2016 High Doz. 1203

A

The state conversion (prosecution) and Kim Jae-at (trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C, D

March 23, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1.0 billion won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the judgment on the acquittal of the Defendant is publicly notified.

Criminal facts

1. All facts;

The Defendant was working for H, I, and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) operated by Dong G from around 2001 to May 2009. On February 23, 2006, L Co., Ltd. (L Co., Ltd. and M Co., Ltd. were changed to N Co., Ltd. on March 21, 2006, and M Co., Ltd. were changed to N Co., Ltd. on March 23, 2007; hereinafter collectively referred to as “N”), and the business takeover contract was concluded between N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”) and J., and the business takeover contract was transferred to N on March 30, 206, and G was appointed as a general management supervisor around April 2006, the Defendant has been actually involved in the business of selecting N Co., Ltd. and entering into a construction contract.

In addition, this is a person who served as a managing director of J from May 2003 to March 2006 and served as a managing director in charge of N from April 2006 to December 2008 and as a managing director in charge of N's construction and a director in charge of interior management business.

2. Criminal facts;

Around March 2006, the Defendant proposed that the construction site manager at the construction site in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City P is receiving rebates from companies related to N's subcontracting of construction works, etc., and that he will subcontract construction works to G. The Defendant accepted the Defendant's proposal and offered to receive money and valuables from subcontractors as compensation for the registration of subcontractors, construction subcontracting, and payment of construction cost.

Accordingly, on July 16, 2007, the Defendant received orders from Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Q") (hereinafter referred to as "PP") representative director at a cafeteria cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong on the ground of unlawful solicitation that "the subcontract for the construction of machinery and equipment among the construction of the construction of the construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction

In collusion with 0, the Defendant received the total of KRW 1 billion from the 111 business entity related parties, such as N's subcontracting, registration of subcontractors, and payment of construction cost, in collusion with 0, from February 15, 2007 to November 5, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement of witnesses 0, S and W in the first trial records;

1. The self-examination report (including the replaced part) by each prosecutor of the prosecution against the defendant, defendant, 0, X, Y, R, S, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, and H;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement about AA, AI, AI, AK, AL, AM, W, andN;

1. A statement prepared by the AO;

1. Investigation Report [No. 79] No. 2, investigation report [No. 84], investigation report [No. 2], investigation report [No. 97], report [Attachment 143] related to transaction [Attachment 143], report [Attachment 149], report [Attachment 2], document attached to investigation [No. 2], document attached to bidding report [No. 2], document attached to [No. 164], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to [No. 164], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to investigation report [No. 2], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to [No. 30], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to [Attachment 2], document attached to investigation report related to new construction of NAR.

[Attachment of Data to be Submitted by Q Company S (CB Account No. 289), Investigation Report (BB Account Performance Report, etc. 303), Investigation Report [Attachment of Data to AM under Q 307], Investigation Report [Attachment of Data] (AV and N), Attachment of Copy of Subcontract Contract for Construction Work entered into between AV and N (P No. 327), Investigation Report [Attachment of Deposit to National Bank Account in N] (329] (Attachment of Deposit to National Bank Account in N), Investigation Report (N and Deposit to AK Account No. 342), Investigation Report (P. 342), Investigation Report (P. 0) (No. 350)

1. The standard subcontract agreement of construction works, subcontract agreement and settlement agreement (No. 111), No. 20, 125, 126, 126, 20, 3, 20, 3, 20, 3, 3, 154, 2, 16, 3, 3, 20, 4, 20, 16, 20, 16, 20, 16, 20, 16, 3, 16, 3, 20, 4, 16, 20, 16, 3, 20, 16, 4, 16, 20, 16, 3, 20, 3, 16, 20, 3, 3,000, 3,000, 3,000,000,00,000.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the crime of taking property in breach of trust; the crime of taking property in breach of trust against AP (AB); the crime of taking property in breach of trust against AV (AB); the crime of taking property in breach of trust against BE (B) from July 1, 2008 to July 11 of the same year; and the crime of taking property in breach of trust against AP (AH)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the crime of taking part in breach of trust against A Q (AH) with a heavier penalty]

1. Additional collection:

Article 357 (3) of the former Criminal Code

[The portion excluded from the amount of additional collection among the facts of crime]

