Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Lee Gyeong-soo

Attorney Park Ho-young et al. and nine others

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gohap5, 14 (Joint), 20 (Joint), 22 (Joint), 24 (Joint), and 25 (Joint) Decided July 14, 2010

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the part against the defendant 6's guilty (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months; imprisonment for a term of three years; imprisonment for a term of three years; imprisonment for a term of eight months; imprisonment for a term of one year and six months; and imprisonment for a term of one year and six months; and imprisonment for a term of one year for a term of one year.

However, with respect to the defendant 6, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The amount of KRW 72 million from Defendant 1, KRW 118 million from Defendant 2, KRW 60 million from Defendant 5, and KRW 60 million from Defendant 5 shall be collected respectively.

The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 6's acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

With regard to the receipt of property in breach of trust due to the receipt of the money from Nonindicted 1, it is not that the above Defendant first accessed Nonindicted 1, but that Nonindicted 1, who notified the above Defendant of the way to postpone the execution of the surrender, became the wind with Defendant 2.

2) Legal principles

With regard to each act of taking property in breach of trust, each act of taking property in breach of trust does not constitute an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust only with the request to receive a successful bid at a low price as much as possible, the request to identify bid conditions, etc., or the request to delayed the execution of delivery. Meanwhile, since the authority to delay the execution of delivery is on the enforcement officer, such solicitation cannot be deemed an illegal solicitation in relation to the duties of the enforcement officer.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

1) Legal principles

With regard to each property in breach of trust, each property in breach of trust can not be deemed to constitute an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust only with a request to receive a successful bid at a low price as much as possible, a request to ascertain the status of bidding, etc., or a request to delayed delivery execution.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts

There is no fact that the above defendant made an illegal solicitation and paid the price to the defendant 1 and 2. The above defendant paid 60 million won to the defendant 1 and 2 at the 00-day restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-gun on May 2, 2008 with the defendant 4, and there is no fact that the above defendant paid 40 million won to the defendant 1 and 2 together with the bidding documents at the ○○-type restaurant located in the same Gun on the 6th day of the same month.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 4

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 3 only delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant 1 and 2, and Defendant 4 did not deliver the above money.

2) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The above Defendant paid KRW 100 million with contingent fees to Defendant 1, the chief of the attorney-at-law office, in order to be awarded a successful bid for △△ hotel with Defendant 3, and only requested to Defendant 2 well by an abstract and ordinary remote request. Thus, it did not make an illegal solicitation with regard to specific and specific duties.

On the other hand, a person who deals with another person's business, who is the subject of criminal breach of trust acceptance, is Defendant 2. It is not a specific solicitation from Defendant 4 and Defendant 3, but a solicitation is not received from Defendant 4 and Defendant 3. Even if the person receives a solicitation from Defendant 4 and 3, only the amount distributed by Defendant 2 is the amount of criminal breach of trust acceptance.

E. Defendant 5

1) Legal principles

In relation to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it is merely limited to the role of Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 2, who did not have any legal relations, leading to a trade after the completion of the above auction procedure on the buildings, etc. other than those presented in the auction object in △△ farm auction case, which were not included in Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 2, and it cannot be deemed that the above defendant arranged for reconciliation in general legal cases.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

F. Defendant 6

(1) misunderstanding of facts

With regard to the charge of giving property in breach of trust, the above defendant did not have conspired with the defendant 5 upon the request of the defendant 2, and the money given to the defendant 5 was paid to the defendant 5 as an auction commission, not for the purpose of giving it to the defendant 2.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(g) A prosecutor;

1) Legal principles

Defendant 2, which is the administrative affairs of the enforcement officer office, is a public official who is the subject of bribery.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Sentencing against the Defendants is too uneasible so that the sentencing is unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal for mistake of facts

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 also stated that the investigative agency would be able to be able to keep the speech that the person would have postponed the execution of the surrender, and that the said Defendant would not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, even if the above defendant was corrected due to the mistake of facts as alleged in the above defendant's assertion, it is sufficiently recognized that the above defendant conspired with the defendant 2 in collusion with the defendant 1 and received the money in exchange for an illegal solicitation. Thus, there is no obstacle that the above defendant's act constitutes the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and such mistake of facts cannot be deemed to be an important part to the extent that it affects the sentencing.

