2017Gohap62, 75 (Joint), 97 (Joint), 107 (Joint), 127 (Joint)

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery against Defendant A)

Partially Accepted Bribery)

(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Magion;

D. Violation of the Political Funds Act

1.(a) A

2.(c) B

3.2. C.

4. b.D. D

5. (a) d. E

Use (prosecution, public trial)

1. For Defendant A:

Attorney F, G.

2. For the defendant B:

Attorney H, I, and J

Law Firm K

Attorney L, M, N,O, P, Q

Law Firm R

Attorney S, T, or U

3. For Defendant C:

Attorney Park Do-young

4. For Defendant D:

Law Firm W

Attorney X, Y, Z

Attorney AA, AB

5. For Defendant E:

Attorney AC, AD

September 28, 2017

1. Defendant A

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years and by a fine of 463,756,000 won. If the above Defendant did not pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

231,878,00 won shall be collected from the above defendant.

The above defendant ordered the provisional payment of the above fine and the amount equivalent to the surcharge. The offering of a bribe among the facts charged against the above defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly notified.

2. Defendant B

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

3. Defendant C. Defendant C is punished by imprisonment for one year.

4. Defendant D

Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

5. Defendant E

Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for nine years and by a fine for 520,000,000 won. If the above Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 500,000 into one day.

360,000,000 won shall be collected from the above defendant.

In order to order the above defendant to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge.

Criminal facts

[Status of Defendant and Person Concerned in Case]

A. Defendant E is a public official in political service who serves as the head of AE-Gun on July 1, 2014 after being elected as the head of AE-Gun on June 4, 2014 and controls the affairs of AE-Gun and affairs delegated to AE-Gun in accordance with statutes and regulations, and is in the position of determining various policies with authorization and permission for development projects within the jurisdiction, such as industrial complex development projects.

B. Defendant A, a public official appointed as the head of the public relations office at Defendant E’s election campaign on August 1, 2014, who directly assists the head of the Gun, who is in the position of having substantial influence on the decision-making of the head of the Gun, such as making a report to the head of the Gun, implementing and delivering instructions from the head of the Gun, and directly treating civil petitions against the head of the Gun.

C. Defendant D’s overall control over Defendant E’s election planning at the time of the sixth local election in 2014

As the chief of office, E is the core staff of E, the president of AF who is a non-profit corporation, and the real operator of AE real estate development business chain, AH corporation, and AI corporation.

D. Defendant B is the representative director of AL corporation, who is an executor of the 'AK General Industrial Complex Development Project' that establishes an industrial complex in the AJ Japan.

E. Defendant C is a person who operated from around 2005 the AM funeral hall.

F. AO served as a person in charge of Defendant E’s election campaign’s funds to execute and manage non-official funds.

G. AP used non-official election funds in an amount significantly exceeding the statutory election expenses at the time of the local election on June 4, 2014. Defendant A performed as the head of the public relations campaign office of the E election campaign and borrowed money borrowed from his/her surroundings from E with an amount equivalent to KRW 230 million. After the E was elected as the head of the AE Gun, Defendant AP began to request E to provide funds for the election campaign to be provided to E, and those who carried out the election campaign at the later time, to be provided with labor costs, and Defendant A also intended to recover the election funds he/she invested to be collected. Defendant A also intended to recover from his/her share of the election funds. Defendant A had an economic pressure upon having been informed of his/her ability to complete the election.

On July 2014, E demanded Defendant B to pay all kinds of benefits, such as the provision of convenience in the industrial complex development project promoted by E in the future.

1. Defendant B

(a) Offering of bribe to E;

After the above consultation, Defendant B received an election expense settlement slip stating the eligible person and amount to be repaid by E, and attempted to pay for all the election damages listed in the settlement slip for E.

Accordingly, on July 31, 2014, Defendant B remitted KRW 40 million to the Agricultural Cooperative (AV) account in the name of AU used by A for the partial repayment of election debts to be paid to A. Accordingly, Defendant B granted KRW 40 million to E in relation to the duties of public officials.

B. The offering of a bribe to A, as mentioned in the above paragraph (a) of the same Article, demanded the Defendant to pay a certain amount of the election funds he/she invested through Defendant B, but the remainder is still not paid, and as a result, he/she demanded that the Defendant pay interest on the money he/she borrowed to make up for the additional amount. The Defendant B expected to receive various benefits, such as the provision of convenience related to the industrial complex development project promoted by Defendant B in the future.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2014, Defendant B remitted KRW 2.5 million from that time to March 3, 2015, to the agricultural bank account in the above AU’s name used by Defendant B for the purpose of subsidizing interest expenses, as indicated in the following table. Accordingly, Defendant B provided KRW 15 million to A in relation to the public official’s duties.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Defendant A

A. Acceptance of bribe

Defendant A demanded “A to pay interest on the amount of money borrowed to pay for internal election funds” on September 2014, 2014, in which part of the election funds he/she invested through B, but the remainder was still not paid, as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1(A). B expecting that Defendant A receive various benefits, such as the provision of convenience related to industrial complex development projects promoted by Defendant A in the future, and accepted this.

Accordingly, Defendant A received KRW 2.5 million from September 30, 2014 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the above AU’s name for the purpose of subsidizing interest expenses from Defendant A, as well as from March 3, 2015, a total of KRW 15 million from March 3, 2015, as described in the table of Paragraph 1-B. Accordingly, Defendant A received KRW 15 million from B in relation to the duties of public officials.

