207No109 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Partial Referral)

Preliminary Crime Violation of Attorney-at-Law Act

practices, all judges

Defendant and Prosecutor

Breeding, leathering, fishing, and gambling;

Law Firm (L) Pacific, Attorney Kang Yong-tae, Choi Jin-soo

Attorney Lee Im-soo

Law Firm continental, Attorney Kim Dong-dong

Law Firm Seog, Attorney Kim Young-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gohap931 Decided December 22, 2006

December 28, 2007

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The 136-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

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

A set of 1 sheet and a small frequency of 1 sheet recorded in the facts constituting an offense shall be confiscated, respectively.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the charges against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (hereinafter "the Act") on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) that received a total of KRW 15 million in relation to the provisional disposition application case of the building located in Busan around the spring from Kim flood around April 2002, and that received a total of KRW 10 million in relation to the case of the

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of the lower judgment against Defendant (1) (the guilty part of the lower judgment) (A)

In addition, the Defendant did not receive a request from Kim flood to arrange the case of preliminary injunction disposition in the U.S., and there was no fact that he received five million won from Kim flood. (B) As to the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, Article 2 of the Criminal Act

The Defendant did not receive a request from Kim flood to arrange the instant case on the bail, and it was true that he purchased a 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of 1 set of bits through Kim flood and did not pay the price thereof, but did not receive it in connection with the solicitation and solicitation of the instant case.

In addition, the defendant did not receive a brokerage request related to the disposition of suspension of business from the Kim flood, and there was no fact that he received any money from Kim flood.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if some of the facts charged are found guilty, in light of the overall circumstances of this case, the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) 1, the part of the judgment below not guilty (2) 1,00,000 won received from the Kim flood in response to the offer of mediation related to the preliminary injunction case. (2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the part of the judgment below not guilty 2, the defendant can be found to have received two kpets from Kim flood in response to the offer of mediation related to the provisional injunction case. (3) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to Article 3 of the judgment not guilty portion, the court below found that the defendant received 10,000,000 won from the defendant's request and received 1 and0,000 won from the defendant's request (D) 1,000,000 won from the Kim flood and received 1,000,0000 won from the defendant's request and received 3,000,0000 won from the defendant's maximum 0,0.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of all the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the credibility of the Kim flood’s statement (1) Defendant and defense counsel

The main evidence of the facts charged in the instant case is only Kim flood’s statement. He was guilty in fraud, etc., and he continuously reversed his statement from the investigation agency to the trial court. The statement itself lacks rationality, objectivity, reasonableness, and consistency. Therefore, the credibility of the statement is entirely nonexistent.

(2) The judgment of the court below (A) first of all, according to the health records and records, Kim flood was detained at the prosecution around July 2005 due to the charge of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. After the prosecution, the prosecutor started internal investigation into the relation between Kim flood and the defendant since December 2005, according to the statement of Park Il-○○, Kim flood, which issued money and valuables to the defendant under the name of the deposit of the case, and the original Kim flood was completely denied the fact that he delivered money and valuables to the defendant under the name of the deposit of the case, but after his release at the appellate court, he changed his attitude from June 14, 2006 to the purport that he delivered money and valuables to the defendant under the name of the deposit of the case, and thereafter Kim flood reversed the entire fact of denying the above delivery of money and valuables in the process of questioning with the defendant on July 17, 2006.

However, Kim flood made a statement to the effect that the court below delivered money and valuables under the name of the Defendant at the court of original instance. Furthermore, as to the background of the statement statement statement, “I want to deny the Defendant’s first time when the prosecutor’s office begins to protect the Defendant at the end of his charge, but I tried to have interfered with the Defendant’s discharge of his and the Defendant as bail, and thereafter the prosecution started to make a true statement. However, during the process of reporting the case to the media, the court of original instance opened to the prosecutor’s office which made public his real name and photograph, as the case was known in the world due to the fact that △△△△’s flood became known in the process of reporting it to the media, it was difficult to reverse the Defendant’s oral statement to the effect that ○○○○ was entitled to prior measures in the appellate court on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law’s Act, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to reverse the Defendant’s Kim Jong-sik’s oral statement and statement to the prosecutor’s office in detail.

(B) Furthermore, according to the records, ① the Kim flood was summoned to the prosecutor’s office almost every day from May 2006 and was investigated for a long time, ② the prosecutor’s office was summoned several times after the prosecution of this case; ② the prosecutor did not prosecute some charges until now; ③ the prosecutor’s office in the case of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act at the appellate court after the prosecution of this case had a very low sentence on the Kim flood; ③ it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility that the Kim flood would have made the false statements in this case because it is likely that the prosecutor would conceal his criminal act or be additionally indicted from the prosecutor. However, even if the flood was found in the following facts, it is difficult to reverse the part of the charges of this case’s testimony, which was consistent with the prosecutor’s office’s uniform testimony since the prosecution of this case until the prosecution of this case, and there is no inconsistency between the defendant and the prosecutor’s oral testimony and the prosecutor’s oral testimony at the same time, and there is no difference between the defendant’s objective testimony and the defendant’s oral testimony at the same time.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) Judgment of the lower court regarding the guilty portion among the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (1) of the lower judgment (A)

1) Facts of recognition

① Around February 24, 2000, Kim Jong-gu Co., Ltd., which was practically operated by himself, took over all the rights to sell a lake square and square board building and the right to operate the building newly built in Yongsan-gu 857 Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si. On November 28, 2001, Na○○, the seller of the building site, filed an application for the provisional disposition of prohibiting the disposal of the said new building with the Jung-gu District Court on the ground that the land sales contract was null and void on November 28, 2001, and the same court accepted the application by ○○ on December 24, 2001, and decided to prohibit the disposal of the said building

② From December 201, 2001 to January 2002, Kim Jong-gu requested an assistance from the above Kim flood to the above provisional disposition case. On January 12, 2002, after introducing new ○○ Attorney from Kim flood, appointed a new ○○ Attorney and filed an objection against the above provisional disposition. On January 31, 2002, the Jung-gu District Court revoked the above provisional disposition decision.