Ultimately, this part of the mistake of facts does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, so this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and 2

The court below determined that the above solicitation does not constitute an illegal solicitation on the ground that the criteria for determining "illegal solicitation", which is the constituent element of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and the contents of each solicitation received by the Defendants, in light of the circumstances in its holding, it is clear that each of the above solicitation constitutes an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and in addition, the authority to delay the delivery execution of the objects of auction in relation to the solicitation that delayed the execution of delivery, and that the above solicitation does not constitute an illegal solicitation on the duties of the executive officer assisting the affairs of the executive officer.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined by the lower court and the lower court, the fact-finding and judgment by the lower court are correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine

C. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal for mistake of fact

1) In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the employment evidence, the court below made a clear judgment that the above defendant conspireds with the defendant 4 to commit the crime of misappropriation of this case. Examining the reasoning of the court below in comparison with the evidence examined by the court below and the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are proper, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2) However, according to the statements made by Defendant 1 and 2 in the investigative agencies, the court below, and the court of the first instance, unlike the statements made by Defendant 4 to the investigative agencies and the court of the first instance on May 2, 2008, Defendant 4 did not have Defendant 3 at the place where Defendant 1 and 2 pay KRW 60 million to Defendant 1 and 2 at the ○○○○○ cafeteria restaurant on May 2, 2008. On the 6th of the same month, Defendant 4 appears to have been directly given to Defendant 1.

However, even if the lower court’s determination of facts was corrected due to the mistake of facts as alleged by Defendant 3, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 4 made an illegal solicitation and delivered money to Defendant 1 and 2, as seen in the above paragraphs (1) and (d) below, Defendant 3 conspired with Defendant 4. If so, it does not interfere with the fact that Defendant 3’s act constitutes the crime of giving property in breach of trust, and it does not constitute an important part to the extent that such mistake of facts affects the sentencing.

After all, the court below's erroneous determination of facts did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, so this part of the defendant 3's allegation is without merit.

D. As to Defendant 4’s ground of appeal for mistake of fact

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, in particular to Defendant 1 and 2's investigation agencies, and each of the statements at the court below and the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the above defendant directly delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant 1 and 2.

The above defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

E. As to Defendant 4’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principle

1) In the crime of giving rise to breach of trust under Article 357 of the Criminal Act, an illegal solicitation refers to a solicitation against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith, and in determining this, a comprehensive consideration of the contents and form of the solicitation, the amount and integrity of transaction, which is the legal interest protected by the law, should be comprehensively considered. The solicitation is not necessarily to be explicitly and implicitly made (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is acknowledged that the above defendant conspired with the defendant 3 to inform him of the bid situation of △△△ Tourist hotel and delivered a total of KRW 100 million in return for the above solicitation. The contents of the above solicitation cause a violation of the duty of the officer of the execution officer office, the amount of property granted in return is large, and the degree of fairness and integrity required in the course of conducting the auction affairs, etc., it is evident that the above solicitation constitutes an illegal solicitation in the crime of giving property in breach of trust.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below and the court below, Defendant 1 received money from Defendant 4 under the pretext that Defendant 2 would inform Defendant 2 of the bid situation with regard to the auction case of △△△△ Tourist hotel regardless of the above duties, and Defendant 4 was well aware of such circumstances, the amount granted by Defendant 4 to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 should be deemed as the pretext of solicitation for auction cases rather than the contingent fee for the auction case.

3) In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, even if Defendant 2 did not receive a direct solicitation from Defendant 4 or Defendant 3, the fact that Defendant 2 received an indirect solicitation through Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized.