Of the sum of money and valuables received from the Defendant’s decision, KRW 20 million out of the aggregate of KRW 1,09,000,000 in breach of trust against 10 AU (Z), ② KRW 10,000 out of the aggregate of the money and valuables received from 1,000,000 won in breach of trust against AW (AC), and KRW 15,000,000 in the amount of money and valuables returned to X (5,00,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000 won in breach of trust against 2, 200,000,0000 in the amount of money and valuables received from X (3,000,000,000,000 in the amount of money and valuables received from 0,000,000 won

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his/her defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument that the portion of the allegation was not offered with zero,

The defendant and defense counsel suggest that the defendant would receive rebates from the subcontractor company to 0, and that the defendant did not agree to receive money and valuables from the subcontractor company as compensation for the registration of the subcontractor company, the construction subcontract, etc.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, the defendant proposed that the subcontractor will receive rebates from the subcontractor company and subcontract the construction work to G at the time of receiving the rebates from the subcontractor company, and 0 has accepted the defendant's proposal and agreed to receive money and valuables from the subcontractor company as compensation for the registration of the subcontractor company and the subcontract for the construction work.

① From the prosecution to the court, the Defendant’s proposal from the prosecution to receive money and valuables from the companies related to N’s subcontracting business to the court is specifically and consistently made to bring about the instant crime. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant, the status of the Defendant in the Dong G and Dong G, the details and circumstances of the Fund movement in the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s statement 0 is sufficiently reliable.

② Furthermore, from around 2001 to March 2006, the Defendant served in theJ, etc. operated by Dong-in G from around 2001 to March 2006, and it seems that the Defendant maintained very closely-friendly relationship after entering the J around 2003.

③ On March 30, 2006, the J’s goodwill was transferred to N, a subsidiary of K, and the Defendant was unable to be registered as N and its executive officers and employees, and there was a situation where the income was reduced since that time. However, there is sufficient motive to invite N to receive money in return for the registration of the subcontractor and the selection of subcontractor from the 0th employees continuously worked in N and the subcontractor companies.

④ On the other hand, from April 21, 2006, the Defendant’s Dong G was in general charge of N’s management and supervision over N’s affairs, including N’s registration of subcontractor, bidding for the selection of subcontractor, subcontracting contract, etc., and G became the N’s representative director around July 2006, and G became in a close relationship with G, thereby having de facto exclusive authority over the said affairs. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have been involved in N’s registration of subcontractor, the selection of subcontractor, etc. through Dong-in G.

⑤ From February 2007 to October 2008, 008, 00: (a) companies wishing to register N’s collaborative companies or enter into a subcontract with N’s subcontractor; (b) most companies that provided money and valuables were registered as N’s collaborative companies or entered into a subcontract with N.; and (c) companies that paid N’s only 0 directors could not have registered as N’s collaborative companies or entered into a subcontract with N without the Defendant’s aid.

6) The Defendant and this talked to the effect that the Defendant could have a significant influence on the subcontracting contract as G’s type. Moreover, the Defendant received drinking and golf entertainments, etc. while entering into a subcontracting contract with G, and he directly transferred money and valuables paid by the subcontractor to his own account or branch accounts, and transferred money and valuables to the Defendant under the name of NN (the Defendant’s children) and AK (the Defendant’s children) that the Defendant manages, or directly delivered them to the Defendant.

7) The Defendant and his defense counsel may also attend the position of introducing the person in charge of the subcontractor or the management of the subcontractor, or cooperate with the company to commit unlawful acts by other means, and recognize certain degree of facts about the overall fact that the company received the money from 0 companies. However, the Defendant seems to have first proposed such crimes to the effect that he did not either actively proposed such crimes, conspired to receive a specific amount from a specific company, or intended to do any unlawful act in response to solicitation.

2. Part on the assertion that a certain company did not receive illegal solicitation or money or valuables

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant and defense counsel asserted to the effect that with respect to the portion of breach of trust in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 10, and 11, 80 million won in cash from Q (R) through Q, 30 million won in cash from AY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "AY"), 20 million won in cash from BF (hereinafter "BF"), or 20 million won in cash from BF (hereinafter "AE"), there was no illegal solicitation from the above companies.

B. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the receipt of property in breach of trust against QR, the court of S, and each statement at the prosecution, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant conspired with Qu’s receipt of an illegal solicitation from the former S on July 7, 2007, and that the Defendant received KRW 80 million in cash from S around August 2007, and received KRW 80 million from S on August 2007, it is recognized that the Defendant received property in breach of trust from S against the Defendant.