③ Although ○○ filed an appeal against the cancellation of the above provisional disposition, Kim Jong-tae and Na○○○ had reached an agreement during the appellate trial, and on April 10, 2002, the above case was concluded upon withdrawal of an appeal by Na○○○ on April 10, 2002.

④ In the process of requesting the above help to Kim flood, Kim Jong-chul opened 10 million won in spring and 5 million won in spring around 2002.

2) Whether the Defendant received five million won from the Kim flood

① Although, at the time of the settlement of the case, Kim Jong-chul made a statement with the majority opinion on the place where Kim Jong-si delivered the bags containing five million won to Kim flood, it is difficult to make a statement to the majority opinion on the following grounds: (a) as long as Kim Jong-si did not make a false statement from the beginning, it is difficult to make a statement to the extent that the above specific circumstances are consistent; (b) as the circumstance at the time of the delivery of the bags from the investigative agency to the court below’s court’s decision, it is very difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement was made in light of the following: (c) as to the circumstance at the time of the delivery of the bags to the Defendant at the time of the above provisional disposition case, it is extremely difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement was made by the investigative agency to the extent that the Defendant’s statement was made without direct experience; and (d) in light of the fact that Kim Jong-chul’s statement and the circumstance at the time of delivery of the envelope to the Defendant at the time of the above provisional disposition case, it was delivered to the Defendant.

3) Determination as to whether the defendant received five million won in connection with the solicitation of the case

① 김홍수가 피고인에게 일산 가처분사건과 관련한 동생이라고 하면서 김□□를 소개한 점, ② 봉투를 주고받을 당시 김□□가 김홍수의 바로 옆자리에 앉아 있었던 점, ③ 피고인과 김□□ 사이의 언짢은 일로 다소 분위기가 어색해지자 김홍수가 곧바로 피고인에게 봉투를 전달한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 당시 피고인으로서도 김홍수가 전달하는 돈이 위 가처분사건의 청탁과 관련하여 제공된다는 점을 충분히 인식하고 있었던 것으로 봄이 상당하다 .

4) Accordingly, this part of the facts charged is found guilty. (b) Determination of the political party’s trial

1) However, in light of the evidence duly examined in the court below and the trial court, the following contradictions and doubtss are raised in the statement of Kim flood and Kim Jong-tae on the fact that the defendant received five million won in connection with the above provisional disposition case after receiving a request from Kim flood.

① As to the background leading up to 5 million won of Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si stated to the prosecutorial office that “(s) was consistently given an envelope from studal harassment to the Defendant and immediately delivered the envelope to the Defendant,” while Kim Jong-chul stated to the effect that “(s) was sent at the highest investigation level, 1331 pages, 131 of the trial record)” in the lower court and the trial court, and that “The time and place of the place of the envelope where Kim Jong-si delivered the envelope to Kim Jong-si, even though it appears that it was difficult for Kim Jong-si to easily confuse the Defendant with the time, the time and place of the envelope to the Kim Jong-si, even though it was difficult for him to easily confuse it with the time.

② Regarding whether Kim flood delivered to the Defendant as it is, in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below, it is generally consistent at the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below as to whether it delivered KRW 5 million to the Defendant, and “On the other hand, the Defendant stated the envelope as it is” (Evidence No. 155 of the evidence record, No. 2284-285 of the trial record, No. 2285 of the trial record, Kim flood testimony: Provided, That Kim flood calculated the drinking value with the money received from Kim Jong-si, and there is a possibility that he made a statement against the Defendant that he was able to give the checks to the Defendant.” Since the prosecutor’s office, it cannot be seen that “The envelope that the Defendant was the envelope that the Defendant was the Defendant with the envelope that was the Defendant, and that the envelope that was the Defendant was the Defendant to the Defendant to the court of the court of the trial,” or that it was continuously inconsistent with the Defendant’s testimony that was not the Kim flood envelope.

③ According to the above statement of the Kim Jong-chul, Kim Jong-sik was not an envelope that the Kim Jong-si gave money to the defendant. Considering the fact that Kim Jong-si received an envelope with five million won from Kim Jong-si, and there was no reason to put this into another envelope, Kim Jong-si was likely to bring a small amount of money to the defendant in another envelope instead of five million won that he received from Kim Jong-si, and there is a high possibility that the rest of the money was collected. Furthermore, in light of the defendant's statement that the defendant received money in the amount of KRW 10,000 won from the time of Kim Jong-si and the delivery of money, it is probable that the defendant was also aware that he received money to that effect, and that there is a high possibility of taking such money into consideration the possibility of taking into consideration the fact that the defendant's statement that he received money in the amount of KRW 5,00,000 won.

④ In light of the fact that the Kim flood stated in the prosecution that "the defendant made a promise with the chief judge of the Government," and that "the defendant made a statement to the highest investigation and studal harassment," and that "the defendant made the above statement to the prosecutor's office in the court of original instance and the court of original instance (Evidence No. 154-155 pages)" and that "the defendant made the above statement to the prosecutor's office in the court of original instance and the defendant made a meeting with the chief judge", the above meeting made the statement to the effect that "the above meeting was a usual drinking place in the ordinary usual place in the court of appeal which is not related to the provisional disposition case (the court record No. 895, 977 pages, Kim Si-young's testimony in the court of original instance), and Kim Jong-chul also made a statement to the same purport, the meeting was an ordinary meeting that has no relation with the above provisional disposition case. Therefore, even if the defendant at the time of Kim Jong-chul's meeting, it is highly likely that the above provisional case.

