2012No65 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A person shall be appointed.

Seocho-gu Seoul

Defendant

Kim Tae-tae (prosecutions), fixed-scale, and mobile (Trial)

A person shall be appointed.

Busan District Court Decision 201Gohap837 Decided January 27, 2012

December 13, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The court below erred by misapprehending the following facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) There is no memory that the defendant has received a solicitation, such as help and delivery, so that the defendant may detain the defendant by requesting the main prosecutor of the accusation case against D from C or that the case can be processed promptly.

(2) Even if the Defendant received a solicitation from C, the Defendant’s use of a credit card as stated in the facts charged, and the custody and management of the benz car as stated in the facts charged is limited to a Defendant with a relationship with C having a credit card granted to use it, and allowing C to keep and manage benz car with a certificate of love, not a consideration for “mediation of matters belonging to the official duties of the public official.”

(3) The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is established immediately after receiving money or other valuables or benefits, and at the same time, since the crime is completed immediately, the nature of the money or other valuables or benefits received without compensation has changed to that of a bribe. Thus, the use or holding after such change of nature cannot be punished as a new acceptance act. In short, the lower court erred by deeming the Defendant guilty by deeming that the Defendant continued to use, keep, and manage credit cards and passenger cars as stated in the facts charged against C based on his/her chain relation, even after receiving a solicitation for D complaint cases.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Facts charged

According to the records, the defendant was assigned to the prosecutor on August 6, 2007 and was appointed to the Busan District Prosecutors' Office until February 8, 2009, the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office from February 9, 2009 to February 13, 201, and the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office from February 9, 2009 to February 13, 2011.

14. From November 18, 201 to 14, the prosecutor of the Sung-nam Branch Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office was in office, and is currently in office.

At around 207, the Defendant became aware of the representative attorney C of LAW, a prior to his appointment as a prosecutor, and developed into the relationship of internal combustion. A continuous relationship while he is employed as a prosecutor.

was maintained.

On the other hand, in the process of establishing the liquidation development company and running the main apartment project in China with D and D, it filed a complaint against D on May 10, 2010 as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement and Breach of Trust). On December 29, 2010, only part of D's complaints against D were prosecuted, and the remainder was found to have been non-prosecution disposition, but the above complaint was dismissed on August 18, 201, but the investigation on the case was under way.

12.3. In other words, D et al. filed a complaint with the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) but the instant case was not subject to disposition on July 21, 201.

On May 2010, at the time of the first accusation of CD, the Defendant received a request from C to the effect that C would receive a visa (E) in the name of the said law firm. On September 2010, the Defendant received a request from C to the effect that C would be able to properly deal with the case of accusation against D, and subsequently, received such a request from the main prosecutor of D’s complaint case directly or indirectly with C or in the course of telephone from time to time so that C would be detained or that the case may be handled promptly.

피고인은 이와 같은 청탁을 받은 상태에서 C으로부터 제공받은 이 사건 신용카드로 2010. 9. 13. 광주에 있는 ' I ' 식당에서 406, 000원을 결제한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2010. 12. 31. 까지 별지 범죄일람표에 기재된 것과 같이 총 65회에 걸쳐 샤넬 핸드백 , 의류, 항공권 등을 구입하면서 합계 23, 110, 000원 상당을 결제하여 같은 금액 상당의 재산상 이익을 수수하고, 2010. 9. 10. 경부터 2011. 5. 20. 경까지 약 8개월 10일간 C으로부터 665552호 벤츠S클래스 S350L 승용차 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 벤츠 승용차 ' 라 한다 ) 를 제공받아 사용함으로써 이용료 합계 32, 801, 240원 상당의 재산상 이익을 수수하였다 .

As such, the Defendant received the profits equivalent to KRW 55,911,240 in total with respect to the conciliation of matters belonging to public officials’ duties.

B. The judgment of the court below

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s request was made by C to the main prosecutor of the complaint case by requesting that C be arrested by the Defendant or processed the case promptly; and (b) the Defendant’s request was made from C to September 31, 2010 to December 31, 2010, which was used on 65 occasions in total, from September 13, 2010 to September 31, 2010, when the Defendant received a request from C to December 31, 2010, to the effect that the amount of the instant credit card used was 23,110,000 won; and (c) the amount of the instant credit card used from September 10, 201 to May 20, 201, to be 32,801, and 240 won of the instant passenger car at Benz’s expense for eight months from September 10, 2011.

C. A statement of C to the effect that the Defendant made a solicitation from C as a major evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant received a solicitation from C as to whether the Defendant was in receipt of a solicitation from C, the content of text messages sent and received by the Defendant with C, and the statement of C as the chief inspector of the DNA case who received a request from the Defendant for prompt treatment. Examining the contents of C’s statement, C continued damage to the company due to delay in Chinese business, such as ① “D’s melting the company while leaving it into melting the company, and failing to properly manage the company, making a completion inspection late.” D’s complaint case is treated as soon as D’s case is processed and D’s conviction is found to have been convicted at the representative director, and the Chinese business is completed promptly after being sealed by D’s Chinese business. As D’s main prosecutor in the case of complaint is the motive of the Defendant and the senior director, it is possible for the Defendant to assist the Defendant.

Considering that the case was asked to be processed as soon as possible by the main public prosecutor, and asked that the case was asked to be processed as the case (the evidence No. 2, 111, 201), and 1. The defendant's business should be processed as soon as possible, but the defendant's business should be processed as soon as possible in September 13, 2010, 200, 200. The defendant's statement to the police after arranging the evidence is 1.3, 3,000,000, and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.).