① On June 28, 2007, S submitted W a written estimate for the bid price of KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000 to be known to the Defendant during the bidding procedure for the general facility works among the construction works of the new apartment among the construction works of the new apartment in Busan City, which was conducted by N on June 28, 2007, stating that Q was selected as a subcontractor for the above construction work after receiving a written estimate for the amount of KRW 2,10,000,000 from the Defendant or W to be adjusted to KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is to reduce the difference with 6,875,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

② On July 16, 2007, Q entered into a subcontract for each of the contract amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 with respect to the mechanical equipment installation works among the aforementioned new construction works, and KRW 6,75,000,000 with respect to the contract amount of the fire extinguishing equipment installation works among the aforementioned new construction works on July 26, 2007. Since then, S listen to the talk that: (a) having introduced the Defendant and offered rebates for 3% ( approximately 80,000,000) of the ordinary contract amount from AB; and (b) from July 20, 2007 to August 22, 207, Q made a concrete statement that: (c) withdrawal of KRW 80,30,000 from Q’s account in cash and prepared for the Defendant to reduce the amount to KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant; and (d) the above representative director’s statement conforms to objective evidence, such as the statement and execution statement and resolution.

③ Since the end of August 2007, S asked the Defendant to contact with the Defendant and prepare for KRW 80,000,000,000, and the Defendant came to contact with 0,000,000,000 won at V hotel in Songpa-gu, Seoul, U.S., opened the shopping bags containing KRW 80,000,000,00,000, and made a call to the effect that “after the fact that money was given to the Defendant through “0” after the fact that money was given to the Defendant,” this is consistent with the statements made by 0 on the process of delivery of KRW 80,000,00.

④ Since then, the above shopping bags were consistently stated that the Defendant was waiting for the parking lot of V hotel first floor by placing the said shopping bags in the between the Defendant’s bentts car stringkes.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the receipt of property in breach of trust against AY (AY) and the AF’s statutory law, each statement at the prosecution, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and the Defendant conspired to receive illegal solicitation from AY’s Standing AF around September 2008, and received KRW 30 million from AF on October 29, 2008, and the Defendant received KRW 30 million from AF around that time. Thus, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from AF on the part of the Defendant. As such, the crime of taking property in breach of trust against the Defendant is recognized.

① On September 208, 2008, around AY reported to the Defendant upon receiving a request from AF to supply a household to AS dormitory new construction works at AY at AY. At that time, the Defendant was asked whether AF may reduce AY to KRW 50 million on the ground that he/she is aware of how much he/she would be responsible for the construction of the AS dormitory. However, AF is able to provide KRW 30 million. AF is specifically and consistently stated that it was said that the Defendant said that she would be responsible for the construction of the AS dormitory.

② As a result of AF’s hearing prior to the expected successful bid price by itself, AY was selected as a contracting company in the tendering procedure for the said construction project. AY entered into a contract with N on October 23, 2008 for the said construction project with the contract amount of KRW 678 million. On October 29, 2008, approximately one week after the contract was entered into, AF on October 29, 2008 and BH restaurant near the Songpa-gu apartment complex BH, Songpa-gu, Seoul, brought the shopping bags containing KRW 30 million in cash from AF to the house. The above statements made by AF are consistent with the statements made by AF.

③ AF has collected several million won in cash every month in preparation for any excess of operating expenses. On October 29, 2008, in order to pay the above KRW 30 million, the AF stated that it had been delivered KRW 30 million from the above company’s funds to 00,000,000. The above AF’s statement is consistent with objective evidence, such as a statement of money, a statement of deposit and withdrawal, and a statement of account assistant.

④ On October 30, 2008, 00, the following day was consistently stated that the shopping bags containing the above KRW 30 million are placed at the gents string line between the Defendant’s gents and the Defendant’s gents.

3) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the receipt of property in breach of trust against BF (AE), the law of AE, each statement at the prosecution, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and the Defendant conspired with the Defendant to receive illegal solicitation from AE from October 2008 to November 5, 2008, that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from AE to the AI’s account in the name of AE on November 5, 2008, and that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from 0,000 in cash, and that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from 0,000,000,000 from AE, and thus, the Defendant is recognized as a crime of taking property in breach of trust against the Defendant.