4) Meanwhile, even if Defendant 1 does not handle the affairs of the execution office, he is a person who processed Defendant 2’s crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is established due to his status relationship, which is the person who administers another’s affairs, and is an accomplice with Defendant 2. Thus, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of taking property in breach of trust against the total amount of money, regardless of how Defendant 1 and 2 distributed the money received from Defendant 4 and 3 internally.

5) Ultimately, Defendant 4’s assertion on this part is without merit.

F. As to Defendant 5’s ground of appeal for misapprehension of legal principles

The term "other general legal cases" listed in the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008) means the general case concerning the occurrence of a new relationship of rights and duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1039, Feb. 28, 2008).

In this case, even if Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 2 arranged for the sale of the building other than the above auction object after Defendant 6’s successful bid was completed, it is questionable that Defendant 5’s legal disputes arise between the successful bidder of the auction object and the owner of the building other than the above auction object, such as the non-registered building or the building not included in the auction object because it was owned by another person, other than the debtor, could inevitably arise between the successful bidder of the auction object and the owner of the building other than the presented one, because it did not have legal superficies for the ownership of the building or there was no source of right to the land, and according to Nonindicted 2’s investigation agency and the court’s statement at the court below, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 6 knew in advance that Defendant 6 would want to obtain the successful bid of the auction subject matter, if the successful bid was awarded to Defendant 6, the price for the building other than the presented one would change KRW 300 million in consideration of the fact that Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 2 demanded the new settlement or settlement relationship between Defendant 6 and the new rights and obligations.

The above defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

G. As to the ground of appeal for mistake of facts by Defendant 6

The lower court, based on the adopted evidence, found that Defendant 6 was aware of the fact that part of the money that Defendant 5 gave to Defendant 5 in relation to the auction of a school-based farm was put to a person in charge of the third-party auction business, not Defendant 5, and even if there was no explicit mother’s intention regarding the crime in this part, determined that even if there was no explicit mother’s intention regarding the crime in this part, it should be deemed that there was a combination between Defendant 6 and Defendant 5 with the intention to commit the crime in this part and the relationship was established.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined by the lower court and the lower court, the fact-finding and judgment by the lower court are correct, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment

H. As to the ground of appeal by the prosecutor

1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the office clerk of the enforcement officer’s office cannot be deemed as a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act; (b) so, among the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged as to Defendant 6’s issuance of third-party bribery and the facts charged as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by a public official on December 13, 2005; (c) the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the bribery against Defendant 1 and 2; (d) each of the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the bribery against Defendant 2; (e) the third-party bribery against Defendant 3 and 4; and (e) the primary facts charged as to the delivery of third-party bribery against Defendant 6 on April 27, 2009.

A) A public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to a person engaged in the affairs of the State, local government, and public corporations equivalent thereto, based on the legal basis, and whose labor is not limited to a simple mechanical or physical element (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4593, Nov. 22, 2002). Here, to be recognized as a person engaged in affairs of the State, etc. based on the legal basis, in order to be recognized as a person engaged in affairs of the State, etc., the authority to perform public duties must be based on the law, and in principle, appointment under public law should be required even if a certain form is not required.

B) However, the office clerk of the enforcement officer's office is merely to assist the execution officer's affairs and is not granted its own authority on the basis of the law (Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Decree of the Act), unlike the execution officer appointed by the chief of the district court (Article 21 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Rule), the representative execution officer is employed as an individual qualification (Article 24 (1) of the same Rule), his/her payment of remuneration also belongs to the enforcement officer (Article 24 (1) of the Rules), and Article 111 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides the same regulation as a public official in the case of a crime of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is at issue as to whether a public official is a public official, and it seems somewhat unreasonable to newly include the office clerk of the enforcement officer's office who has already been regarded as a public official in the scope of a public official as the subject of the crime of giving rise to breach of trust in the previous precedents, and there are no special provisions under Article 119 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