B. From 2013 to BA in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), AE group promoted a "B Park" project to build a comprehensive funeral facility including crematory facilities and land areas, and around 2016, the said project was designated as a major military pending project.

C In the event that the said BB park construction project is scheduled, the said BB park construction project was anticipated to sustain a huge managerial shooting, and continued to express the opinion that the contents of the said construction project are unfair to AE group, and suggested a proposal to purchase the NN funeral hall that it operates in the AE group scholarship foundation and use it for profit-making business after purchasing it in the AE group scholarship foundation as one of the alternatives. The Defendant knew that C filed the above civil petition, and known that C intended to purchase the AE group scholarship hall from the AE group scholarship foundation, and intended to deliver C with the intent to make it possible for C to purchase the NN funeral hall in the AE group scholarship foundation, and receive

Defendant A, at the office of “BD” located in BC on May 2015, 2015, 100 million won in cash from “BD” office of “BD” or “BF office located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul, and continuously received 100 million won in cash under the same name and received a bribe in connection with his/her duties.

the Corporation received the Company.

3. Defendant C. Defendant C. at the “BD office located in BC in May 2015, with the solicitation that the AE Military Scholarship Foundation may purchase the NN funeral hall, as described in paragraph 2(b) above, Defendant C. and Defendant C provided a bribe of KRW 100 million in cash to A for the same purpose at the “BF office located in the Simsan-si, Busan-si, on February 20, 2016, and continuously offered a bribe of KRW 200 million in cash to BF office for the same purpose.

2017Gohap75

1. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant A

At the time of the local election on June 4, 2014, Defendant A worked as the head of the publicity office at the current AE election campaign, the head of the Gu, and D acted as the head of the situation office and the head of the planning team at the same camp, and played a leading role in creating the pledges of the head of the Gun in particular.

D In the above local election, E was elected as AE head of the Gun and Defendant A was employed as the secretary of the BE head of the BE head, the opportunity was to obtain large-scale interest coupons by allowing the said companies (AG, AH, and AI) that operate various development projects that he/she had included in the election campaign of the head of the Gun, thereby exercising influence over the military administration, such as participating in the personnel affairs of the public officials, thereby publicly announcing its location within AE group. After being employed as the secretary, Defendant A received various requests such as solicitation of personnel for public officials of the Gun office and request for information related to the development projects within the jurisdiction, Defendant A demanded financial support from D on loan and from time to time, and D also demanded 0 won to be provided with convenience in various authorization and permission procedures related to the above development project and received money from the above 10th of November 5, 2014, Defendant A demanded the above 20th of the 80th of the 30th of the 30th of the 196th of the 3th of the 20th of the NA.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Offering of bribe by Defendant D

Defendant D received a demand from A to provide various convenience in the procedures for authorization and permission related to a development project he/she promoted, and received a demand from A to provide financial support on a monthly basis at the request of A, 1, 5, 2014, and 4 million won from A to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the above AU designated by A, and provided a bribe in relation to his/her duties by remitting KRW 16,878,000 in total four times from around that time to February 2, 2016, as described in the table of Paragraph 1 of the above paragraph.

【2017 Highly97】

At the time of the local election on June 4, 2014, Defendant B provided a considerable portion of the expenses with the money borrowed from his own account and its surroundings upon Defendant E’s request to subsidize election expenses.

Defendant B expected to be given preferential treatment to the industrial complex development project, etc. conducted by Defendant E after he was elected as the head of the Gun, but Defendant E did not give any particular benefit to his business but rather granted authorization or permission to an industrial complex in a competitive relationship. Defendant B was able to receive a return of part of the election fund that Defendant B provided by himself.

Defendant B had the intent to pressure the victim E and the victim A, who is the chief secretary thereof, to get back his election funds, began to demand the victims to repay the funds continuously from May 2016. On December 6, 2016, Defendant B demanded the victims to directly find the AE military room and return 300 million won in the victim E’s name, and requested the victims to borrow 300 million won in the victim E’s name. Defendant B found the victim E’s house at around 21:10 on December 27, 2016, at around 21:10, the kicker prepared in advance to request the victims E to redeem the said money, and caused the damage to the victim’s deposit at the ward, and caused the computer monitor to threaten the victim’s request without any threat to the victim’s own E.

On January 11, 2017, Defendant B continuously sent a text message with the victim E’s cell phone, stating that “I will have any answer at any time. I will bring it up on the homepage of the Gun Office. I will bring it up on the loan certificate of the head of the A B, I will bring it out. I will bring it out on the homepage of the Gun Office.” On the same day, I called “I will bring it out on the website of the Gun Office.”

Therefore, on February 3, 2017, Defendant B received KRW 100 million in cash from the victim E in the name of partial repayment of the above election fund from the BF office in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul. On March 6, 2017, Defendant B received KRW 50 million in cash from the victim E through the victim E in the same name.

As a result, Defendant B received KRW 150 million from the victims of drinking, which were frightened by the victims.

2. Defendant E’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of Specific Crimes (Bribery) stated that Defendant E’s illegal election fund issues may be known to the outside of the press, investigative agencies, etc. without complying with the above request from Defendant E who is subject to pressure on the repayment of election fund from Defendant E, and that Defendant E said, “hypted 10 million won as the representative of the company implementing AE General Industrial Complex Development Project within AE and the president of AE Chamber, who was aware of it as the president of the AE Chamber, is urgently needed.”

