2015Gohap 599 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (received materials);

Obstruction of Execution by Fraudulent Means

New ① (64 years old, South Korea), real estate brokerage

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

[Reference domicile] Hanam-si

Freeboard Kim (Lawsuits) and Yang Dong-dong (Trial)

Law Firm State, Attorney higher-ranking, Lee Won-won

Attorney Lee Jong-young, Counsel Lee Jong-soo

January 22, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

10,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

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

Criminal facts

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

On June 2010, the Defendant was working as a member of the Committee for Communication and Acquisition of the Southern Market, and was operating ○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent in the Hannam-si.

On October 201, 201, the Defendant came to know B, B, B, C, and C, to purchase the land of Hamamamba-dong****** to purchase the land of two parcels and to operate the filling station of liquefied petroleum gas for motor vehicles in the development-restricted zone of the Hanam-si.

On October 21, 201, the Defendant entered into an agreement with ○○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office to grant a construction permit by speaking to the head of YYY * * * * * * the representative of the objection who is the owner of the land on two parcels of land, with the purchase price of KRW 2.2 billion. At the time of the conclusion of a formal contract, the Defendant entered into the agreement with ○○○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office with the effect that the purchase price shall be KRW 2.2 billion. At the time of the regular contract, the Defendant would pay KRW 2.2 billion with the total purchase price of KRW 2.2 billion. At the time of the regular contract, the Defendant would receive the construction permit by speaking to the head of ○○○○○○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office. The Defendant would be allowed to accept the said construction permit by making it easy to win in the administrative litigation. ② At the same time, the Defendant would not grant the above KRW 2.1 billion in cash from 200 million.

As a result, the defendant demanded two hundred million won to this connection with the referral of the matters belonging to the public official's duties, ②, ② and ③, and received KRW 100 million among them.

2. A person who intends to engage in a liquefied petroleum gas filling business within a development restriction zone for the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means shall reside in the relevant area;

On July 201, 201, the Defendant, who intends to operate a liquefied petroleum gas filling station for motor vehicles within the development-restricted zone of the Hanam-si, has obtained permission for a charging station in the green belt, and then proceeds from profit-making remain at least twice the sold land after obtaining permission for a charging station. The Defendant, upon obtaining the consent of the largest △△△△△△△ in order to seek a person who lends the inside name, and proceed with the permission procedure, he/she obtained the consent of the most △△△△△△ in order to seek a person who lends the inside name, and on June 2012, proposed that “When he/she lends the name to conduct the charging station business, he/she shall be KRW 50,000,000,” and (i) obtained the consent of the party ①

According to the above public offering, ① a room ① is selected as a charging agent around February 28, 2014, and around September 2, 2014, the public service center for the Hanam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, 10 (kiddong), which had no intention to construct a charging station or to operate a charging station. However, the public service center for the Hanam-si, which had a public official in charge of being aware of such fact select a room ① as a charging agent, and had the public official in charge file an application for a permit for the construction of a charging station ① applied for a permit.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the largest △△△△, (i) room, and (ii), obstructed the performance of duties in relation to the selection of a liquefied petroleum gas charging station and the permission to construct a charging station for the vehicle of the public official in charge

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with Respect to the Appointment of Imprisonment), Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is heavier than the quality of the crime]

1. Additional collection:

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Order of provisional payment;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a month from one month to seven years and six months;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

A. The basic area (8 months to 1 year and 6 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties, the scope of the recommended punishment, shall be set forth in Category 2 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means).

(c) Scope of modified recommendation: Imprisonment for not less than eight months (limited to the lowest limit of the relevant recommendation punishment on the grounds of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, for which no sentencing guidelines are set);

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, and collection of additional 100 million won; and

The Defendant demanded KRW 200,000 and received KRW 100,000,00 from the market or public officials to obtain a building permit in favor of the Mayor or public officials. Such crime is detrimental to the fairness and integrity of the public official’s duties, which is not good, and the amount received by the Defendant is large to KRW 100,000. Furthermore, the Defendant obtained permission to install a filling station for liquefied petroleum gas in a development-restricted zone using another’s name. Accordingly, the local government’s duties concerning the management of a development-restricted zone are interfered with, and accordingly, brought about the result of infringing on the property rights of other applicants who could have been duly permitted. Considering these, the Defendant’s liability is not easy.

However, the sentence identical to the order shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant has led to the confession of all the crimes of this case and the mistake is divided, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the crimes of this case, and that there is no other record of criminal punishment prior to the crimes of this case, and that all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

For judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

Judge Lee Dong-ho