C) Under the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Act, the representative enforcement officer shall obtain permission from the head of the district court to which he belongs in employing a clerk, and there is a provision that the office clerk is obligated to report the results of performance assessment, disciplinary action, or the contents and result of disciplinary action to the head of the district court to which he belongs, or that the office clerk is paid remuneration equivalent to the public official in general in the court. In addition, even though the nature and contents of the office clerk's affairs in charge of the office clerk are related to the auction procedure and there is a practical need to ensure the integrity and fairness of administrative affairs, or there is a high possibility of criticism against the defendant, unless there is a separate provision that the office clerk's office clerk is regarded as a public official in the application of the crime of bribery and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it is not allowed to interpret that the office clerk's office clerk's office is included in the public official under Article

2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined by the lower court and the lower court, the fact-finding and determination by the lower court is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

I. As to the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor

In full view of the Defendants’ respective criminal records and frequency, the amount of money received, the background and method of the commission of the crime, the existence and degree of reflectivity, and other various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is deemed unreasonable rather than that of the Defendants.

3. Conclusion

Since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the part of the conviction against defendants 6 (the prosecutor's appeal against the part of the acquittal in the reason is without merit, but the remaining facts charged by the court below and the facts charged by the court below are found guilty, and the part of the acquittal in the reason are also reversed as follows. The prosecutor's appeal against the part of the judgment of the court below against the innocence of the defendant 6 is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In addition to the modification of the Criminal facts Nos. 1, 4, and 6 as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is as follows.

“1. The crime of Misappropriation by Defendant 1 and 2

Defendant 2 is a secretary of the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung branch's office, who deals with the affairs of the said court's execution office in the course of performing duties such as receiving bid bags in the real estate auction procedure and inserting bid bags.

Defendant 1 and 2 received unjust solicitation from Defendant 4 that Defendant 3 and 4 would receive, as much as possible, a successful bid at a △△ tourist hotel located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, the auction of which is in progress by Defendant 4 at Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, 2006, around 12940. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2, as an office worker of the enforcement officer office, received a bid bag at the auction procedure and put it in bidding. Defendant 1 and 4 agreed that Defendant 3 and 4 would receive a successful bid at a low price, using the experience related to auction while working in the attorney-at-law office, and that Defendant 1 would receive a successful bid at a low price as possible.

around May 2, 2008, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 opened up KRW 60 million from Defendant 4 at the restaurant located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and received additional KRW 40 million from Defendant 3 and 4 at the restaurant located in Hongsung-gun, around June of the same month. The next Defendants 1 and 2 used the fact that the above hotel bidder was not Defendant 3 and 4 others at the auction procedure conducted in red support on May 7, 2008, used the fact that the above hotel bidder was not a defendant 3 and 4,520,000 won, which is the minimum sale price of KRW 4.55,622,00,000, which is the minimum sale price of KRW 4.555 million,63 million, and had Defendant 3 and 4 receive the successful bid.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 3 and 4 to acquire a total of KRW 100 million in exchange for an illegal solicitation.

[4. Crimes of Misappropriation by Defendant 3 and 4

At around April 208, Defendant 3 and 4 agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price through Defendant 1, etc., who is known as an auction hub in a single unit, such as Red-gun, etc., and agreed to receive a successful bid in a restaurant located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, the Daejeon District Court of Hongsung Branch of 2006, to jointly receive a successful bid for △△ tourist hotel located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter omitted) and jointly receive a successful bid. Accordingly, around April 2008, Defendant 4 and Defendant 4 agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price. At around 00 days, Defendant 1 and Hongsung-gun, which are the office of Hongsung-gun, notified Defendant 2 of the bid situation to receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible, and paid the price to Defendant 400,000 won to Defendant 60,000,0000 won, and 300,000 won, more than 60,000,0.

As a result, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 conspiredd to make an illegal solicitation to Defendant 1 and 2 and provided a total of KRW 100 million.

“Defendant 1 and 2’s crime of Misappropriation

Defendant 2 is a secretary of the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung Branch's Office, who assists the execution officer in the auction procedure and deals with the auction affairs of the said court execution officer's office.

