Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and fine of 40,000,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of six months.

Defendant

A above.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is a public official belonging to the CGun Office who served as the head of CGun Forest Service from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, and Defendant B is a representative of CGun Office, who performs installation works of CCTV, installation works of computer equipment, installation works of communications facilities, maintenance and repair of CCTV, supply of computer equipment, etc.

Defendant

A had the mind to demand a bribe under the pretext of providing convenience to Defendant B with respect to the installation of CCTV ordered in forests. Defendant B thought that the construction contract can be concluded smoothly with respect to the project ordered in future forests, etc., and Defendant A had the mind to deliver a bribe at the request of Defendant A.

1. Defendant A

A. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant of acceptance of bribe on the part of June 21, 2017, borrowed 30 million won from B to the E account under the name of the Defendant for convenience with respect to the business ordered by forests, fields, etc. on the part of June 21, 2017, and then borrowed 30 million won from B to the E account under the name of the Defendant. In relation to the public official’s duties, the public prosecutor charged the Defendant A with a charge of receiving 30 million won as a bribe in relation to his duties. However, as seen thereafter, the Defendant acquired the financial interest equivalent to the interest on the said borrowed money by borrowing 30 million won from the Defendant B to the without interest.

On the other hand, Defendant A and his defense counsel have argued to the effect that the above 30 million won constitutes a loan and the above money was not received as a bribe. Thus, even if this court recognizes that Defendant A received a bribe equivalent to the financial interest ex officio, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A’s exercise of the right to defense has a substantial disadvantage.

Therefore, it is recognized that Defendant A received a bribe equivalent to the financial interest in connection with the above 30 million won loan.

-.