(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.8.7선고 2015노408 판결

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by a fine for 60,000,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 300,000 into one day.

54,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

1) Regarding the overall credibility of 0 statements

As seen below, the Defendant did not receive any solicitation with respect to the amendment of the AB Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and there was no special reason to make a solicitation to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant was guilty of all the remainder of the charges except for the acceptance of bribe on September 16, 2013, on the ground of a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received a gift certificate equivalent to KRW 40 million and KRW 4 million on five occasions as stated in the judgment of the court below, along with the solicitation that the amendment of the Act would be passed through the National Assembly.

A) At the time of the arrival of the Defendant’s first resort on August 8, 2013, the Defendant and her objection completed the amendment of the law in the S Assembly room, a standing M Council member under the jurisdiction of the law, at the time of the completion of the hotel. As such, theO did not have any reason or need to make a solicitation to the Defendant.

B) On September 2, 2013, 2013, the 'A' group was organized by the request of the National Assembly members, and the defendant was not a group to arrange for the remaining 0 members upon the request of 0 members, and 10 members required for the joint proposal of the amendment of the law have already been secured.

C) The Defendant participated as a joint proposer on September 12, 2013 in the amendment of the Act. However, this is limited to those dealt with by the assistant according to ordinary procedures, as well as those of other members who participated in the joint proposal. The Defendant was aware of the fact that he participated in the joint proposal.

D) This was estimated on September 16, 2013 on the basis of the data from the monetary base station that was finally presented by the prosecutor, after making a statement that the Defendant made a solicitation regarding the amendment of the law, but did not clearly specify the date and time that the first cash was given after solicitation, and reversed the statement on the date and time of grant several times, which was made by the prosecutor. The credibility of the statement on the provision of money and valuables should not be recognized unless the 0th statement on the grant of the first money and valuables is recognized, as appropriately determined by the lower court

2) The portion of receipt of merchandise coupons around August 2013 to September 9, 2013 and around December 2013

A) Although the Defendant received a few gift certificates from this, the Defendant did not offer to receive or promise to assist in the amendment of the law, and did not give any help to the Defendant in relation to the amendment of the law, it cannot be said that there was a quid pro quo or business relationship in the receipt of gift certificates.

B) The gift certificates received by the Defendant are private and courtesy that theO maintains friendly relations with the Defendant and was left before the end of the year or the name of the Defendant, and there is no relevance to duties.

c) Ten copies of gift certificates used by the wife of NN are likely to have been issued directly by them, so it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant received them from them.

D) The gift certificates that the Defendant received on or around December 2013, 2013 were received from the Defendant’s his/her father’s wife as an audit indication of his/her receipt of music Leson’s gift on eight occasions from around October 2013 to December 2013, and thus, the Defendant’s gift was merely a courtesy in light of the social norms.

3) The portion received in cash of KRW 20 million on February 19, 2014

A) On February 19, 2014, the Defendant did not have agreed in advance to attend the “BE Telecommunication,” and the Defendant was aware of whether or not the Defendant would attend the Telecommunication. Moreover, the Defendant visited the Defendant’s office in the Council after the Telecommunication with the Defendant’s proposal during the process of the Telecommunication. As such, theO did not have been able to prepare the cash to be provided to the Defendant in advance in return for the Defendant’s attendance at the Council.

B) The Director of the Public Relations Organization of Qs Vocational School (hereinafter “ Q”) stated that the prosecutor’s investigation did not state the fact that the Defendant’s office visit plan was written by the O as of the day before the meeting was held by the prosecutor, and that he would take part in the Defendant’s office after the meeting was completed. Since AM had a motive to make a false statement that 0, the president of the board of directors, would not be punished for perjury, there was no credibility of the AM’s statement in the court below that there was a prior promise.

4) The portion received in cash of KRW 10 million on April 23, 2014

A) From February 19, 2014 to April 23, 2014, between February 19, 2014 and April 23, 2014, the Defendant was merely informed to the Defendant of the fact that the Bill was passed by the M law Review Subcommittee through his/her secretary on April 21, 2014, and this was already known from AM, and thus, there was no reason to indicate the learning even when providing the Defendant with cash amounting to KRW 10 million.