On September 2007, Defendant 1 requested the case of the building name map lawsuit in the Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the attorney-at-law office working for himself, and consulted with Nonindicted 1 who lost the date of execution.

After that, on October 1, 2007, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 1 to “I may delay the execution of the Domdo in Domdo?” Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received KRW 5 million on the same day from Defendant 1 to the head of Tong-gun on the same day. Defendant 2 received KRW 15 million on the same day.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspiredd with Nonindicted Party 1 to acquire a total of KRW 20 million in return for an illegal solicitation.

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

A. Defendant 1 and 2: Articles 357(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Defendant 3 and 4 of the same Act (a violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act at the time of sale); Article 109 subparag. 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of each Attorney-at-Law at the time of sale); each choice of imprisonment

B. Defendant 2: Article 357(1) of each Criminal Code (the point of each taking of trust from Defendant 6, 5, and Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 6 at the time of sale) and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor

C. Defendant 3 and 4: Articles 357(2) and 357(1) of the Criminal Act, and 30(the occupation of giving rise to breach of trust in the market) of the Criminal Act, and each choice of imprisonment.

D. Defendant 5: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30(a), 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 155(1), 31(1), 30(a), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; each of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008); Article 109(1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008); each of the choice of imprisonment

(e) Defendant 6: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 155(1), 31(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 357(2) and (2) of the same Act; Articles 35(1), 31(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; each provision of imprisonment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants 1, 2, 5, 6);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment for Defendants 1 and 2) of the Criminal Act shall be imposed on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Non-Indicted 4 with the largest punishment and circumstances; punishment for Defendant 5 and punishment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Non-Indicted 6 with the largest punishment and circumstances; punishment for Defendant 6 and aggravated punishment for each concurrent punishment for Non-Indicted 5 with the largest punishment and circumstances)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 6);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (defendant 1, 2, and 5);

(a) Defendant 1 and 2: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act, the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

(b) Defendant 5: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery against Defendant 1 and 2) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery against Defendant 1 and 2), each of the charges against Defendant 2, each of the charges against Defendant 3 and 4, each of the bribery against Defendant 5, the third party bribery against Defendant 5, each of the charges against Defendant 6, and each of the charges as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on April 27, 2009 against Defendant 5, and each of the charges as to

Defendant 1 is a person who works as an office in the attorney's office in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and actually works as an auction hub. Defendant 2 is a person who assists in civil execution affairs such as the progress of the real estate auction procedure while working as an office for the Daejeon District Court's Hong-gun's office.

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1 and 2

On April 208, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received request from Defendant 4 to receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible at the △△△△△ Hospital, which is in progress with a red support of 2006ta-Ma12940, from Defendant 4, which is located in the Hong Sung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun. Accordingly, Defendant 2 may confirm the status of bidding while participating in the auction procedure in relation to his duties, and Defendant 1 promised to receive KRW 200 million in return, using the fact that Defendant 4 and 3, who is a joint bidder, are working in the attorney-at-law office, with a lot of experience in auction-related affairs, so that they can receive a successful bid at the highest price as much as possible, and in return, the Defendants promised to receive KRW 200 million.

Defendant 1 and 2, around May 2, 2008, purchased KRW 60 million from Defendant 4 and 3,000 from Defendant 4 and 2, and received additional KRW 40,000 from Defendant 6 on or around the 6th day of the same month. The following facts were used by Defendant 1 and 2 at the auction procedure conducted in red support on or around May 7, 2008 that the above hotel bidder was not Defendant 4 and 3, using the fact that there is no other than Defendant 4 and 3, the bid price is more than KRW 4.55,522,00,000,000, which is the minimum sale price, and the bid was made by Defendant 4 and 3 to receive the successful bid.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspireded to accept KRW 50 million for each auction case in which Defendant 2, who is the office of execution, is responsible for the duties, and committed an unlawful act.