⑤ Although Kim Jong-chul consistently stated that five million won was a check delivered to Kim flood at that time, Kim Jong-young stated that five million won was a check, there was no financial material that five million won was delivered to the Defendant as a result of the account tracking of the instant persons related to the instant check. Although it was difficult to disclose the source of the check because it was unclear, the fact that the Defendant and his family members, etc. did not reveal that the check was used in and around the Defendant and the Defendant’s family members, etc. is a strong doubt that the said check was not delivered to the Defendant.

6) The Kim flood consistently received money from Kim Young-chul to handle the above provisional disposition case, and delivered it to the defendant, and the drinking value was also paid to the defendant. In addition, it is difficult to understand that the Kim flood delivered all the money received from Kim Young-si in the solicitation of the defendant for the purpose of Kim Young-si without any consideration, and that he paid the meal and drinking value related to the disposition of the above case. 2) If so, it cannot be ruled out that the statement made by the Kim flood and Kim Jong-ri that the defendant directly delivered an envelope containing five million won in the above provisional disposition case cannot be ruled out that it is false or erroneous. As long as the amount of money was unclear even if the defendant received a plastic bag in the above family room at the above family room, and as long as the above meeting was normal, the defendant did not have any relation to the above provisional disposition case, there is no reason to recognize that the defendant's complaint was more likely to receive the money during the short time in the above provisional disposition case without any special declaration of intention, and there is no reason to recognize that the defendant's appeal was more reasonable.

(2) The summary of the lower judgment’s judgment regarding the guilty portion under Article 2 of the Criminal Act (A) of the lower judgment

1) Whether the defendant has received a solicitation of mediation of the above bail case

① The statement of Kim flood, such as the process and solicitation of the above bail case, in particular, that the request for release on bail was made by the Defendant, or that the Defendant sent the application for release on bail by facsimile, is very detailed; ② When there was no solicitation for the above release on bail case, it is difficult to explain the process of receipt of high-priced furniture between Kim flood and the Defendant; ③ The YO, the wife of Kim ○○○, also made efforts to release Kim ○ at the time, and was YO○, the document was submitted to the court to the effect that the document was consistent with the statement of Kim flood. ④ The Defendant presented a statement to the effect that the Defendant had made the application for release on bail while making the statement to the court to the effect that the document was consistent with the statement of Kim flood. However, the Defendant asserted that Kim flood had been 7 million won or more from the Yellow○○○○ in connection with the release on bail case and that it was difficult to find the Defendant to have made a false statement on the part of this case before he made a statement under the pretext of Kim flood to the effect that Kim flood had not been made a false statement.

2) Whether the defendant accepted the above table and so on as a intermediary for the above bail case: ① The above table and so on are extremely high to receive it as a mere director gift when the market price reaches 10 million won in total; ② The above table and so on, inter alia, not the articles sold by Kim flood at the time, but the defendant had purchased money directly at a different household store, and the defendant seems to have been well aware of such circumstances; ③ If so, the defendant was to immediately purchase the above house and pay the price to Kim flood for the first time after 3 to 4 weeks since he purchased the house, it seems that he first mentioned the price to the above house to be purchased, and it is not persuasive that the defendant's change that the defendant tried to purchase the house only through Kim flood for the first time through Kim flood, and ④ The defendant argued that he paid 10 million won in cash to Kim flood during the investigation process and made a false statement, and thus, it seems that he did not appear that he was a director of the above 2th day after his visit.

1) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the testimony of Kim flood of the party witness, the above judgment of the court below is fully acceptable. In addition, the following facts and the judgment based on the evidence duly examined by the court below and the evidence duly examined by the court below are added.

2) ① Around the time when the Defendant received the instant household from Kim flood, the Defendant received entertainment, such as meals, drinking, and drinking money, on several occasions, but the amount was limited to the ordinary level of meal cost and drinking value. The offer of money and valuables equivalent to KRW 10 million, such as the foregoing households, is the first time, and even thereafter, Kim flood did not provide money and valuables to the Defendant at a time.

② Following the Defendant’s request for the purchase of a household to Kim flood, the Defendant’s wife went along with the Kim flood, and the Kim flood directly paid the price of the household, and immediately thereafter, the household was delivered to the Defendant’s office. Therefore, the Defendant appears to have been fully aware of the circumstances of the payment of the price of the household. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that, although the Defendant intended to pay the price of the household to Kim flood, the said household was the remaining household at the time of his own household store and failed to pay the price, the above assertion is difficult to believe in light of the above circumstances. Furthermore, the Defendant was asserting that the Defendant delayed the payment of the price that he was to exchange the defective price with the Kim flood, and that the Defendant refused to pay the price to Kim flood thereafter, but according to the Kim flood’s statement, the amount that the Defendant provided was only one million won (which is 85555 pages of the trial record), and that the amount of the price actually intended to be paid is an intention to do so.

③ As seen below, the Defendant exchanged a carpet with a carpet in which he had at the time of receiving the above furniture (as the Kim flood’s statement, about 380 to 4 million won (Evidence No. 1186 pages)). In this case, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s side, sent 2 million won to the ○○○, which is a woman of Kim flood, with his own intention to exchange 1, rice, etc. (the trial record No. 198 pages). Nevertheless, the Defendant and the Kim flood did not settle these accounts with respect to the above household rent with a much higher amount than that of the above household rent.

④ The Defendant, after two years from the time of the purchase of the instant household, stated that the Kim flood gave two million won to the Defendant with the congratulatory money for director (which also acknowledges that the Defendant was paid one million won or two million won) and that the amount of the congratulatory money for director differs significantly from the delivery of the instant household.

⑤ The Kim flood intentionally accessed the Defendant from the beginning to use the Defendant, and did not have any person to see pecuniary damage due to the instant solicitation (see, e.g., the lower court’s decision and the competent court’s decision-making, 1127 pages, 3311 of the trial records). Furthermore, even when Kim flood offered entertainment to the Defendant at the time of the delivery of the said household, there was no need to provide a new high-priced household in order to maintain a normal friendly relationship. Accordingly, it can be presumed that the Kim flood strongly presumed that there was a quid pro quo relationship corresponding to the Defendant’s offering of a particularly high-priced household to the Defendant.