① From November 4, 2008, the prosecution stated that “AE has been able to place an order for furniture construction in the future of BF, so it is always possible to send KRW 20 million to the bank account in the name of AI because there is no money or other valuables. BC requested that B transfer KRW 20 million to the bank account in the name of AI on the following day. From 0th day to 0th day, BE’s statement is consistent with objective evidence, such as a written order for supply of two households into two vessels (each contract amount of KRW 83 million). The above statement of AE is consistent with 0 statements, AI’s account details, order order, etc.

② On November 5, 2008, 2008, 000 won was returned from AE to the Defendant, and 19.7 million won was returned to BI, and 20 million won was returned to BI, and 300,000 won was collected in cash, and BI is waiting to go in shopping bags. The Defendant sent the above KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant’s Mests’s car and the Defendant’s Mes car, added the above KRW 20,000 to the Defendant’s restaurant, and the Defendant’s Mes Mes and Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mesa ( Examining the details of the IAI’s foreign exchange bank account, it appears that 19,700,000 won was withdrawn from the above account under the name of AI on November 5, 2008. This is insufficient to doubt the credibility of the Defendant’s statement.

3. Part on the assertion that some money or valuables were not received

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant and defense counsel asserted to the effect that the crime of taking property in breach of trust cannot be recognized as part of the amount corresponding to the money and goods not received, since the defendant did not receive some money and goods from 0 or companies as listed in the table below with regard to the portion of taking property in breach of trust in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In the context of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, if an explicit or implicit public offering relationship is established between accomplices to receive money and other valuables or benefits in connection with the illegal solicitation regarding their duties, and if one of the accomplices received money and other valuables or benefits in accordance with the contents of the public offering, barring special circumstances, such as the amount received or agreed to receive at least a specific amount in advance, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established for all of the received money and other valuables or benefits, and there is a co-principal of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, barring special circumstances, such as the amount that would be significantly unlikely to expect in the process of the public offering. It does not mean that a co-principal has to know in advance the amount of money and other valuables or benefits to be received or received, and there is no contact among the accomplices with each other on the scale or degree of the money and other benefits to be received (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do387, Oct. 14, 2010; 2003Do1137, May 30,

2) General determination

A) As recognized earlier, the Defendant offered to G that he will talk about the construction work in question at the time of receiving rebates from N’s subcontracting companies, and the Defendant accepted the Defendant’s proposal and conspired to receive money and valuables from the subcontractor companies as compensation for the registration, construction subcontract, etc., and accordingly, the Defendant received money and valuables from the subcontractor companies to his own account or a branch account and transferred most of them directly to the Defendant’s management, or delivered them directly to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant and0 are sufficiently recognized as collusion for each of the crimes of this case.

B) Meanwhile, most of the Defendant and the companies that provided money and valuables to the Defendant were registered as a collaborative company or entered into a subcontract contract with N, and the Defendant and this appears to have been paid 3 through 5% of the amount expected to be the contract for the subcontract from the pertinent companies as a solicitation or a consideration. As shown in the attached list of crimes, it appears that the amount initially received from each company is similar to the amount already received from the relevant companies as the contract amount for the subcontract contract entered into by the relevant companies, which was paid as a solicitation or a consideration. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the amount received from each company is an unexpected amount in light of the Defendant’s public recruitment process and the details of the subcontractor’s solicitation.

C) Furthermore, in light of the specific circumstances acknowledged as to the following individual items, it is difficult to view that the amount received or agreed to receive only a specific amount less than a certain amount from the Defendant and 0 in advance is an extremely high amount difficult to expect even in the process of public offering. Even if the Defendant did not deliver part of the amount received from the company 0, it does not interfere with the Defendant’s liability for the whole amount received by the company 0 as a co-principal (Additionally, as seen below, the part denying the receipt by the Defendant is deemed to have been delivered by the Defendant directly from 0).

3) Determination on individual items

A) 20 million won out of the water in breach of trust against AU (Z)

① In order to register AU as N’s partner, the prosecutor stated that the AU was registered as N’s partner around April 5, 2007, and that on June 28, 2007, the Z transferred the AU amounting to KRW 50 million on the same day by changing the amount of KRW 50 million in return for the registration of the partner company to the Z on June 28, 2007. Thus, the statements are consistent in major parts, and there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statements.