B) On April 22, 2014, the Defendant, at around 10:30 on April 23, 2014, ordered AO to pay the card price in arrears, which was received in cash from the Defendant’s mother. On April 23, 2014, the Defendant and AO did not have a situation where the Defendant and AO could exchange the card price in light of the Defendant’s moving dong line within the National Assembly around April 23, 2014.

5) The portion received in cash of 10 million won on May 30, 2014

A) From April 23, 2014 to April 29, 2014, the Defendant did not play any role in relation to the amendment of the law, except for sending text messages to four members of the Dong Council, who were affiliated with the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, requesting the passage of the bill, from April 28, 2014, until April 29, 2014. Therefore, there was no motive for the Defendant to provide KRW 10 million in cash to the Defendant.

B) As such, in Jeju-do visited on May 29, 2014 for the BO election campaign, the Defendant was able to offer money and goods closely and safely to the Defendant, and even if there was sufficient time to keep the envelope in the taxi, it is difficult to obtain the statement that the Defendant provided cash in the next delivery to the apartment near the apartment where the Defendant was walking at the si and walked along with the Defendant, even though it was difficult to obtain the 0 statement that the Defendant provided the money in the next delivery at the place near the apartment that was open to the public. 23:35 square meters away from the 2.1km at the 23:1km, and then again, it is physically impossible to obtain the statement that the Defendant offered the money in the next delivery to the si at around 23:35 square meters.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion

0 A consistent statement was made that the defendant delivered KRW 10 million to the defendant at the office on the date stated in this part of the facts charged. Such0 statements are sufficiently supported by the data from the location of the station where the defendant and AP mobile phone calls. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the penalty of imprisonment for three years, the fine of 50 million won, and the penalty of 44 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

가. 현금 4,000만 원 및 상품권 400만 원 공여에 관한 0 진술의 신빙성 여부 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정한 사실에 당심에서 추가로 인정하는 아래와 같은 사정에 비추어 보면, O가 국회의원인 피고인에게 직업전문학교 명칭 개선 관련 법률 개정 과정에서 청탁을 하고, 5차례에 걸쳐 현금 4,000만 원 및 400만 원 상당의 상품권을 건넸다는 0의 진술은 신빙성이 충분히 인정된다.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the charges is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal

1) As regards the core part of the fact-finding itself, such as place where cash and merchandise coupon was issued from around August 9 to May 30, 2013 to around May 30, 2014, the public prosecutor’s office that provided money to the Defendant is consistent, specific, and objective reasonableness and rationality of each statement are recognized. In particular, this is determined the number of money to be provided, taking into account the time when the money was given prior to the delivery, the status of the recipient of the money and the weight reduction, etc., and even if the money was not accurately memoryed, the amount of money to be provided at a certain point is deemed to be sufficiently memory. Thus, the credibility of the 0th statement is recognized.

2) On August 8, 2013, at the request of the Defendant to request the Defendant to conduct a music test for the first time with theO. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the legal revision process was in progress until he and she talked about the legislative explanation related to the improvement of the name of an occupational professional school, and that he and she was in telephone to the Cheongdae. As such, the Defendant did not receive any legislative solicitation from this point. However, the Defendant asserted that there was no specific reason or necessity to make a solicitation to the Defendant at the time of providing each money and valuables. However, in light of the Defendant’s pro rata relationship, such as the monetary content, the number of times of delivery, etc., and that the need to amend this Act was explained from X on September 14, 2013, the Defendant’s assertion that he and she had been aware of the need to amend this Act from the hotel to the prosecution’s 2013.88.08.08.

3) Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that there was no reason to make a solicitation against the defendant, who is an incumbent member of the National Assembly, even though he/she had served as a full-time secretary of the National Assembly for the alteration of the school name. Bribery is the process of performing his/her duties, trust in society, and the impossibility of performing his/her duties, and is protected by the law, and does not necessarily require any solicitation or unlawful act in relation to his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4204, Apr. 27, 2007). Thus, even if there was no individual and specific solicitation from the time of receiving each cash or merchandise coupon as alleged by the defendant, so long as the defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, received money in relation to his/her legislative activities, as long as he/she received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties, there is no obstacle to recognizing the crime of acceptance of bribe.

4) Next, the Defendant was under investigation on suspicion of offering money and valuables to the president of the National Institute for Lifelong Education, etc. of Q 4 billion won and the head of the National Institute for Lifelong Education, etc., and even if criminal punishment is imposed due to the offering of bribe, there is sufficient possibility that he/she made a false statement to the Defendant, a member of the National Assembly, in cooperation with the prosecutor’s investigation in order to obtain favorable results in the above investigation or prosecution. However, in a situation where the issue of prosecution and the scope of prosecution have not been determined, the lower court acknowledged the charge of embezzlement in the process of investigation, and in most cases, recognized the charge of embezzlement in Q Q Q 3, and repaid the total amount of embezzlement in full. The Defendant had already been aware of large cash in his/her dwelling and office, and had no choice but to make a statement on the fact of offering money and valuables to the Defendant on the basis of legislation based on the currency details between the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion alone alone does not admit the Defendant’s false statement at the risk of punishment against the Defendant.

B. Determination on the assertion regarding gift certificates received around August 2013 to September 9, 2013 and around December 2013

1) Whether a merchandise coupon is a bribe

A) Relevant legal principles

The crime of bribery is sufficient to have received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties, and there is no need to have an individual job act and a quid pro quo relationship. When a public official received money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties, it is deemed that the same is merely an exceptional consideration in light of social norms, or it is clearly recognized that a personal-friendly relationship is due to the need for school division, barring any special circumstances, such as the case where it is evident that a public official received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties. In cases where a public official received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties, even if he/she received money and valuables in relation to his/her duties, the money and valuables received shall be a bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do35

B) Determination

The lower court determined that, as a matter of course, matters regarding the amendment of the law naturally belongs to the Defendant, a member of the active duty service member, and that the amount of gift certificates received at once by the Defendant reaches two million won or more, it is extremely large, and that the Defendant was expected to serve and assist the Defendant in the DP process from the time when he first delivered large amount of gift certificates from the time when he did not reach the DP process. Since the provision of gift certificates by 0 on December 2013 is deemed to be an act on an extension line, the gift certificates by 0 on the part of the Defendant are deemed to be an act on the part of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s receipt of gift certificates by combining the purport of cooperation with the amendment of the law that belongs to the Defendant’s scope of his duty, other than the meaning of personal-friendly relationship, with the gift certificates by 200,000 won, the Defendant also received gift certificates by 130,000 won or more, on the ground that the gift certificates by 201 to 2013.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified. Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is not justified.

2) Whether the defendant received 10 copies of gift certificates used by BD

Around August 1 to 9, 2013, the Defendant received merchandise coupons from the Defendant and delivered them to BD, and the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that part of the merchandise coupons he received from 0 and received from 0 and there is no reason to receive the merchandise coupon directly from the Defendant in light of the testimony of the witness and N. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the merchandise coupons may have been received directly from 10. The Defendant’s assertion that the portion of the merchandise coupons he received from 0 may not be accepted. The judgment on the assertion related to cash KRW 20 million is made on February 19, 2014.

1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether there was a prior promise between the Defendant and the Defendant, namely, it was prepared in advance to provide the Defendant with cash in accordance with the prior promise that the prosecution and the lower court completed a conference with the Defendant at the office of the Defendant located in the parliamentary hall. The lower court’s decision is justifiable in that the lower court, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant and the Defendant had consistently made a statement; (b) QM, who was present at the above conference together with the Defendant, made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s 0 statement in the lower court’s court court; and (c) the credibility of such statement was acknowledged; and (b) there was a prior promise to provide the Defendant with cash pursuant to such a promise, which the lower court had been prepared in advance to provide the Defendant with cash.

