.64 million won as a honorarium for the appointment of the principal in the above principal of the school as an entrusted business entity of the after-school English classroom to the principal of the school***.

H. The point of offering of a bribe to Cho 00

On January 7, 2010, the Defendant issued 990,000 won to the principal of the 00 elementary school school in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, to the principal and 00 of the school as an entrusted business entity of the after-school English classroom in order to give a bribe in relation to the public official's duties by providing a reward for the selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school English classroom.

[2010 Highest 2452]

1. The offering of a bribe to this**

On December 4, 2009, the Defendant issued 200,000 won as a honorarium to the public official’s duties at the school principal of 00 elementary school located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ** in the school after school as an entrusted business entity of the after school classes.

2. The point of offering of a bribe to * Red*

On December 8, 2009, the Defendant, at around 00 elementary school principals located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around December 8, 2009, provided a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by selecting instructors belonging to 00 corporations as instructors of after-school English classes in order to assign 620,000 won as honorariums for those who were selected as instructors of after-school English classes.

3. The point of offering of a bribe to this Mem Memical Memar

On December 30, 2009, the Defendant issued 200,000 won as a reward for the appointment of the principal as an entrusted business entity of the after-school English classroom to the principal of the school at around 00 elementary school in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and granted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

4. The point of offering of bribe to Kim Jong-Ma

A. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant selected and appointed instructors belonging to the principal, Kim Jong-soo Co., Ltd. 00 as instructors of after-school computer classes from the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 elementary school office as of September 1, 2009.

A bribe was granted in relation to the public official's duties by delivering KRW 200,000 as a honorarium.

B. On December 8, 2009, the Defendant granted 200,000 won as a honorarium for selecting an instructor belonging to 00 corporation as a after-school computer class instructor at the above principal office of the school and granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties.

5. The point of offering of a bribe to 00

A. On October 7, 2009, the Defendant granted a bribe of 200,000 won to the public official’s duties by providing 00,000 won as honorariums for those selected as an entrusted business entity of after-school computer classes in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from the principal of 00 elementary school located in Gangnam-gu.

B. On December 4, 2009, the Defendant granted 200,000 won to the head of the school as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class in the above school room and granted a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties by providing a reward for those selected as an entrusted business entity of the after-school computer class.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by the prosecution against the defendant, the head of the office, and the Kim 00

1. A criminal investigation report (a written contract and accompanied by forged licenses) and documents bound therein;

1. Investigative report (in case of attaching two bribe documents detected by external hump);

1. Investigation report (the case of finding rebates documents);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 356, 355(1), 231, 234, 133(1), and 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the victim corporation 00 is one company in which the defendant owns all the shares, and the defendant has agreed with the victim company to forge the private document of this case and to exercise the right to investigate the facts, and taking into account the number of the amount of the offer of this case)

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of interference with business among the facts charged in the instant case

On January 15, 2010, the Defendant participated in the selection of a computer classroom company at 00 elementary schools and selected the first document review. On February 4, 2010, 2010, the Defendant expressed the second proposal for the selection of a computer classroom company at 00 elementary schools and proposed it at a price equal to or lower than the monthly tuition fee per person presented at other companies.

Therefore, the defendant, at around February 4, 2010, made a call to the head of the office of 00 elementary school, the bidder, the office of 00 elementary school, and confirmed the contents of proposals, such as monthly tuition fees, per capita, presented by the other company between his female and the other company. The defendant, at the meeting of the above proposal, made a statement that the contents of proposals made by A, which is an excessive investment, may be pointed out in the audit and inspection, which is an excessive investment. However, the defendant also made a proposal to reduce the amount of tuition fees by 3,00 won as a result of the consultation to change the amount of the proposal. Accordingly, the defendant also proposed that the defendant will discuss the amount of tuition fees in consultation with the school and sufficient consultation, and the amount of tuition fees shall be reduced to 26,00 won per capita, and the amount of tuition fees shall be reduced to 20,000 won per capita and the amount of tuition fees shall be reduced to 20,000 won per person per consultation.

Therefore, on February 4, 2010, the Defendant presented lecture fees per capita at 25,00 won at the briefing session of the above proposal held at 00 elementary school located in Mapo-gu Seoul around February 4, 2010, and received a successful tender and obstructed tender by applying the US$ and deceptive scheme.

2. Determination

The crime of interference with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act is a crime detrimental to the fairness of bidding. It means that "an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding" causes a situation that is likely to interfere with fair free competition, i.e., creating a situation that unfairly affects an adequate price formation through fair competition." On the other hand, the crime of attempted interference with bidding is not punished for lack of separate penal provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924, Sept. 26, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles, according to the statement, recording, recording, etc. of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the above part of the facts charged, it is acknowledged that there was an agreement as stated in the above part of the facts charged, but the defendant and the defendant stated that the above part of the indictment itself was an excessive investment, or that there was not a statement of the fact that the contents of the proposal of the main food company A were actually excessive investment in accordance with the above agreement, or that there was an inquiry about tuition fees to the defendant according to A's tuition fees, there was no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove this, it cannot be deemed that the defendant and the defendant caused a situation that there was a concern that it might interfere with the fair free competition of USD 10. However, the defendant's and the defendant's acts of USD 1 are merely that the attempted act of interference with bidding.

Thus, the above part of the facts charged is found not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts.

Judges Park Jong-woo