0 On June 28, 2007, the Z transferred KRW 50 million from the Z to the post office account under the name of BJ, and transferred KRW 30 million in total to the national bank account under the name of N on July 2, 2007 and July 5, 2007.

③ From October 2007 to November 1, 2007, Z introduced the Defendant’s first drinking and drinking drinking in Gangnam-gu as zero introduction from studs in Seoul, and introduced the Defendant as a person who will supply the Defendant’s furniture to N., and even thereafter, Z set golf with Defendant and 0 at BK located in Busan around May 2008.

B) KRW 20 million out of the property in breach of trust against AW (AC)

① On January 208, 2008, the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that AW (AC; hereinafter referred to as "AW") from AD to the effect that he/she received several demands from AD to make it possible for AW to take more quantity of household delivery, whether AD would not be required to take personnel if he/she wants to continue his/her work, and that the amount of KRW 50 million should be the same. The AD remitted KRW 50 million to BB account on May 26, 2008. It stated that he/she remitted KRW 30 million to the national bank account in the name of NN on May 26, 2008, and that he/she did not have any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement.

② Around January 2008, the prosecution received illegal solicitation from X of the BE (hereinafter referred to as “BE”) to request N to subcontract the construction work. On Jan. 22, 2008, the AI’s foreign exchange bank account was transferred to KRW 5 million and KRW 15 million in total to the national bank account in the name of N, and received KRW 15 million. From February 2008 due to N’s failure to obtain N’s subcontract, X requested that it return the above KRW 15 million from January 17, 2008, and accordingly, it reported that it remitted KRW 15 million out of the transferred KRW 50 million from AD to the account on May 27, 2008, and that it was consistent with the objective statement by the Defendant, such as evidence and evidence.

C) On January 22, 2008, KRW 5 million out of the property in breach of trust of X on January 22, 2008, the prosecutor received a request from X to subcontract N to BE from January 2, 2008. On January 22, 2008, the prosecutor received KRW 5 million from AI’s exchange bank account, and transferred KRW 10 million to NN’s national bank account on the same day. Since the construction was not subcontracted, it is consistent with objective evidence such as X’s statement and account. The above 0 statement conforms to objective evidence such as X’s statement and account.

D) KRW 100 million out of the property in breach of trust on July 1, 2008 to July 11, 2008 to July 2008

① From the prosecution to July 2008, the defendant was called by telephone and "G". At the same time, only one of the steel-frame companies that are believed to be seen as ‘I am am am am am am in X'. Furthermore, the defendant's report to "I am am am am am 'I am am am am 'I am I am am?', and the defendant's report to 'I am am am 'I am I am am I am am am?', and as a result, the defendant's notification of the expected successful bid amount to X was made to be selected as a subcontractor for steel construction among the steel-related new construction works by the chief of the AR prosecutor, the above 0's statement is specific and consistent.

② According to N’s statement of construction works executed by N’s Cooperative Operation Team, among the construction works undertaken by AR chief executive officers, the implementation budget for steel-framed works was KRW 3.324 billion, and other companies, such as BL and Q, were bided for approximately KRW 3.2 billion to KRW 3.3 billion, while BE bid for the said construction works at a low price of KRW 2.62 billion.

③ At the time of delivering money and valuables received from A QHO relating to the property in breach of trust for Q No. 9 of the annexed crime list No. 9, 000 won was borrowed from AB to the Defendant to deliver the money and valuables to the Defendant first, and then delivered the money and valuables together to the Defendant. Since then, AB’s demand for payment was transferred from X on July 9, 2008 (the crime No. 7 of the annexed crime list No. 7 of July 1, 2008 to July 11, 2008) the amount of KRW 40 million out of the money and valuables transferred from AB to AB. The above statements are consistent with the statements from AB and AI.

④ Around July 17, 2008, the court and the prosecution have returned to the father on or around July 24, 2008. Around July 24, 2008, the father did not return to the father, and the Defendant was unable to leave the family travel from around that time to August 14, 2008 and deliver it to the Defendant. However, on or around September 2008, the Defendant sent approximately KRW 60 million out of KRW 73,00,000,000 to the Defendant in cash, which occurred due to his father funeral ceremony, is consistent with the objective evidence, such as entry into and departure from Korea by the Defendant, G, and Canada on July 25, 2008.