B. The fact of the accepted bribery against Defendant 2

On April 209, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 5, who is an auction hub at the parking lot of the golf range located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, to ascertain the bidding condition of the two farms and their land located in the Gecheon-si, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court 2008Ma6680), and requested Defendant 2 to find out the bidding condition of the two farms located in the Geong-si, Seocheon-si and the land in which Non-Indicted 6 was being auctioned. Defendant 6 and Non-Indicted 8, who is the representative director of Non-Indicted 7 and Non-Indicted 8, were third bidders, to contact Defendant 5.

Defendant 2 received bid bags at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, and confirmed that there was no third bidder except Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 8, and did not have any contact with Defendant 5. Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Defendant 5 in the nearest to Hongsung support on the same day.

As a result, Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million as a member of the office of execution officer by committing an unlawful act on an auction case in charge of his duties.

C. The point of offering of each bribe to Defendant 3 and 4

around April 208, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 agreed to receive a successful bid at the highest price through Defendant 1, etc., who is known as an auction hub in a single unit, such as Red-gun, etc., and agreed to receive a successful bid at a high price as much as possible. Accordingly, around April 2008, Defendant 4 and Defendant 2, who are Defendant 1 and the Red-gun, who are the office of execution officers, received a successful bid for the above hotel at a low price as much as possible, and paid the price for the above hotel at a high price as possible. The next Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 paid KRW 600,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

Accordingly, the defendant 3 and 4 conspired to deliver a bribe to the defendant 2, who is the business of the execution office.

D. The charge of bribery to the third party against Defendant 5

Defendant 5, the representative director of the Daejeon District Court, was asked by Defendant 6, a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 7, to receive a successful bid at the low price on both a two farm and its land located in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do, where auction was being conducted at the level of Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court, 2008ta, 6680. Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder, who is the office of Hongsung support execution officer, known to the general public, and asked Defendant 5 to inform Defendant 2 of the existence of the bidder. Defendant 8, who was known to the general public, asked Nonindicted Co. 8, who was in common, to bid the above auction in order to prepare an external appearance as if he was a competitor, and eventually, Defendant 6 attempted to receive the successful bid

On April 209, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to interview Defendant 2 at the parking lot of the golf range in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, or to ascertain the status of bidding on the said two cash farms. Defendant 2, in addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 8, requested Defendant 5 to contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders, except Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 8.

Defendant 5, at the auction procedure conducted in red support around April 27, 2009, demanded Nonindicted 8 to make a bid of KRW 1.568 million as planned by Defendant 2, in accordance with a plan to have no particular contact with Defendant 2, and eventually Defendant 6 received a successful bid for the said farm in the amount of KRW 1.57 billion near the minimum sale price. Defendant 5 confirmed that Defendant 6 was awarded the successful bid for the said farm, and received KRW 30 million from Defendant 6 at least 30 million in the same day for the purpose of delivering it to Defendant 2.

As a result, Defendant 5 was delivered KRW 30 million from Defendant 6 for the purpose of providing an auction case in which Defendant 2, who is the office of Red Support Execution Officer, is in charge of his duties.

E. The point of acceptance of bribe against Defendant 1 and 2

around September 2007, Defendant 1 applied to Nonindicted 1, who lost by requesting the case of the building name map lawsuit of the Doi-Do in the Doi-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do to the attorney-at-law office in his work, “I will extend the execution date to the extent of a month because there is a person who knows in the court?”

On October 1, 2007, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received a request from Nonindicted 1 to “I may delay the execution of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domna of the Domnae of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas of the Domnas?” and received KRW

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspireded to accept the bribe of KRW 20 million in relation to the duties of Defendant 2 who is a public official.

F. On April 27, 2009, the delivery of third-party brain products to Defendant 6

Defendant 6, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 7, who was conducting an auction at the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Ma6680) around 208, the Daejeon District Court, decided to inform Defendant 2 of the existence or absence of bidder, through Defendant 5, who was an open auction package, in order to obtain a successful bid on the two farms and its land located in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu. Accordingly, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2, who was known to the Pyeongtaek-gu, to submit the above request to Defendant 2, who was in his knowledge, and tried to invite Nonindicted Co. 8, who was in his usual knowledge, to submit the said auction at a lower price than Defendant 5.