Accordingly, at the same time, the head of the Gun, provided various conveniences for the development of his industrial complex, or provided convenience in resolving civil petitions filed by the members of the chamber of commerce and industry at the time of Defendant E’s request, Defendant E prepared 50 million won out of KRW 100 million in cash, and provided that Defendant E would recover from Defendant E on February 28, 2017. On February 15:20, 2017, Defendant E sent BK to the head of the AS office and sent it to the head of the BJ for an election campaign for which he was unable to obtain the above 50 million won from the public official’s election at the same time, and at the same time, the head of the Gun, who was in charge of the election for the public official’s election for the public official, received the above 50 million won from the public official’s election for the public official at the time of his election for the public official’s election for the public official’s election for the public official’s election for the public official at the same time.

On July 2014, E demanded Defendant B to pay all kinds of benefits, such as the provision of convenience in the industrial complex development project promoted by E in the future.

[criminal Facts] After the above consultation, Defendant B received an election expense settlement table stating the eligible person and amount to be repaid by E, and received the election expense settlement table, with intent to repay for E. A. From the end of July 2014, Defendant B consulted with Defendant B to deliver the said money to BL through a borrowed account in his/her own use. Accordingly, Defendant B remitted KRW 20 million to the said AU’s account under the name of BL’s use on July 31, 2014, with respect to his/her duties, and Defendant B remitted KRW 20 million to the said account under the name of BL’s name on August 4, 2014. As a result, Defendant B provided KRW 20 million to BL’s post office (BM) with respect to his/her duties.

2017Gohap127, 2010

Defendant E used an unofficial election fund in an amount exceeding the statutory election expenses by raising funds from the surrounding persons at the time of the sixth local election. Defendant E used the unofficial election fund in an amount of KRW 230 million with the money borrowed from his own money and the surrounding area during the election process. BL subsequently intended to settle the said personnel expenses in the election process, and used young people in the jurisdiction to pay the election expenses. AO used the election campaign worker, office employees, string vehicles, etc. without officially operating the election expenses during the above election process, and most of the remuneration, actual expenses, etc. for those persons were to pay the expenses after the election. Defendant E was elected to AE head of a Gun on June 4, 2014, Defendant E demanded to pay the expenses to Defendant E, A, and AO to pay for the so-called election damages on behalf of Defendant E, and Defendant E, A, et al. to have the ability to recover from his election expenses. There was no economic compromise between Defendant E and A.

1. Defendant E demanded that Defendant E pay all kinds of benefits, such as the provision of convenience in the industrial complex development project promoted by Defendant E, on July 2014, Defendant E, who violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

B following the above consultation, Defendant E received the election expense settlement table stating the eligible and the amount of the election expenses to be repaid, and the election expenses to be repaid as indicated in the settlement table was paid to Defendant E for the purpose of Defendant E. A. A agreed to deliver the money in contact with B at that time through the account in which he uses.

B On July 31, 2014, Defendant E wired KRW 40 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the above AU’s name used by Defendant E for partial repayment of the election dispute to be paid to Defendant E. On the same day, Defendant E wired KRW 20 million to the said account under the pretext of partial repayment of the election dispute to be paid to Defendant E., and on August 4, 2014, Defendant E wired KRW 20 million to BL’s post office account in the name of BL. On the other hand, Defendant E continuously wired KRW 40 million from September 2014 to January 2015, Defendant E sent KRW 150 million in cash under the pretext of partial election dispute to be paid to Defendant E.

After all, Defendant E received KRW 210 million from B in relation to the public official’s duties by having Defendant E repay the debt that he has to pay on behalf of Defendant B.

2. The offering of a bribe by Defendant B 4

Defendant B, through consultation with E, from September 2014 to January 2015, 200, delivered KRW 150 million in cash for four times from AE military members or E to AO. As such, Defendant B provided KRW 150 million in connection with the public official’s duties. Defendant E: (a) Defendant D violated the Political Funds Act; (b) Defendant E provided funds from the surrounding persons at the 6th local election, and then used non-official election funds in the amount significantly exceeding statutory election expenses; (c) Defendant D used additional election funds in the name of KRW 100,000,000 from the 100,000,000 won from the 100,000,000 won from the 10,000,000 won from the 10,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000 won from the 10,000,000 won from the 20,000.

Accordingly, Defendant D contributed political funds of KRW 100 million to Defendant E in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act by bearing the expenses incurred in Defendant E’s political activities with his own obligation, and Defendant D knowingly consented to the fact that Defendant D or A bears KRW 100 million with election funds, and received political funds of KRW 100 million in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.

Summary of Evidence

[2017Gohap62]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness BP, Q and R (the 16th trial date);

1. Each investigation report (the search and seizure of suspect's residence, the Kaxox, the analysis of mail, the copy of the letter for the head of the Gun prepared B, the copy of the statement for settlement of non-official election funds, B's business pocket sign, and copies of the mail related to the settlement of election funds), and accompanying documents;

1. Report on internal investigation (the analysis of details of the third financial transaction - concerning the fact of additional suspicion of addition);

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness BS;

1. The 2th and 3th police interrogation protocol regarding B;

1. Copies of the first police interrogation protocol concerning BT;

1. A copy of the police statement concerning the BU;

1. Investigation report (States), participatory (States), provision of preferential treatment), and attached documents; 1. Details of account transactions from which D has transferred to A [2017 Gohap97];

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each investigation report on witness A (the 9th trial date), E (the 11th trial date), BV (the 8th trial date) and each statutory statement 1. Each investigation report on suspect B mobile phone digital evidence analysis (the analysis of suspect B mobile phone digital evidence, including illegal election funds, B-Gun E-T file analysis, B-B-2 file file file file of intimidation status record on December 27, 2014, and accompanying documents);