2) Whether there was a motive to provide cash to the person

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, under the circumstance that the Ministry of Education, the competent authority, opposed to the bill of amendment, the defendant was present at the KL conference and made a statement favorable to Q Q in relation to the amendment of law, and further, at the time prior to the deliberation of the competent standing committee and the plenary session of the National Assembly, the defendant was sufficient to provide the defendant with cash of KRW 20 million. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court below is also justified.

3) Whether the place and method of cash offer contravenes the empirical rule

The Defendant asserted that, if the Qu chief executive officer of the National Assembly, on February 18, 2014, who was the day before the meeting, had already been the Defendant, to offer a bribe, the Defendant would have been able to offer a secret and safe cash in the president room, and even if he would have been able to offer a bribe, it would be contrary to the common sense and the rule of experience. However, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant selected the Defendant’s office in the parliamentary hall as the place where the money was given was given, and that the Defendant would not be deemed to have violated the rule of experience. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

4) As to the Defendant’s place of use of money and valuables received, the Defendant’s wife: (a) transferred or withdrawn, using his family card, at least 5 million won of living expenses from the Defendant’s wage account on the 20th day of each month, which is the payment day; (b) on February 2014, the Defendant’s wage account, at all, did not withdraw living expenses from the Defendant’s wage account; (c) on the day when the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Defendant’s wage account, the Defendant made a telephone call with the wife located at around 20:0,00; and (d) from around 19:59 to 21:17, the location of the base station in which the Defendant sent four currencies from the Defendant’s wife and family members reside, is confirmed to be the Gyeyang-gu and Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, in which the Defendant’s wife and family members reside, and in light of these facts, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that part of the Defendant’s statement was given to the wife under such probability.

D. Determination on the assertion related to the portion received in cash of KRW 10 million on April 23, 2014

1) Whether this part of the statement was credibility

In the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below on April 23, 2014, the defendant, as well as Q 18th floor X, was on the 18th floor rooftop through stairs in order to carry out a 17th floor of Q 18th floor X, and the defendant stated that a small bag containing a total of 10 million won in 50,000 won was put into a double cover cover box of the defendant. However, the defendant and the two were only once this day for eating in X of the 18th floor, and there is no concern for other people to see it, it is consistent and detailed that the statement of 00 that the defendant sealed cash in a small plastic bag that is more than a large cover bag than a large spon, and therefore this part of the statement of 0 is also recognized credibility and credibility.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that he was listed in the stairs and did not seem to have any way from the stairs at the time of providing a plastic bag to the Defendant, because the statement of theO was contrary to the video recorded on the rooftop CCTV, or that the statement of the amendment was contrary to the objective situation, even though it had already passed the M bill review subcommittee on April 21, 2014, that the statement that the Defendant made a conversation to the effect that it would be necessary for BNN members, the chairperson of the sub-committee, even though he had passed the M bill review subcommittee on April 21, 2014, cannot be believed to believe that the above circumstances alleged by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the credibility of the statement 0. The Defendant’s above assertion also has no merit.

2) Whether the place and method of cash offer contravenes the empirical rule

Although the Defendant appears to have naturally and safely provided money and valuables in the conference room connected to X prior to eating, it is against the rule of experience that CCTV was installed, and it was intended to offer cash to the students who applied for use in advance on the rooftop, which is a public place where access is permitted. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s statement on the process of issuing the Defendant’s money bags to the Defendant immediately from the stairs is not objective and reasonable, and that the Defendant’s statement on the process of directly inserting the money bags to the Defendant’s two uniforms, which is a member of the National Assembly, is very unusual. However, although the Defendant’s attempt to give money and valuables to the Defendant naturally from the stairs between Q 17 and 18, unlike his original plan, it cannot be deemed as contrary to the rule of experience. Unlike his own plan, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid the money to the Defendant’s two clothes by thought that he directly included the Defendant’s money in the Defendant’s uniforms, and there is no reason for both.