6) The Defendant, like the judgment of the court below, led the Defendant to make a false statement by asserting that he paid the 10 million won of the furniture to Kim flood in the investigation process, following the process of creating cash and the detailed payment method, and that he made a false statement to the effect that he paid the price of the household to ap○○ in order to justify the statement (Evidence Record 1110 pages).

The defendant's statement concerning this part is very doubtful.

In full view of these circumstances, insofar as high-amount money and valuables were provided between the Defendant and the Kim flood, and the Defendant did not pay the said money and valuables without any clear reason, it is reasonable to determine that the provision of the said money and valuables was made in return for a specific solicitation from Kim flood, and the Defendant consistently stated that the above release on bail was made as seen earlier, and there are other evidence corresponding thereto (this part of the statement of Kim flood has credibility). Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s argument on this part of the appeal is without merit. (3) The judgment of the court below regarding the guilty part among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below (A)

1) Facts of recognition

① The ○○○ operated the Maddong-dong 2315 Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-gu, 2001, but around October 2001, the fact that the Maddong-dong 2315 was found to have known that the Maddong-dong 2001 was mixed with the Maddong Maddong-dong, and was investigated by the Maddong Police Secretary around early October 2002. As the Maddong was anticipated that not only a fine but also a disposition of business suspension was taken from the Maddong-gu office of the competent jurisdiction, the issue was raised to the assistant officers of the mother political person who

(2) The Kim Jong-won, a local government in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was aware of the fact that he/she was working as a democratic party member at the time of dispatching ○○, while working for a democratic party member, and he/she became aware of the fact that he/she had "one million won or more at the court and prosecutor's office."

Around March 11, 2002, the ○○○, which made a proposal to deal with the problem in clean, withdrawn 10 million won as a check on March 11, 2002 (100,000 won) and then delivered it to Kim △-won at that time. On the same day, Kim Do-won delivered the said check 10 million won to Kim Do-won on the same day.

③ On March 19, 2002, Songnam-si received a summary order of a fine of two million won on the 22th of the same month, and on April 4, 2002, the head of Sungnam-si rendered a disposition of the suspension of business for two months (from April 25, 2002 to June 24 of the same year) with respect to the above cartel (from April 25, 2002).

④ Around April 17, 2002, Songwon District Court filed a lawsuit seeking suspension of the validity of the above disposition and the revocation of the above disposition with the Suwon District Court. The Suwon District Court decided on April 4, 2002.

24. The decision was made to suspend the validity of the above disposition of suspension of business, and revoked the above disposition of suspension of business on August 16 of the same year on the ground that there was an error of deviation from discretion.

⑤ The Seoul High Court dismissed the lawsuit claiming revocation of the above disposition on August 19, 2003 on the ground that the period of suspension of business had already lapsed. 2) Whether the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of good offices in the above case of suspension of business (the determination of the credibility of the statement of Kim △-won and △△)

① 김☆☆는 피고인 사무실의 크기, 전체적인 구조, 출입문 및 소파의 위치, 당시 피고인과 김홍수가 앉은 위치 등에 관하여 실제 피고인의 사무실 구조와 대체로 일치하는 진술을 하고 있는 점, ② 김홍수와 김☆☆가 모두 원심 법정에 나와 2회에 걸쳐 피고인의 사무실을 방문하였다고 일치된 진술을 하였던 점, ③ 피고인의 사무실을 방문하였을 당시의 정황에 관한 김☆☆의 진술이 매우 구체적인 점, ④ 봉투를 전달할 당시의 정황에 관한 김☆☆의 검찰진술과 법정진술이 일부 다른 부분이 있다고도 볼 수 있으나, ' 당시 피고인의 사무실에서 나올 무렵 김홍수가 탁자 위에 봉투를 놓는 것을 보았다 ' 는 전체적인 취지에 있어서는 일관성을 유지하고 있고, 이러한 김☆☆의 진술취지는 ' 김☆☆가 사무실을 나갈 때에 김☆☆가 보지 못하게 피고인에게 봉투를 주었다 ' 는 취지의 김홍수의 진술과도 상치되지 않는 것으로 보여, 위와 같은 진술의 일부 차이만으로 김☆☆의 진술을 배척하기는 어려워 보이는 점, ⑤ 김☆☆는 당시 송○○으로부터 받은 1, 000만원을 피고인에게 한 번에 주지 않고 500만원씩 나누어 주기로 김홍수와 상의하였다고 하는 등 당시의 정황에 대하여 매우 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점 , ⑥ 김☆☆가 피고인을 상대로 허위의 진술을 할 만한 특별한 사유가 없는 점, ⑦ 당시 김☆☆로서는 피고인이 소개해 준 변호사를 선임하였으므로 그 변호사가 피고인에게 따로 인사를 할 것으로 생각하고 두 번째 방문하였을 때 피고인에게 변호사비용의 조정을 문의하였다는 것인바, 이러한 정황은 당시 김☆☆가 이 사건과 관련하여 피고인에게 실제로 금원이 제공되었다고 믿었을 경우에만 가능한 점, ⑧ 김홍수는 당시 김☆ ☆에게 봉투에 들어있는 500만원을 보여주었다고 진술하고 있으나, 김☆☆는 검찰에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 김홍수로부터 봉투에 500만원을 넣었다는 말은 들었으나 실제로 돈을 보지는 못하였다고 진술하고 있어 이들이 처음부터 허위의 진술을 하기로 말을 맞추었다고는 보이지 않는 점, ⑨ 김홍수 또는 김☆☆의 진술이 없었다면 검찰에서는 이 사건을 인지하기도 어려웠을 것으로 보여, 김홍수와 김☆☆가 자신들이 송○○으로부터 받은 돈을 모두 착복하였으면서도 피고인을 음해하기 위해 수사기관에 이를 먼저 진술하였다고는 보기 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 당시 피고인의 사무실을 두 번 방문하였고 2회에 걸쳐 피고인에게 돈이 든 봉투가 제공되는 것을 보았다는 김☆☆의 진술에는 신빙성이 있다 .