1. Defendant E’s partial legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness BK, AP and BR (the sixth trial date);

1. Each investigation report (to attach a copy of a loan certificate seized from AP related to the creation of the AE general industrial complex, to the relationship with the head of the AE head of the chamber of commerce and industry, to the addition of the relationship between AP and AE head of the AE head

1. Court rulings (2017 Highest 1372) / [2017 Highest 107]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The legal statement of the witness BR (the 16th trial date);

1. Each investigation report (a copy of a letter for the head of the B Gun, a copy of the settlement table of non-official election funds, B business pocket signs, and a copy of a copy related to the settlement of election funds) and each accompanying document;

1. Report on internal investigation (related to the fact of each additional suspicion for analyzing the details of the third financial transactions);

Facts described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the ruling)

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B and E in part;

1. Each legal statement of the witness A (13th trial date), BR (16th trial date) and AO;

1. Investigation report (to write notes and pocketbooks of B, and to attach a table of accounts for elections) and attached documents;

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. The legal statement of the witness A (the 13th trial date);

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to the details of KRW 100 million in the BN account used by D) and accompanying documents;

1. Revenue receipts attached to the suspect examination protocol of D (2 times, A substitute) by the prosecution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing E mobile phone digital siren CDs;

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

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (as a whole, including the acceptance of bribe fromC, the selection of limited imprisonment and the imposition of fines), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (as a whole, each of the acceptance of bribe

B. Defendant B: Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of conflict, each choice of imprisonment with labor), Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (each of the offering of a bribe, each of the offering of a bribe, each of the offering of a bribe), respectively.

C. Defendant C: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1291), 13(1), and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Mar. 1, 200; hereinafter “”)

E. Defendant E: Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (b) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the AP of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (a)

Receipt of political funds, concurrent imposition of fines), Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (the fact that political funds are donated and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The punishment of imprisonment and fine provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggravated punishment of each concurrent crime (which shall be limited to the sum of the maximum imprisonment or fine provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the largest penalty and fine];

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against A, which is the largest punishment and punishment). Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against bribery, which is the heavier punishment)

(d) Defendant E: The punishment of imprisonment and fine provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the maximum amount of both crimes shall be aggregated) shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes (the maximum amount of imprisonment and fine shall be aggregated).

1. Discretionary mitigation;

- Defendant A and E: Each Criminal Code Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 (see, e.g., favorable circumstances for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

- Defendant A and E: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Additional collection:

- Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

- Defendant E: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act, the latter part of Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

- Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and E under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In relation to the case No. 2017 Gohap127, Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant B paid the amount of election damages to Defendant E by proxy. However, this is because Defendant E demanded Defendant B to pay the amount first of all the election damages to Defendant A0, and that he would pay the amount later. Accordingly, Defendant B paid KRW 150 million to AO, not a bribe, was lent to Defendant E.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above KRW 150 million can be recognized as a bribe offered by Defendant B to Defendant E. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant B and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① While Defendant B paid for an election on behalf of Defendant E, he did not either prepare a certificate of borrowing from Defendant E or set the due date for and interest on the money to be paid to AO.

② Defendant B made a statement to the effect that the said KRW 150 million was a bribe to Defendant E in the process of prosecutor’s investigation (No. 1222, 1254 of the Investigation Record).

③ On December 27, 2016, Defendant B found Defendant E’s house, and her fluent relationship with Defendant E, as follows.

*B: The author argues that the author does not need to do anything, and that the head of the Gun is able to do so. I do not refuse to do so. I think that the other answer is the head of the Gun. I present my answer .* E: E: Iamson answer ? B? I talk about how to give back the answer that you entered the house? I think that he talked in the house since I come up with the house and come up with the house, and we think that I think that we change the position.

According to the above dialogue, Defendant B intended to pay money to Defendant E and “the head of Gun is able to receive the money paid to Defendant E.” It can be seen that it is a situation where Defendant B demanded to return the money paid to Defendant E. If it is only a loan of money to Defendant E, demanding a large amount of business preference on the ground of a loan of money would be contrary to the empirical rule.

④ Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant A would have been repaid later was only the share of the election charge against AO. However, Defendant B did not raise any special objection to the written statement of the settlement of the election fund which Defendant D, Defendant A, or AO prepared and kept in advance by AO (hereinafter “the settlement table”) at the present place for the settlement of the election charge between Defendant A, and Defendant D, Defendant A, and B, upon the request of Defendant E.

⑤ According to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant E also knew about the amount that Defendant E had to have been repaid to AO, so it was necessary to clearly prove to Defendant E whether the amount that Defendant B paid to AO was the amount that Defendant B had to have been paid in advance after he paid to AO. Therefore, in a case where money was paid or cash was paid to AO by means of account transfer, there was a need to obtain evidentiary evidence, such as a receipt, from AO, but Defendant B did not do so.

④ Defendant B also lent money to BV with respect to the money used for election funds, as well as AO, was repaid KRW 100 million over three times from July 31, 2014 to September 30, 2014. 7: BV stated in the police investigation that “B was deposited with an election fund at the time of the police investigation, but at that time the head of the Gun was the head of the Gun, but the head of the Gun did not start the project, and the pressure was reasonable (see, e.g., No. 563 of the Investigation Record)” (see, e.g., No. 563 of the Investigation Record); (8) Defendant B prepared on April 5, 2016 and sent money to Defendant E at that time (hereinafter “B”) and the following facts can be inferred.