3) Determination as to Defendant’s assertion on the source of funds

On April 22, 2014, the Defendant asserted that he received 10 million won in cash from BC from 10:30 on the following day, and had AO settle the card price. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that 50,000 won in cash, which was offered to the Defendant as of April 22, 2014 in light of the details of financial transactions between BC, was in itself holding 20 million won and 10 million won in cash, and the Defendant did not immediately enter the local constituency office in Jeju-do so that the Defendant would immediately settle the card price through A Q, which was in its demand for payment of the card price. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had been given an order to pay the card price on the day 10:0 on the same day without having received an order to do so from BO 40:0 on the same day, even though he did not have been given an order to do so.

E. Determination on the assertion related to the portion received in cash of KRW 10 million on May 30, 2014

The lower court: (a) determined that: (b) the Defendant 6/4; (c) the Defendant was able to take over a taxi in the vicinity of AJ apartment 71; and (d) the Defendant was consistently stated that the Defendant was placed at the seat of the head office of AJ apartment 7; (c) the Defendant was placed in the two-way cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover; (d) theO was sufficiently willing to provide money to the Defendant with the audit cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover at the plenary session of the National Assembly for the revised bill; and (e) on the same day, the 0th anniversary of the request for the transfer of the taxi to BS cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover cover;

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is also justified in the judgment of the court below as to this part of the facts charged, since it is difficult for BC to believe the testimony of the court below for the same reasons as above.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. This part of the facts charged

On September 16, 2013, the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million in cash on the pretext of the solicitation that the amendment to the AB Act on the Improvement of the Name of a Specialized Occupational School will help pass through the National Assembly.

B. The judgment of the court below

As to this part of the facts charged, the court below found the donor not guilty on the ground that there was a strict proof that there was no reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no direct evidence that there was a lack of reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged, and that there was a strict proof that there was no reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was a lack of doubt.

C. Judgment of the court below

However, in full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, such as the statement of on-site inspection records of the party, it is recognized that the Defendant visited Q on September 16, 2013, as stated in this part of the facts charged, and received cash KRW 10 million from Q as stated in the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that there was no proof of a crime.

1) 이는 피고인에게 최초 현금을 제공한 시점에 관하여 정확한 일시를 특정하지 못하였으나, (1) 2013. 7. 30. 피고인을 처음 만난 후 몇 달 지나지 않은 한창 더울 때, (2) 8월~9월 쯤이고, S에게 돈을 준지 얼마 지나지 않은 시기, 3 낮에 바쁠 때 찾아왔고, 오후 시간대로 기억난다는 취지로 진술하였는바, 위와 같이 정확한 시기는 특정하지 못하고 있으나 이 무렵 자신의 사무실에서 피고인에게 1,000만 원을 공여하였다는 점만은 일관되게 진술하였고, 그 공여시점은 적어도 O가 S에게 1,000만 원을 제공하였다고 진술한 2014. 9. 14. 이후로 특정된다.

2) This presented a record of AP call between the Defendant and the driver at the prosecution investigation stage, and specified the date and time of publication as September 16, 2014.

3) However, AP, a driving engineer of the Defendant, stated that the Defendant did not drive the Defendant, and that the Defendant was aware that Q was not visited the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not visit Q alone. The Defendant also acknowledged that Q was not visited. As between August 9, 2013 and September 16, 2013, the date the location of the cell phone call station of the Defendant and AP was confirmed in Q, along with the date the Defendant’s cell phone call station was confirmed in Q.

4) From around 14:00 on September 16, 2013, the Defendant participated in a national economic federation hosting BY event held at the BA hotel located in Q and approximately 1km. The Defendant was getting off from a vehicle operated by AP in Q near Q to around 13:39 to 13:43, the day immediately before the actual event was held.

5) In light of the Defendant’s day schedule and movement route, the lower court determined that the time when the Defendant was able to work in Q chief director’s room was shorter than six to eight minutes, and that Q was unreasonable to visit Q. However, the lower court stated that there was a time for the Defendant to go to Q, without any special use, even in the ordinary world.