3) As to the value of money received by the defendant

① The possibility that Kim flood would have provided money and valuables to other public officials than the defendant in order to solicitation the above disposition of suspension of business cannot be ruled out. ② Kim flood again received five million won from Song-gun on April 10, 2002. Regarding this, Kim flood and Song-○ stated that he borrowed money from the defendant rapidly due to business relations. The Kim flood at the time did not have sufficient financial resources to the extent that he would have to lend five million won from Song-○ who was well aware of the fact that the Kim flood was not well-known, so it cannot be ruled out the possibility that he used part of the above 10 million won at his own discretion and provided the remainder only to the defendant. ③ Unlike the statement of Kim Dong-won, Kim flood had shown five million won in the bag of Kim-won at the time of the above disposition of suspension of business, and there was no specific statement about how he had shown money in detail, and there was no possibility that he received only one million won of the above part that he received money from the defendant (one million won per 5 million won or less).

1 ) 피고인이 김홍수로부터 1, 000만원을 수수하였는지 여부에 관한 김홍수 및 김☆ ☆ 진술의 신빙성

In light of the above evidence, the defendant received requests related to the above disposition of suspension of business from Kim flood and received a total of 5 million won and a total of 10 million won on two occasions in relation thereto. The following contradictions and questions are raised in the statement of Kim flood and Kim Dong-won in relation to the fact that the defendant received requests related to the above disposition of suspension of business from Kim flood.

① With respect to the circumstances at the time of delivering the envelope to the Defendant, Kim flood stated in the prosecution that “(the first time the Defendant’s office was sought) the envelope containing five million won in the check was prepared in advance, and the Defendant would be able to assist the Defendant, and Kim Jong-won, the next Kim Jong-won, I would like to read the personnel again. (the second defendant’s office was sought) The office was called as “I would like to know the person again if I would like to know the person.” (the second defendant’s office was called as “I would like to know the fact that I would like to have the defendant, and even if we would like to get the lawyer, I would like to take the 5 million won in the check, and I would like to take the personnel affairs if I would have properly handled, I would like to issue the envelope to the defendant at the time when I would like to deliver the envelope to the Do 142 to 144 to 14 to 14 to 14 to 2012.”

The court below made a statement to the purport that "Seoul Special Self-Governing Province first left in the city of Kim, Kim, and then she saw that she was on the abund. The court below reversed the statement that "(875-876 pages of the trial record)" was "(875-876 pages of the trial record) where she was on the abund of the plastic bag."

김☆☆도 검찰에서는 " ( 처음 피고인 사무실을 찾아갔을 때 ) 김홍수는 내가 보는 자리에서 피고인에게 돈 봉투를 탁자 위에 놓고 나왔다. ( 두번째 피고인 사무실을 찾아갔을 때 ) 김홍수가 피고인에게 ' 변호사와 술이라도 한 잔 하시라 ' 고 하면서 돈 봉투를 피고인에게 주었다. 나는 판사실을 나오면서 다시 한번 ' 신경 써 주셔서 고맙습니다. 일이 잘 처리되면 꼭 찾아 뵙겠습니다 ' 라고 인사를 하고 김홍수와 함께 사무실에서 나왔다 " ( 증거기록 1225 ~ 1226쪽, 1426쪽, 1433 ~ 1434쪽 ) 고 진술하여 위 김홍수의 검찰진술과 거의 동일하게 진술하였다가, 원심 및 당심 법정에서는 " ( 처음 피고인 사무실을 찾아갔을 때 ) 김홍수가 나에게 먼저 나가라고 하여 나가다가 나오지 않기에 뒤돌아서 김홍수가 탁자에 돈봉투를 올려놓는 것을 보게 되었다. 피고인과 김홍수는 내가 보는 것을 못 보았다. ( 두번째 피고인 사무실을 찾아갔을 때 ) 돈봉투를 주는 것을 보게 된 경위는 처음과 비슷하고 분위기가 안 좋아 시간이 짧았던 것으로 기억한다 " ( 공판기록 1095쪽 , 1097쪽, 당심 김☆☆ 증언 ) 라는 취지로 진술하였다 .

As above, it is difficult to understand that the statement of Kim flood and the statement of Kim Dong-won in relation to the actions taken by Kim flood and Kim Dong-won in order to pay money twice to the defendant, especially the statement of Kim flood and the statement of Kim Dong-won in relation to the actions taken by Kim Dong-won in order to give money, were reversed not consistent on the defendant's own, and it is doubtful that the defendant's office is only twice the defendant's office and the defendant's office is memoryed up to the placement of the defendant's office, and it is difficult for the defendant to reverse the statement (the statement of Kim flood and Kim Dong-won in the prosecutor's office is almost the same contents, and the statement of Kim flood in the court of the court of the court of the court below is almost the same as the statement of the court of the court of the court below in accordance with the contents of the original statement re-issued by Kim Jong-