① Defendant E has designated the BV vice president at the consultation counter (PP No. 1). If Defendant E merely borrowed money from Defendant B, there is no reason to take the aforementioned exceptional measures for Defendant B’s business convenience.

Defendant B had heard her flocks that he would have been able to solve to B from the vice president of the BV on March 2016, and “I would have her flocks that he would have her flocks and she would have her flocks.” According to Defendant B’s assertion, it is difficult to explain why I would have her flicks that (Defendant E) would have been able to pay her money. This is because I would have been her flicks and would have been her flicks that he would have been she would have been able to return her money, and that I would have been able to expect a return of money that he would have been paid as a bribe. It is natural to interpret that Defendant B would have been her own flicks and she would have been able to receive a return of money that he would have been able to receive. According to Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B would have been able to receive money from a large number of creditors.

① If Defendant B’s assertion is true, it is much more effective to deny Defendant E’s acceptance of bribe against Defendant B, and Defendant E does not demand that Defendant B pay back an election charge instead of paying it.

Judgment on Defendant E and his defense counsel’s assertion

1. Related to 2017 Highis97

Defendant E and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant E received cash of KRW 50 million from AP in relation to the case No. 2017 Gohap97, but this is not a bribe but a bribe.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above 50 million won can be recognized as having been received as a bribe from Defendant E. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant E and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① Since the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, the fact that is contrary to the fact cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a criminal judgment on the same factual basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009).

AP was sentenced by this court on June 1, 2017 to the criminal facts that the defendant E provided KRW 50 million as a bribe, and was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 9, 2017. In addition, there are no special circumstances to recognize that it is difficult to adopt a decision on the facts of the above judgment, considering the following circumstances.

② At the investigative agency and this court consistently stated that Defendant E did not mention the purpose, maturity, and interest of the loan while demanding money, and that Defendant E did not prepare a certificate of loan. Defendant E, as an incumbent head of the Gun, has been aware of the suspicion of a bribe in the event of a capital transaction with AE military citizens or a person operating a business, in particular, with a person doing money transaction.

Nevertheless, Defendant E, who is the president of the chamber of commerce and industry while operating a company in AE, engaged in money transactions as above with AP.

③ Although Defendant E did not explicitly request the delivery of money in cash, the AP prepared a high amount of KRW 50 million in cash. If Defendant E explicitly borrowed money rather than demanding a bribe, the AP did not prepare for a large amount of money in cash, which is most easy and general method, but rather by account transfer, if Defendant E explicitly borrowed money.

④ According to Defendant E’s assertion, AP is deemed to have been subject to the above criminal punishment after the confession that he/she was given a false bribe even though he/she lent money to Defendant E.

Of course, even though the loan is inconsistent with the actual loan, it is impossible to prove that the loan was not prepared at the time, and there is no possibility that the AP would be recognized as a bribe in light of the circumstances, and there is no possibility that the AP would have made a false confession. Therefore, the AP cannot be deemed as a loan from the AP solely on the basis of the fact that there is such possibility.

⑤ Defendant E argues that if the above KRW 50 million was a bribe, he was sent to AP by himself, and that the receipt was not a bribe if he received through AP. However, it is more reliable to deem that Defendant E received money from a third party who is believed to have been able to believe that he was not a bribe, due to the fact that he was a bribe, to the greatest extent possible.

2. Defendant E and the defense counsel related to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) No. 2017 and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) asserted that Defendant E did not request Defendant B to pay the amount in lieu of one’s election charge among the cases No. 2017 and No. 127.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant E requested Defendant E to pay back his election damages to Defendant E in return for the interest coupons. Accordingly, Defendant E and the defense counsel are not accepted.

① Defendant B consistently stated that Defendant B received the request from Defendant E to complete payment of his election dispute (as seen earlier, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B and Defendant E met at the “AX coffee shop” around the end of July 2014, and Defendant B asserted that Defendant B was a loan by asserting that Defendant B did not complete payment after the election dispute against Defendant B paid to Defendant B).

② From the beginning of the election, Defendant E had to receive assistance from BV, the vice president of Defendant B’s “AL corporation,” which is the vice president of Defendant B, in relation to the election fund, and Defendant E also requested Defendant B to provide the election fund.

③ Although Defendant E requested Defendant B to help Defendant B raise an election fund, Defendant B refused to do so (see, e.g., summary of the oral argument as of Sept. 20, 2017); Defendant B transferred KRW 95 million to BX, who is an official election campaign period, on May 28, 2014; and Defendant B actively participated in the election for the purpose of Defendant E’s election (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 930, Sept. 20, 2017).

④ On June 2014, AT, which actively aided Defendant E’s relative and election, sent a text message to Defendant E to the effect that “I” was “Isman as the Defendant B, at the end of two times as follows (No. 1076 of the Investigation Record).

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant B paid for an election of more than KRW 200 million to Defendant A, BL, and Defendant B. As alleged by Defendant B, if Defendant B did not refer to the demand for the payment of the election of Defendant B, Defendant B voluntarily paid the said amount, or another group, including Defendant A or Defendant D, requested that Defendant B pay the said amount. However, it is difficult to understand that Defendant B paid the said amount with a vague expectation without any promise from a person who exceeds KRW 200 million. Moreover, in relation to the possibility that the third party requested the payment of the election of Defendant B, the third party may preferentially consider Defendant A and Defendant D with respect to the possibility that the third party requested the payment of the election of Defendant B. However, it is difficult to view that both the two parties agreed to give preferential treatment to Defendant B, and that Defendant B paid the election of Defendant E at will without Defendant E’s permission.