E) AH from February 4, 2008 to March 17, 2008, KRW 80 million out of the property in breach of trust of Q (AH)

① From the prosecution around March 2008, the 00 billion won of AP (hereinafter referred to as “AP”) was written to AH in cash, the 200 million won was met with NF in Seoul CH, and two shopping bags were moved to the eM hotel parking lot located near the ecuas vehicle being driven by AH, and two shopping bags were moved from the ecridges of the above vehicles to the ecridges of AI vehicles. Since then, the 0th statement is consistent with the part concerning the process of delivery of KRW 200 million by AH and AI.

AH received KRW 29 million in cash and checks, and KRW 60 million in cash from her punishment BN in connection with the process of preparing the above KRW 200 million in the prosecution, and further stated that the sum of money and valuables previously collected was divided into two existing shopping bags and delivered to her as they are. On March 17, 2008, AH deposited KRW 60 million in total, including KRW 59 and KRW 1 million in cashier’s checks issued from her new bank account, and KRW 200 million in cash and checks with the above AK’s account from March 17, 2008 to March 21, 2008.

③ around February 208, 2008, AH first met the Defendant on the basis of the introduction of 0,000, and even thereafter, the Defendant and 7-time golfs together with golfs. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and AH, etc., it seems that AH did not provide KRW 200,000,000, which was promised to pay to the Defendant or 0, to KRW 80,000,000 to KRW 120,000,000.

(f) KRW 10 million out of the property in breach of trust on June 2008 for Q (AH) and around the end of 2008

① At the end of June 2008, 000 won was requested by the Defendant to prepare KRW 50 million from the end of the day, and contact with AH to request KRW 50,000,000. Around that time, at a restaurant located within the remote distance of tin-do, the amount of KRW 50,000 from AH was received in cash from AH on the same day, and delivered it to the Defendant on the same day, such as the Defendant, the Defendant’s Hah (AL), the Defendant’s Hah (BP), and the Defendant’s Hah-dong (BP). The above statements are consistent with AH’s statements.

② If the Defendant stated that 00 million won was given and 40 million won as alleged in the Defendant’s assertion, even though the responsibility for the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust may be frightened, it is consistently stated that 0 million won was given and received as a larger amount of money, and there is no reason for 0 and AH to talk about the specific amount.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (at least KRW 100,00)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water, affirmative requirements

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than three years but not more than seven years and six months (special aggravation area)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months;

The Defendant: (a) was appointed as the general manager of N’s management and became practically aware of the selection, etc. of subcontractor; (b) led N’s directors to commit the instant crime, such as ordering N’s directors to receive money and valuables from subcontractor in return for the subcontract for construction work.

The defendant not only received a large amount of KRW 1 billion from 11 companies for about one year and nine months for the purpose of preparing money and goods that he/she or his/her family members consume, but also damaged the fairness of N's execution of duties and the trust in such unlawful conduct as informing the companies which provided money and goods of the estimated successful bid price. The crime is not very significant and criminal.

In particular, when the prosecution investigation on G and 0 began on May 2009, the Defendant fleded to Canada on 2009, 5, 25, and around that time, it seems that the Defendant requested 0 between the Canadian and the Canadian to refrain from entering the Republic of Korea. Moreover, the circumstances after the instant crime are very poor, such as the Defendant’s escape even after receiving a forced deportation order from the Canadian National Security Agency (CBSA) on 10 December 10, 2015.

Considering the above circumstances, the sentence of sentence corresponding to the criminal liability is inevitable for the defendant.

However, there are circumstances to consider the defendant favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake and divided, and that the defendant has no record of the same punishment.

Such circumstances and the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing factors as shown in the pleadings of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Points of taking property in breach of trust against E (F);

A. Summary of the facts charged

In collusion with the Defendant, the Defendant received unjust solicitation from F to February 2, 2008, to the effect that it would enable E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) to participate in the Dub Q New Corporation from F, and on February 4, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from F to the AI name account via the AI name account.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the statement in the court and the prosecutor’s office, which is the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, are insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to find the Defendant guilty.

① The Prosecutor stated that “F shall not be able to take part in the B Q business between January 4, 2008 and February 2, 2008, so F shall be able to take part in the B Q business, so F shall be able to take part in the business even in the personnel of F, and that F shall be able to take part in the business.” Accordingly, F shall transfer KRW 20 million to the national bank account in the name of N on February 4, 2008. However, upon examining the details of the accounts in the name of N, the Prosecutor cannot find the details that F remitted remitted KRW 20 million to the national bank account in the name of N on February 4, 2008.