On April 209, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 2 to interview Defendant 2 at the parking lot of the golf range in Hongsung-gun Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 5 to grasp the bid situation of the above two farms, etc. In addition to Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 8, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 5 to contact Defendant 5 if there are third bidders.

On April 27, 2009, Defendant 5 offered a bid price of KRW 1.568 billion to Nonindicted 8 for a bid with a bid price of KRW 1.57 billion, which is close to the minimum sale price, according to Defendant 6’s bid, in an auction procedure conducted in red support from Defendant 2, as planned to have no particular contact with Defendant 2. Defendant 6 issued KRW 30 million to Defendant 5 at around 3:00 p.m. on the same day for the purpose of ascertaining that the farm was awarded a successful bid and allowing Defendant 2 to deliver it to Defendant 2.

As a result, Defendant 6 delivered KRW 30 million to Defendant 5 for the purpose of providing an auction case in charge of duties by Defendant 2, who is the office of Red Support Execution Officer.

G. The fact that Defendant 2 accepted the bribery after the acceptance of the bribery

On December 8, 2005, Defendant 2, as a secretary of the office of Hongsung Support Execution Officer, notified Defendant 6 of the bid situation so that Defendant 2 can be awarded a successful bid on the Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, Doncheon-si, Doncheon-si (hereinafter omitted) located in the same court executive officer of the same court and the Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, a restaurant of Hongsung-gun, Daejeon-gun, Daejeon-do, 2005, 15294, from Defendant 6.

On December 19, 2005, Defendant 2, along with an executive officer of the same court, committed an unlawful act by notifying Defendant 6, who was the bidder, of the absence of the bidder, while receiving a bid bag at the above auction procedure conducted by Hongsung support on December 19, 2005. Defendant 6 demanded the above farm to be awarded a successful bid of KRW 1.94 billion near the minimum sale price. Thereafter, Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Defendant 6 and Defendant 5 who introduced Nonindicted 3 to Defendant 3.

As a result, Defendant 2 committed an unlawful act with respect to an auction case in which he is in charge of his duties as a member of the office of execution officer, and received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 3.

H. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to a nominal amount of money brokerage in a case handled by a public official against Defendant 5

Defendant 5 knew that Defendant 6, who was known to the general public, was awarded the bid for the above △△ farm owned by Nonindicted Party 2 and want to purchase the land and building not included in the above auction and to operate the farm, and agreed to offer good offices for Defendant 6.

Defendant 5 introduced Defendant 6, around December 2005, Nonindicted 3, who is well aware of Defendant 2, who is the office of the Red Support Execution Officer, to Defendant 6, and concluded an agreement between Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 6 with respect to the buildings, etc. other than the presented buildings, etc., which are not included in the auction in the auction in the auction auction case, and received KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 on January 25, 2006.

After that, on May 25, 2006, Defendant 5 prepared a real estate sales contract with Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 2, stating that “Non-Indicted 2 sells the building other than the legally proposed building in Bocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Chungcheongnam-do, to Defendant 6 the sales price of the building outside of 180 million won” with Defendant 6 and Non-Indicted 2, and that “Non-Indicted 2, in selling and buying the above real estate, shall be deemed to have been disposed of as an auction for inside the real estate and shall not have a hand on the facility of the seller in the future.”

As a result, Defendant 5 was delivered KRW 50 million from Defendant 6 under the pretext of arranging the case to be handled by an executive officer, such as Defendant 2, who is a public official, etc.

2. Determination

As seen in Article 2-8 (h) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not guilty should be pronounced in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are both not a crime or there is no proof of a crime. However, the decision that found the guilty guilty of each crime in relation to the ordinary concurrence or in relation to the conjunctive facts charged is not separately pronounced.

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge) Kim Sung-sung