② 위 돈은 김☆☆가 송○○으로부터 사건청탁조로 받아 김홍수에게 건넸던 것으로 , 위 금원을 김홍수와 김☆☆가 착복하였을 가능성이 있고 ( 송○○이 교부한 100만원권 수표 10매 중 2매는 김☆☆가, 8매는 윤○○가 사용하였다 ( 을 제43호증 ) }, 김☆☆는 뒤의 ⑤항에서 인정하는 바와 같은 송○○과의 관계상 김홍수가 피고인에게 돈을 주는 장면을 목격하였다고 허위로 진술할 동기가 충분하다 ( 원심은 이에 관하여 김홍수 또는 김☆☆의 진술이 없었다면 검찰에서는 이 사건을 인지하기도 어려웠을 것이므로 김홍수와 김☆☆가 송○○으로부터 받은 돈을 모두 착복하고도 피고인을 음해하기 위해 이를 먼저 진술하였다고 보기는 어렵고, 따라서 김☆☆가 위 돈을 착복하였다고 보기 어렵다고 판시하였으나, 이 부분 공소사실에 관하여 김홍수 및 김☆☆가 진술하게 된 경위를 살펴보면, 김홍수가 먼저 2006. 6. 14. 검찰에서 이 부분 공소사실과 관련된 진술을 한 후 ( 증거기록 127쪽 이하 ) 그 다음날인 같은 달 15. 김☆☆가 진술한 사실 ( 증거기록 1216쪽 이하 ) 을 알 수 있는바, 김☆☆ 입장에서는 김홍수가 피고인에게 돈을 주었다고 진술한 사실을 알고 이에 따라 같은 취지로 진술하였을 가능성을 배제하기 어렵다 .

③ Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Kim Young-ri was detained by the prosecution as a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act at the time of being investigated by the prosecution in relation to the instant case, and that the defendant was aware that he did not refuse to do so, the statement made by the Kim Young-ri et al. is very low in reliability.

④ According to the statement of Kim flood and Kim Young-ri, the Defendant received a specific case request from his office in the location of Kim Young-ri, the first space of his office, and received money bags twice or twice in his own comments. This fact is difficult to easily understand in light of the relationship between the Defendant and Kim Young-ri, the relationship between the Defendant and Kim Young-ri (the Defendant appears to have been bordered from the beginning of Kim Young-ri, the Defendant appears to have been bordered from the beginning) and the relationship between Kim

⑤ In the court below’s decision, Song-○ considered that “10 million won was passed at the time of filing a report on the extension of the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register the right to register

Since Kim flood returned 5 million won to the head of the Song-gu, Kim Dong-gu, Kim Jong-su, the Do governor stated that "(1417 pages and 1435 pages of the trial record)" was leeped to the Kim flood. In the situation where the resolution of the case is uncertain to the extent that the Kim flood would not return 5 million won to Song-do, it is difficult to believe that, at the time, Kim flood would have delivered 10 million won to the defendant, at the risk of the risk of the return of money to Song-gu, while the risk of the return of money to Song-do, the defendant would not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to say that the defendant

2) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the statement of the △△△△ and △△△△, which the Defendant received in return for the solicitation related to the above disposition of suspension of business, was in accord with the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this part of the appeal by the Defendant.

C. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) Judgment of the lower court on the acquittal portion of paragraph (1) of the same Article (A)

The defendant, as stated in the above facts of the charge, stated in the Kim flood as evidence that he actually received KRW 10 million from the Kim flood as stated in the above facts of the charge. As to this point, Kim Jong-gu stated in the statement of Kim Jong-gu, Kim Jong-gu, Kim Jong-gu, a single house with the head of the Seoul District Court located around the time Kim flood, and the Kim Jong-gu, a single house with the Kim flood, went into a single house with the Kim flood and went into a single house and went into a single house. Although what was contained in the shopping bag at the time, he thought that there was a 10 million won of his delivery, and Kim flood also stated that "I do not know that it was well delivered." The defendant stated to the purport that it was well known that the above KRW 10 million was delivered from the Japanese house and that it was only a direct evidence that proves that the above KRW 10 million was delivered to the defendant.

As to the credibility of Kim flood statements, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record:

① According to the court below's decision that the defendant's vehicle was parked in the day-to-day parking lot, but the defendant's vehicle was parked in the above 100,000 won in the above 0-day parking lot. The defendant's vehicle was parked in the above 10-day parking lot, and the defendant's vehicle was waiting for a difference of 10,000 won in the road, not in the parking lot. The defendant's vehicle was stored in the 0-day parking lot and the 10-day parking lot, and the 100,000 won of the above 1-day parking lot was hard to find that the defendant was living in the above 0-day parking lot, and it was hard to find that the defendant was living in the above 1-day parking lot, and there was no possibility that the defendant was living in the above 1-day parking lot for the above 0-day parking lot because of the defendant's statement that it was difficult for 00,000 won of the above 1-day parking lot.

According to the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and in addition to the fact that there is no evidence to support that the Kim flood paid 5 million won as an intermediary for solicitation of the above provisional disposition case as seen earlier, there is no evidence to support that the defendant received 10 million won from Kim flood, and there is no evidence to support this part of the charges that the defendant received 10 million won from Kim flood. Thus, this part of the appeal by the

(2) Judgment of the court below on the acquittal portion of Paragraph (2) of the judgment below (A)

In connection with the referral of the above bail case, the defendant received two copies of the carpets in addition to the table and the small and medium-scale.

The evidence to prove that there is only the statement of Kim flood and ○○○, which is ① the Defendant voluntarily produced carpets to the prosecution, and the carpets were provided to the Defendant at the time of Kim flood.

"The consumer price of 30 million won or more claimed means 1 Babropets (50% or 50% or more in total) other than 2 Babropets (3.8 million won or 4 million won in total). The prosecutor's office confirmed data on CCTV of the defendant for 2 months after June 2006 and searched the warehouse, but searched the apartment, other carpets other than 1 which were submitted voluntarily. ③ When the prosecutor makes the defendant's first statement at the prosecutor's office, it is difficult to say that 00,000 won in total and 200,000 won in total and 30,000 won in total and 30,000 won in consideration of the fact that 200,000 won in total and 30,000 won in total and 20,000 won in total, in addition to the defendant's testimony at the time of the defendant's first statement at 20,000 won in total and 30,000.