6) From this Court, BV stated to the effect that, “Defendant B and Defendant E had only two times each time before the election is completed, and there was only one time two times each time each time before the election is completed, and Defendant E demanded the resolution of election expenses to Defendant B in the same place.” Even in B, it is written to the effect that Defendant B and Defendant E dialogued with “the second floor office before the election in April 2014” in “the second floor office in the BZ before the election in April 2014,” etc. (B).

7) Unlike being promised by Defendant E with respect to a large number of businesses, Defendant B’s primary contents, etc. include contents, etc., namely, that Defendant B’s comments and dissatisfactions against Defendant E. If Defendant E does not have promised on the projects indicated in Defendant B’s direct correspondence, it is considerably low that Defendant B used the expressions that are somewhat diverse, and that Defendant E prepared and delivered B’s instant contents to Defendant E.

(8) The third page of a penure B shall be as follows:

5. He promised that the new progress of the CA industrial complex or new creation of the CB industrial complex, which was promised in advance with the head of the Gun, will proceed even before the election, and the four cases will continue even after the election.

① Defendant E was aware of the fact that an unofficial election fund was invested in the election, such as receiving illegal political funds, even at the campaign site (AO) in order to take charge of the official election fund, and Defendant E was aware of the fact that there was an unofficial election fund, such as receiving illegal political funds, such as the violation of the Political Funds Act, even though he was aware of the fact that there was no participation in the settlement of election expenses at all, and later, Defendant E was aware of the fact that there was an issue about how the election expenses should be settled upon the completion of the election, and Defendant B did not have a part in the settlement of election expenses at all, and later, Defendant B paid the election expenses exceeding KRW 200,000 in excess of 200,000, and thus, it is contrary to the empirical rule.

10 In fact, Defendant E attempted to give preferential treatment to Defendant B with regard to (1) the K Industrial Complex Project, (2) the sale of Defendant B’s real estate in the CCTV General Industrial Complex, and (3) the general industrial complex project, etc.

3. Defendant E and the defense counsel related to the crime of violating the Political Funds Act (No. 2017 Gohap127) asserts that Defendant E and the defense counsel did not know about the facts in relation to the crime of violating the Political Funds Act among the instant case No. 2017 Gohap127, supra. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, Defendant E and the defense counsel are entitled to receive a report on KRW 100 million from Defendant A and allow Defendant E to use it as election funds. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant E and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① On May 20, 2014, Defendant A consistently called Defendant E at the investigative agency to the time of this court and sought KRW 100,000,000 from around 20:0 to around 30:0,000, and asked whether D is urgently required to be an election fund, and thereafter, Defendant A stated that Defendant E issued passbooks and seals containing KRW 100,000 to D upon permission of Defendant E.

② As a result of the analysis on Defendant E’s smartphones, around 00:45 on May 20, 2014, Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant E, stating that “The Dop Dop w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

③ From the point of view of the Defendant, the Defendant plans to use a large amount of 100 million won as an illegal election fund by financing a large amount of money, and if Defendant E is not aware of such contribution, the Defendant E does not have any meaning, and therefore, Defendant A reports this to Defendant E and fully accepts the circumstances for which the permission was granted.

④ According to Defendant E’s assertion, Defendant A made a false statement even without reporting at the time. However, Defendant A made a false statement, even if he/she could be an accomplice of the crime of violating the Political Funds Act, if Defendant A made a false statement, which would be unfavorable to himself/herself, in light of the empirical rule. ⑤ Defendant A received the above KRW 100 million from Defendant D on September 24, 2014, and reported it to Defendant E around that time, and Defendant E did not seem to have any special response to it. If Defendant A did not report the above KRW 100 million to Defendant E at the time, Defendant E did not have any need to report on the election fund, and Defendant E did not have any further confirm the process of securing and executing the above KRW 100 million.

(6) At the time of this court, Defendant E stated that Defendant D had expressed “the issue of fund?” (No. 14 pages of the newspaper on Defendant E). Thus, even if Defendant E was not aware of the details and method of raising KRW 100 million, Defendant E, as a candidate for public office, was fully aware of the circumstances that Defendant E would raise an election fund through a person who is not a person in charge of accounting as a candidate for public office, and that election expenses, etc. were paid through an account that was not reported as a political fund account, etc., and Defendant E could be deemed to have explicitly or implicitly delegated Defendant D with respect to illegal funding and enforcement of political funds. Accordingly, Defendant E cannot be exempt from the liability for the above KRW 100 million, which was actually used as illegal political funds.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under the law: Imprisonment with prison labor for five to twenty years, and fines for 200,000,000 to KRW 579,695,000; (b) the scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing criteria for imprisonment;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 5 of Acceptance of Bribery (not less than KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500,000)

[Special Convicted Persons] Aggravation (Positive Requests), Reductions (Return of Bribery before the commencement of an investigation)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 9-12 years of imprisonment, and unfavorable circumstances to the sentence.

- The amount of the bribe in this case reaches KRW 231,878,000.

- All three favorable circumstances in which Defendant A actively demanded a bribe

- Defendant A returned 200 million won of a bribe received from Defendant C prior to the commencement of the investigation for the benefit of Defendant A, such as election and payment of a part of the bribe received from Defendant C, not his own interest, for the benefit of Defendant A.