This part of the facts charged is that F wired KRW 20 million to a foreign exchange bank account under the name of ALI on February 4, 2008 and wired KRW 20 million to a national bank account under the name of N on the same day. However, the account in the name of AI was transferred KRW 20 million from AH (E) and F (E on February 4, 2008. The money and valuables transferred from the above AI account to the national bank account under the name of N on the same day was transferred KRW 20 million from the above AI account, and thereafter, the money and valuables were transferred from the name of 200,000 won to 20,000 won on February 5, 2008. 208.208.208.208.208.204.208.204.

③ The Defendant received an illegal solicitation from F to February 2, 2008 from F to the prosecution, which received KRW 20 million from F in return for the receipt of an illegal solicitation from F to the B Q new construction. If the Defendant knew of the aforementioned illegal solicitation, it is difficult to find out such circumstances despite that E would have been able to enter into a subcontract for electrical construction among the new construction works, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that E had entered into a subcontract for the said electrical construction works.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

2. The possession of property in breach of trust on July 24, 2006 against AP (A)

A. Summary of the facts charged

In collusion with 0, the Defendant received illegal solicitation from A to subcontract building automatic control works, among the remodeling works for K-style houses, KRW 50 million,000,000 from 0 around that time, and the Defendant received KRW 50,000,000 in cash from 0 around that time.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by each prosecutor’s statement, etc. of AA, AJ, and B with respect to each prosecutor’s protocol, it appears that the statement in the court and the prosecutor’s office, which is the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, are insufficient to recognize the conviction of the above facts charged without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to determine

① During the participation of the related parties in K-style remodeling construction, K-styles held the first and second contests to select a subcontractor for a building automatic control non-construction project on August 11, 2006, 2006, 6.13, and 2006, respectively, and the first and second competitions were selected as a company eligible for the second and second contests in AP (hereinafter referred to as "AP"), BU, BV, and BW, and AP was selected as a subcontractor for the said construction project and entered into a subcontract contract with N on August 21, 2006 with the subcontractor on August 21, 2006. The process of concluding the subcontract contract with the above AP is different from the method of notifying the subcontractor or 00 of anticipated successful bidders, and there is no possibility for the Defendant to participate in the subcontract, such as the selection of the subcontractor.

② Prior to July 24, 2006, 000 won was prepared and delivered by the court and the prosecutor’s office to the Defendant on or before July 24, 2006, and the Defendant appropriated 50 million won received from AA on or before July 24, 2006. However, 00 won was stated in the prosecutor’s office that the prosecutor prepared 50 million won that was delivered to the Defendant as the down payment, etc., which was prepared by the director as to the developments leading up to the 50 million won delivered to the Defendant, and 30 million won was prepared as the down payment, etc. in the prosecutor’s office. However, in the court, there was no consistent statement, such as the statement that the mother was prepared with the money that the mother was subjected to the full-time return, and there was no objective material such as financial material corresponding to the above 0’s statement.

③ On July 24, 2006, the amount of KRW 50 million was transferred from AA to the account in the name of BS, which is a branch of AJ (the wife at the time of theO) on July 24, 2006, and KRW 50 million was divided into KRW 30 million with the account in the name of BX, KRW 7.2 million with the account in the name of BY, KRW 5 million with the account in the name of BY, KRW 5.34 million with the account in the name of BJ, KRW 5.340,00 with the account in the name of AJ, the mother of AJ, and KRW 1.3 million with the account in the name of AJ, and KRW 5 million with the account in the name of CA. Accordingly, the 00,000 or KRW 5 million with respect to this, the 00,000 won was consumed by AJ for its personal purpose.

(4) (4) The Defendant and AA did not find any material to deem that the Defendant first introduced AA from January 2, 2007 to February 2, 2007, which was four months after the date of the conclusion of the said subcontract agreement, and that prior 0 was introduced to the Defendant. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant and A conspired to receive money and valuables from A in return for the said subcontract agreement around July 24, 2006, much more than the first maturity of AA.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, but as long as it is found not guilty of the crime of taking property in breach of trust (attached Form 1 No. 1) against AP (A) related to the comprehensive crime, it shall not be sentenced

The presiding judge, judge and presiding judge;

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.