Meanwhile, according to the statement of Kim flood, the carpet voluntarily produced by the defendant was sold in his store at the time of Kim flood as a carpet imported from Eul, and according to the records, Kim flood on the day of the defendant's house, he was found to have received 2 million won in cash, 2 million won in cash, 1, and 1 bom in rice, etc. from the defendant through the defendant's house. Accordingly, according to the above facts charged, around the time of the above facts charged, Kim flood exchanged the carpet that he voluntarily produced by the defendant while exchanging the carpet prior to the time of the above facts charged, he was holding one 3.8 million won in the cost of the defendant's voluntary submission, and the defendant paid 2 million won in 2 million won in 200,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20 in 200,000 won in 200 won in 200.

(B) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the testimony of Kim flood by the witness of the party, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise the defendant accepted two carpets from Kim flood.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, this part of the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.

(3) Judgment of the court below on the non-guilty portion in paragraph (3) of the same Article

As determined in Article 2-b (3)(b)(b) of the judgment, there is no evidence to find the Defendant guilty of the entire facts charged that the Defendant received KRW 10 million in response to a request for a disposition of business suspension against Song○○○. Therefore, this part of the Prosecutor’s appeal is without merit. (4) The summary of the judgment of the lower court on Article 2-4(a) of the judgment is without merit.

① Unlike the prosecutorial statement that ○○○ stated to the effect that she would well request the Defendant to call the above golf course case, the court of the court below made a statement to the effect that she was given advice and suggestions from the Defendant regarding the above golf course case. At that time, ○○○ was also making a statement to the same effect. ② Although the court of the court below made a statement to the effect that ○○○ at the time of the court below stated that she would help the Defendant and help the Defendant, she made a statement to the effect that she would know her well, and ③ Kim flood made a statement to the effect that she would not give her an opportunity to call her well, ③ Although she made a statement that she provided 15 million won in total to the Defendant three times from the highest ○○○○○○○, the maximum ○○○○ that actually provided money was offered to her in return for the above case, it is difficult to conclude that ○○○○ had no possibility of giving her advice and evidence as evidence of the above case.

(B) Judgment of the court below

1) Determination on the primary claim of the prosecution

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Kim flood of the party witness, and testimony of the highest ○○○○○, the court below's decision that there is no evidence to find that the defendant received three million won in return for the solicitation of the above golf course case. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal on this part is without merit.

2) The prosecutor's judgment on the ancillary claim by the prosecutor is the first instance trial and the facts charged are "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act"; the applicable provisions of the Acts are "Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act"; the defendant's charge is the defendant from December 19, 2003 to January 2004, 200 won after reviewing the case of confirmation of the transfer agreement and the case of confirmation of the provisional disposition of prohibition of membership recruitment from the largest ○○ from the office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to the case of confirmation of the transfer agreement and the case of the provisional disposition of prohibition of membership recruitment, and 1 million won upon the request of legal advice and the delivery; around May 19, 2004, the court issued 200,000 won of the facts charged to the defendant's residential address, which is the defendant's residential address, with his advice about the possibility of modification of the above provisional disposition to the above case.

B) According to the above evidence, the fact that the Defendant, with respect to the above golf course case, provided legal counseling to the largest ○○ on the second day, may be recognized, but in addition, the fact that the Defendant provided legal counseling on the second day.

되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 최○○는 피고인을 처음 만난 날 100만원을 준 경위와 관련하여 검찰 이래 당심 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 " 최수사에서 처음 만난 날 피고인에게 100만원을 준 사실은 있으나, 이 날은 피고인에게 무슨 부탁이나 조언을 받기 위하여 만난 것은 아니며, 골프장 이야기는 하지 않았다 " ( 증거기록 1683 ~ 1684쪽, 공판기록 1759 ~ 1760쪽, 당심 최○○ 증언 ) 라고 진술하였는바, 이러한 진술에 비추어 보면 최○○가 피고인에게 100만원을 준 것은 아직 법률상담을 하기 이전이어서 위 돈을 법률상담의 대가로 피고인에게 지급한 것으로 보기 어려운 점, ② 최○○가 피고인을 두 번째 만나 법률상담을 한 후 피고인의 집에 찾아가 200만원을 케익상자 속에 넣어 전달한 경위에 관하여, 최○○는 원심 및 당심에서 " 김홍수가 나에게 ' 내일 피고인이 이사를 가는데 이사비용을 주려고 하니 200만원을 빌려달라 ' 고 하여 케잌과 와인 2병을 산 후 케익상자 속에 200만원을 넣어 김홍수가 피고인 아파트 경비실에 맡긴 것으로 알고 있다 " ( 공판기록 1774쪽, 당심 최○○ 증언 ) 라는 취지로 진술하였고, 한편 피고인은 케익상자 속에 든 200만원을 전달받은 사실이 없고, 단지 그 무렵 피고인의 처가 김홍수로부터 이사 선물이라며 100 ~ 200만원을 받은 사실은 있다고 진술하였으며, 김홍 수는 " 최○○와 함께 피고인의 아파트를 찾아가 케익상자 속에 500만원을 넣어 경비실에 맡겼고 ( 김홍수는 최○○가 첫 번째 만났을 때도 피고인에게 500만원을 주었다고 진술하였다 ), 며칠 후 다시 똑같은 케잌과 와인 2병을 사서 피고인이 이사한 집으로 찾아가 이사 축하 명목으로 피고인의 처에게 100 ~ 200만원을 주었다 " 라는 취지로 진술하였는바 ( 공판기록 2324쪽, 당심 김홍수 증언 ), 김홍수는 최○○가 피고인에게 주었다는 돈이 500만원이라고 하여 금액에 차이가 날 뿐 아니라 케익과 와인을 피고인 집 경비실에 맡기고 간 다음 며칠 후 다시 똑같은 케잌과 와인을 사 가지고 가서 피고인의 처에게 돈을 또 주었다는 것은 선뜻 납득이 되지 않아 그 진술을 믿기 어렵고, 최○○의 진술 역시 그가 김홍수로부터 이사비용조로 200만원이 들어 있는 케익상자를 경비실에 맡겼다는 말을 들었다는 것일 뿐 이를 직접 피고인에게 전달하거나 전달된 것을 확인하였다는 것은 아니어서 과연 위와 같이 최○○의 법률상담 사례조로 200만원이 든 케익상자가 피고인에게 전달되었는지 의문이 드는 점 ( 김홍수가 경비실에 맡겼던 케잌을 되찾아 간 다음 자신이 피고인의 처를 다시 찾아가 이사축하금이라면서 직접 전달하였을 가능성도 있다 ), ③ 최○○는 위 100만원 및 200만원을 김홍수가 피고인에게 주어야 한다면서 빌려달라고 하여 김홍수에게 빌려주었고, 그 후 위 금원의 변제에 갈음하여 김홍수로부터 전기스탠드를 받았다고 진술하였는바, 결국 위 돈은 김홍수가 피고인에게 용돈 또는 이사축하비용으로 지급한 것으로 최○○와는 무관하다고 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 최○○에게 위 골프장사건과 관련한 법률상담을 해 준 대가로 300만원을 수수한 사실을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다 .