Defendant A acknowledges all of the crimes of this case, and the mistake of Defendant A is divided.

- Defendant A has no record of punishment for the same crime

◎ 그 밖에 피고인 A의 나이, 성행, 범행의 동기와 수단, 범행 후의 정황 등 이 사건 재판 과정에서 나타난 제반 양형 요소를 종합적으로 고려하여 양형기준의 하한을 벗어나 주문과 같이 형을 정한다.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Not more than 15 years of imprisonment;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with labor for a period of three to eight years;

-Basic crimes: Conspiracy

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least KRW 100,000, less than KRW 500,000) of General Promises

[Special Aggravation] Aggravation (where the method of criminal administration is very poor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, Imprisonment with labor for three to seven years: Bribery

[Determination of Types of Bribery] Type 4 (at least KRW 100 million) of Bribery

[Special Contributor] Aggravation (affirmative) Aggravations (affirmative) , mitigations (in a case where the consignee complies with the affirmative demand of the consignee)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Application of Many Crimes Criteria from June to June 3: Imprisonment with prison labor for three to eight years. Determination of sentence is made in September.

◎ 불리한 정상

- The amount of the offering of a bribe of this case reaches a total of KRW 225 million and the amount of KRW 150 million - Defendant B attempted to acquire multiple business interest rights within AE by offering a large amount of bribe to Defendant E and Defendant A, and even efforts to recover money paid to Defendant E, etc. by receiving a bribe in relation to the personnel affairs of public officials of the AE group, even if it is difficult to obtain additional business interest rights, and even efforts to recover money that Defendant E paid to Defendant E, etc., in order to return money which he provided to Defendant E, the Defendant B sawd by putting the hand in the victim E’s house to return money that he provided as a bribe, and thereby threatening the said victim.

- The circumstances favorable to the victim A’s intent to punish Defendant B

- Defendant B’s acceptance of a bribe and a part of the offer of bribe is contrary to Defendant B’s active demand.

- The victim E expresses his intention not to have the Defendant B punished.

- Defendant B has no record of being punished or sentenced to a fine for the same crime;

◎ 그 밖에 피고인 B의 나이, 성행, 범행의 동기와 수단, 범행 후의 정황 등 이 사건 재판 과정에서 나타난 제반 양형 요소를 종합적으로 고려하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다.

3. Defendant C.

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Types of Bribery] Types 4 (at least KRW 100 million)

[Special Contributor] Aggravation (affirmative) Aggravations (affirmative) , mitigations (in a case where the consignee complies with the affirmative demand of the consignee)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 2 years to 6 months, 3 years and 6 months. Determination of sentence

(1) Unfavorable circumstances

- The circumstances in which the offering of the bribe in this case was made up of KRW 200 million and the defendant C attempted to sell the N funeral hall operated by himself by offering a large amount of bribe to the defendant A.

Defendant C actively requested a bribe in relation to the sale of a funeral hall to Defendant A and offered a bribe to Defendant A.

- Defendant A did not actually make a separate effort in relation to the sale of the NN funeral hall, and therefore, Defendant C actually belongs to Defendant A and made the offer of the instant bribe.

- The omomor and the first offense that the Defendant C recognizes the instant crime and repents his mistake.

(6) Other factors of sentencing revealed in the course of the instant trial, including Defendant C’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, shall be determined by getting out of the lower limit of sentencing criteria and the same sentence as the order.

4. Defendant D

(a) Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

The violation of this Political Funds Act: The crime of offering of bribe that the sentencing criteria are not set;

[Determination of Type] 1 of Bribery (less than 30 million won)

[Special Contributor] Reduction element (in a case where the consignee complies with the affirmative demand)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, and the scope of Recommendations according to the Guidelines for Elimination of Minor Offenses from one month to June of imprisonment

Inasmuch as the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, only the lower limit of the sentencing range for the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed) for not less

(c) Determination of sentence;

① Unfavorable circumstances - The Defendant D provided political funds of KRW 16,878,00 and the amount of illegal political funds contributed to KRW 100,00,000, while being aware that it was used as illegal election funds in excess of the statutory election expenses as the head of the election campaign at the general situation room and the head of the planning team of the E AE-Gun candidate, and actually used them for election expenses.

- Defendant D was given preferential preference for each of the instant crimes in relation to ① the CDA Complex Development Project from Defendant E, etc.; ② the CE Park Lodging Facility Development Project; ③ the CF General Industrial Complex Development Project; and (iv) the DG Development Project.

◎ 유리한 정상

- Defendant D has given a bribe to Defendant A upon Defendant A’s active demand

- In fact, Defendant A lent KRW 100 million and provided for election funds in relation to the crime of violating the Political Funds Act; Defendant D used a loan certificate for the above borrowed money and bears the obligation to the borrowed money; there are circumstances to consider in relation to the circumstances.

- Defendant D is aware that all of the instant crimes were committed, and his mistake is divided.

- Defendant D has no record of being punished or sentenced to a fine for the same offence.

(4) The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, including Defendant D’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime.

5. Defendant E

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for five to two years, and a fine for 2.10 million won to 6.5 million won; (b) the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for imprisonment;

The violation of this Political Funds Act: The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) is not set.