6) Although the time when the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million to the Defendant, prior to the enactment of the S Assembly room

Although the accurate date is somewhat not specified after recognition, it can be seen that this arises from the limitation of memory, and at this time, it does not interfere with the credibility of the statement itself that the defendant provided money and valuables to the defendant.

7) The Defendant’s failure to specify on September 16, 2013, asserted that the date and time of the provision of cash are accurately memory and comparison. However, in light of the specific date and time of the provision with the assistance of other data that can specify the date and time of the crime, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s mobile phone call location map of AP, a driver of the Defendant and the Defendant, is not reliable in Q, based on the explanation that the location map of the cell phone call station of the Defendant and the Defendant’s driver, is confirmed in Q.

8) On September 16, 2013, the Defendant: around 13:26, while moving to the vehicle on September 16, 2013, telephone conversations with SO located near the riverside north of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; the fact that telephone conversations with PP, 13:39:2 through 13:42:35, was confirmed by the telephone conversations with PP on the day; the Defendant appears to have left the vehicle on the day of the call between 13:39 and 13:42; the location of the base station in which the Defendant and AP calls were sent from the vehicle to the 13:39 to 13:42, the Defendant appears to have arrived at the 5th floor of the Seoul CA building; the Defendant appears to have arrived at the hotel near the 13:50,000, and the Defendant appears to have arrived at the 13:3rd time and the 1:3rd time, and the Defendant continued to receive from PP from PP to the 3rd on the day and the day of the scheduled.

9) On September 2013, the Defendant’s wife BZ did not transfer the cost of living from the Defendant’s wage account to his own account or not withdraw in cash. On September 17, 2013, the following day from September 17, 2013, the Defendant stated that he provided KRW 10 million, the Defendant moved the text message to the Defendant’s wife BZ in the U.S. and then moved to the U.S. bank. From September 17, 2013, the location of the base station 4 calls sent from 13:13 to 13:25 on the same day is confirmed to be an area where the Defendant’s wife and his wife were residing in the U.S., U.S., U.S., and CI, etc. from this point to the day following the receipt of KRW 10 million. Such circumstances are sufficiently probable to support the credibility of the Defendant’s statement.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below is reasonable, and so long as the acquittal portion is reversed, the conviction portion in the relation of the blanket crime cannot be maintained as it is. Thus, without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized by the court are as follows: 4. Specific criminal facts: B/Y 1.30 on September 16, 2013 to B/T 13: B/T 200 won in cash in the above Q2 office; B/T 3); B/T 100 on the 6th anniversary of the receipt of the data; B/T 100 on the 6th anniversary of the total amount of five occasions; B/T 100,000 won in total; B/T 100 on the 1.6th anniversary of the receipt of the data; B/T 96th of the data; B/T 16th of the data base; B/T 16th of the data base; B/T 4th of the data base; B/T 9th of the data base; B/T 1st of the data base; B/T 1st of the data base; and B/T 1st of the data transfer report;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

In general, Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 65(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment for not less than 3 years and 6 months and a fine not less than 54 million won and not more than 135 million won; 2. Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 4 (not less than 50 million won and less than 100 million won) of the acceptance of bribe (a special person): No mitigation factor: No mitigation factor; and no aggravation factor:

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

3. Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment and fine 60 million won; and

The defendant, as a member of the National Assembly who has the duty of integrity under the Constitution, received the total of 54 million won from the operator of a professional school, which is an interested party, in relation to the legislation, which is a duty of integrity. In light of the fact that the crime of this case seriously undermines the trust of the people to the National Assembly members, the crime is very heavy.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant should be considered, such as the fact that the defendant did not actively demand money or valuables, and that the defendant seems to have performed faithfully parliamentary activities during that period.

In full view of various sentencing conditions in this case, such as the above conditions unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, the age, character and conduct and environment of the defendant, etc., the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee shall be set aside as ordered by the Supreme Court.