Ultimately, since this part of the ancillary charge also constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the primary charge, and added this part of the facts charged in the preliminary charge at the court below, but the conclusion with the court below was the same. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal without notifying the defendant not guilty of this part of the ancillary

(5) Judgment of the lower court as to Article 5(5) of the lower judgment (A)

1) The amount stated in the annexed list of crimes is “The amount was delivered as a broker for the case in which the defendant received a solicitation prior to the case, etc. under paragraphs (1) through (4) of the facts charged.” The Kim flood stated in the annexed list of crimes is merely a consistent statement that the defendant paid each amount to the defendant as a courtesy, such as money or money, and does not provide it in connection with the mediation of any case. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the statement alone received the above amount with regard to the mediation of specific cases listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the facts charged. The remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor is not proven to acknowledge this point, and it is pronounced not guilty.

2) Each of the money listed in the separate sheet of crime in the annexed sheet was delivered to the effect that it will continue to help the case in which the case was previously received.

Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The facts charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime." This part of the facts charged is only stated that money and valuables have been provided under the pretext of demanding continuous mediation of matters related to the duties of another judge. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the matters subject to solicitation are specified to a certain extent. As a result, it is difficult to view that the facts charged are specified to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense. However, since the court acquitted the same case, it is not ordered to dismiss the prosecution separately. (b) Since this part of the facts charged is the same case, it is not ordered to dismiss the prosecution separately.

According to the above evidence, we affirm the judgment of the court below on the above part 1).

However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below on the above part 2). Since the facts charged itself is that the acceptance of money and valuables was made with the intention of aiding and abetting the resolution of the case in the future, it is hard to view that the indictment itself is unlawful, as it does not specify the facts charged to the extent that it obstructs the defendant's exercise of defense, as it does not constitute the elements of the act of taking advantage of the purport that the comprehensive solicitation was made prior to the occurrence of a specific case.

However, even if this part of the indictment itself is lawful, there is no evidence as to the above part of the indictment No. 1, and thus, the part of the indictment No. 2) should be acquitted for the same reason. Since the court below already acquitted as one crime, the part of the indictment No. 1) and the part of the indictment No. 2 should be dismissed separately.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal claiming a mistake of facts by the defendant has some grounds, and without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts

The defendant was working as the chief judge of the Seoul Central District Court from February 2001 to February 2005, and since around 1994, he was employed as professor of the Judicial Research and Training Institute from around 199 to around 199, while he maintained a friendly relationship with Kim flood, the case held that on February 27, 2002, the defendant visited 10,000 won of the defendant's office and 200,000 won of the defendant's 3-dong-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 3-dong store's 1-dong store's 3-dong store's 100,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. The trial of the defendant and the court below's partial statement;

1. Each legal statement of the trial court and the original trial witness Kim flood, 100, 100, 100, 200, 200

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of partial examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement concerning Kim flood, 100, 100, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, ○○○, ○○, and △△△△△;

1. Application of Chapter seven copies of a letter of preparation of Kim flood, Section 7, Section 4, Section 4, Section 4, Section 5, Section 5, Section 4, Section 5, Section 4, Section 5, Section 5, Section 4, Section 5, Section 5, Section 4, Section 1, Section

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

Article 3 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

The Defendant’s crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a more severe punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant receives high-priced money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation by other judges who need high level of integrity; (b) the fundamental responsibility of the judge is collapsed; (c) the Defendant has established a imprudent relationship with the Kim flood and received entertainment on several occasions without doubt; and (d) the Defendant’s crime of this case resulted in a imprusion toward the entire judiciary, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant more strictly than any other Defendant

On the other hand, the instant case was conducted through the planned approach of Kim flood to use the Defendant’s status as a judge, and was committed as a friendly relationship between the two and the Defendant’s director-at-law loan, and the Defendant served as a judge for not less than 24 years, and the Defendant has already lost all honor due to the instant case and has already suffered a significant pain that is not subject to criminal punishment, and the Defendant has been detained for not less than eight months, and there are extenuating circumstances such as the current health situation is bad.

Accordingly, in full view of all the above circumstances, the same sentence as the disposition is determined.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant received a total of KRW 15 million in relation to the provisional disposition application case of the building located in Yongsan-gu from Kim flood around the spring of 2002, and the Defendant received a total of KRW 10 million in relation to the case of the disposition of the suspension of the business of the female located in Sung-nam around April 2002, as stated in Article 2-B(1) and (3) of the judgment, and Articles 2-C(1) and 2-3(3) of the judgment, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this as stated in the judgment, each of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, each of them is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant received two Kapets from Kim flood on May 2002, as seen in Article 2-C (2) of the judgment, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no evidence to prove a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found that the Defendant was guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (as known, the act of receiving 1 bits and 1 bits of small bits on May 2002) in which

Judges leapment of the presiding judge.

Judges Ma-ju

Judges Ansan-hwan