[Determination of Punishment] Type 5 of Acceptance of Bribery (not less than KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500,000)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations (Positive Demand)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 9 years to 12 years of imprisonment: Imprisonment for more than 9 years (the crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crime for which no sentencing guidelines are set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; therefore, only the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set for the crime shall be observed)

(c) Determination of sentence;

◎ 불리한 정상

- Defendant E is the chief director of the AE Gun administration and the representative of the AE Gun administration elected through the election of the AE Gun administration, and is a representative of the AE Gun administration, despite the location to serve the AE Gun and the AE Gun residents as a whole during their terms of office, the expectation and interest of the AE Gun and the AE Gun citizens for their private interest are low, and the respective crimes of this case are

- The amount of acceptance of the bribe in this case is KRW 260,000,000 and the amount of illegal political funds is KRW 100,000.

- Both the two cases of acceptance of bribe actively demanded a bribe by Defendant E

- Defendant E attempted to give preferential treatment to Defendant B with respect to (1) K industrial complex projects, (2) sale of Defendant B’s real estate inCC general industrial complex, and (3) general industrial complex projects, etc., in connection with CB general industrial complex projects.

- Defendant E does not appear to have committed an election campaign on behalf of himself or herself or against a third party who carried out his duties on behalf of himself or herself, for the purpose of being elected as AE head, for the purpose of using the election expenses in an unreasonable amount exceeding the statutory election expenses, and then receiving illegal political funds and bribe in order to repay all such expenses.

- Defendant E has served as a public official for a long time and has retired.

(3) The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, including Defendant E’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

B, after consultation with the statement of "the fact of warning" in 2017Kahap107 as indicated in the ruling, the parties and the amount of the election expenses to be repaid from E shall be delivered, and the parties and the amount to be repaid shall be paid, and the parties and the parties to the election expenses to be repaid as specified in the settlement table shall be reimbursed for E. The Defendant A consulted with B on July 2014 to deliver the said money to BL through the borrowed account he uses.

Accordingly, on July 31, 2014, B remitted KRW 20 million to the AU account (AV) in the name of the Defendant AU used by the Defendant A for the partial repayment of all of the election damages to be paid to E, and the Defendant A remitted KRW 20 million to BL’s post office account in the name of BL on August 4, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant A, in collusion with B, provided KRW 20 million to E in relation to the public official’s duties.

2. Ex officio determination

In order to establish a joint principal offender as prescribed in Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the joint doctor. Here, the intention of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one of the two with intent to commit a specific criminal act as a joint doctor, and it should be transferred to the execution of one’s own intention by using another’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013).

According to the records, it is recognized that Defendant A delivered the money received from Defendant A to BL for the crime of offering a bribe.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant A’s intent to jointly process the crime of offering of a bribe in B, i.e., a joint will, a bribe in relation to E

In order to grant B, it is difficult to see that Defendant A was also a joint principal offender of the crime of offering a bribe to Party B by using the act of Party B. Accordingly, Defendant A cannot be a joint principal offender of the crime of offering a bribe to Party B.

① According to the agreement with E, B was due to the occurrence of the above 20 million won. However, B was not well aware of BL and thus demanded Defendant A to pay the above 20 million won in lieu of BL by account transfer. Defendant A upon the above request by B was merely a direct account transfer. If B directly paid the above 20 million won to BL, Defendant A did not have any reason to participate in the above offering of a bribe.

② When Defendant A transferred the account of the above KRW 20 million to Defendant A, Defendant A was the person who was the secretary-general of the secretary-general, and Defendant A was the head of the secretary-general when Defendant A transferred the account of the above KRW 20 million to BL. Therefore, Defendant A, who was recognized as having contributed to the election process, was the head of the secretary-general. As such, Defendant A was required to take part in, or assist in, the crime of bribery to E, and was not required to give a bribe to E, such as B.

3) It is difficult to recognize that Defendant A had the awareness that he would deliver a bribe to B with B while transferring the account of the above KRW 20 million to BL.

④ In addition, even if Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A had committed the crime of offering of bribe in the above manner, Defendant A did not seem to have given it to Defendant A as a bribe together with Defendant B.

⑤ Although Defendant A stated in this court that he/she recognized the above facts charged, it cannot be interpreted that it appears to have been caused by the site or mistake of the above legal doctrine, and that he/she also thought that he/she would deliver a bribe to E along with B at the time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant A constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

The presiding judge, judge and chief offender;

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges flooded Jins

1) On July 2014, FE had the Defendant B at the “AX coffee shop” located at the end of the end of the day of July, 2014, or he had the Defendant B at present due to election expenses.

As far as possible, a public prosecutor demanded to repay all of his or her elections at the same time. The public prosecutor submitted this letter to the public prosecutor.

The evidence alone is insufficient to prove that E and Defendant B were fluent with the foregoing date and place at the above time and place, but it is not sufficient to prove that they were fluent with them.

The fact that around July 2014, this Court demanded this Defendant B to repay the charge of election charge is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.

As seen below, the criminal facts were sufficiently recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 26 pages 26) ex officio.

2) See No. 1 of each note.

3) See No. 1 Notes

4) A crime that Defendant B offered a bribe of KRW 40 million to E on behalf of Defendant B with payment due to an election charge due to Party B.

The facts of the crime are the facts of the crime referred to in 2017Gohap62, and the election due to E-L is to be paid by Defendant B on behalf of Defendant B.

In addition, the facts constituting the crime of offering a bribe of KRW 20 million have been recognized as the facts constituting the crime of KRW 2017,000. Accordingly, Defendant B E

The total amount of a bribe offered to the person shall be 20 million won.

5) On May 20, 2014, considering that A reported to Defendant E on May 20, 2014, the time when the meeting of the countermeasures was held shall be the date that reaches that time.

Therefore, the date was modified ex officio.