15. The current account transaction is suspended and the compulsory auction for the real estate owned by C results in a very difficult economic situation. ② It was necessary for C to deal with D accusation cases in a favorable direction, such as prompt detention. ③ On September 13, 2010, the Defendant and C notified the state public prosecutor of the name of the suspect and recommended him/her to re-direct the D accusation cases, ③ On September 13, 2010, the situation of the progress of the system in which the Defendant and C provided the suspect's name and recommended him/her to re-direct the D accusation cases, and KRW 1.60,000,000,000,000,000,000: (C) ; (C) ; (C) ; (C) ; and (d) ; (C) ; and (c) ; giving and receiving specific text messages on D cases, such as Defendant ?C; and (iv) giving and receiving text messagess on D cases.

초순경 피고인에게 " 우리 측에서 각종 경리장부와 D의 비자금 수첩을 입수하여 고소하였는데, D이 회사를 부도내거나 녹여 버린다고 협박을 하니 사건이 빨리 처리되었으면 좋겠다 " 고 말하였다고 한 무렵 피고인은 2010. 10. 8. C에게 " 뜻대로 전달했고 그렇게 하겠대 영장청구도 고려해 보겠대 부도 협박 등 상황은 다 설명했어 " 라는 문자메시지를 보낸 점, ⑤ D 고소사건의 주임검사인 F은 " 피고인이 D 고소사건을 가급적 신속하게 처리해주면 좋겠다는 취지의 부탁을 하였다 " 고 진술한 점 ( 증거기록 1, 536면, 1, 537면 ), ⑥ D 고소사건에 관하여 2010. 11. 3. 참고인 G에 대한 조사를 끝으로 더 이상 수사가 진행되지 아니하였고, 피고인이 2010. 11. 22. C에게 " F 검사한테는 말해뒀으니 그리 알어 " 라는 문자메시지를 보낸 점, ⑦ 피고인은 2010. 11. 30. C으로부터 D에 대한 추가 고소장 초안을 이메일로 받아 검토한 후 2010. 12. 6. C에게 " 창원시경에 제출해. 경찰쪽 통해서 사건 구속의견으로 올리는게 나을 거 같아 ", " 창원시경에 다시 접수하는게 좋을 거 같아 " 라는 문자메시지를 보내기도 한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, C, F의 위 각 진술은 앞에서 살펴 본 여러 사실 또는 사정들, 특히 문자메시지 내용 등과 모두 일치하여 신빙성이 있어 보이고, 위 각 진술과 문자메시지 내용 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 C으로부터 D 고소사건에 관하여 공소사실 기재와 같은 청탁을 받은 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다 ( 피고인은 위 2010. 10. 8. 자와 2010. 11. 22. 자 문자메시지는 피고인이 평소 자신을 무시하던 C에게 자신의 법조인으로서의 능력을 과장하여 과시하는 차원에서 실제 하지도 않은 일을 부풀려 보낸 것이라는 취지로 주장하나, 위 각 문자메시지의 내용 및 문맥 등에 비추어 보면, 위 각 문자메시지는 설사 피고인이 D 고소사건의 주임검사에게 그와 같은 내용의 청탁을 하지는 않았다고 하더라도 C에게 청탁에 따라 알선행위를 하였다는 것을 나타내기 위하여 보낸 것으로 보이므로, 위 각 문자메시지는 피고인이 C으로부터 청탁을 받았음을 뒷받침하는 증거가 된다고 할 것이다. 또, 피고인은 위 2010. 12. 6. 자 문자메시지는 피고인이 검사로서의 경험상 경찰에 고소장을 접수시키는 것이 사건의 빠른 처리에 도움이 된다는 의견을 제시한 것에 불과하고 청탁 · 알선과는 무관하다고 주장하나, 비록 피고인의 개인적인 의견이라고 하더라도 사건의 빠른 처리에 도움이 된다는 내용의 의견제시는 C으로부터 청탁이 있었음을 뒷받침하는 것이다. 피고인은 D 고소사건이 검찰로 송치된 이후 2010. 10 .

Although there was a call from the first police officer to the first police officer, there was a complicated relationship between the spirit of the subparagraphs of C and women with C, it was true that C was frequently aware of D's complaint case in order to verify whether the above female attorney-at-law was actually in charge of D's complaint case, and there was no special request from the first police officer. However, in light of the above C's statement and F's contents, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted).

Therefore, the Defendant’s argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit. (2) The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence as to whether the benefit received by the Defendant is a consideration for mediating matters belonging to the public official’s duties, i.e., the Defendant has been continuously receiving economic assistance from C which began in an internal relationship on Sept. 2010, 2010 to assist the Defendant to deal with D complaint cases. The Defendant’s receipt of the credit card from C was around April 24, 2010, and the Defendant’s receipt of the credit card from C was around 200,000,000 before 2 years and 7 months from the above solicitation. At the time, the Defendant’s receipt of the credit card from C was 10,000,000 before 2 years and 200,0000,000,0000,000).

9. 초순경 이후인 2010. 9. 13. 부터 2010. 12. 31. 까지 110일간 사용한 이 사건 신용카드 사용액은 65회에 걸쳐 합계 23, 110, 000원이고, 피고인이 이 사건 신용카드를 피고인으로부터 받은 2010. 4. 24. 경부터 2010. 9. 12. 경까지 142일간 사용한 이 사건 신용카드 사용액은 73회에 걸쳐 합계액 17, 172, 380원인바, 2010. 9. 13. 부터 2010. 12. 31 .까지의 이 사건 신용카드 사용액 중에는 피고인의 생일선물과 크리스마스 선물인 2010. 12. 5. 자 샤넬 맥시백 대금 539만 원과 2010. 12. 25. 자 샤넬의류 대금 590만원, 합계 1, 129만 원의 고액 사용액이 포함되어 있어 카드 사용액이 많아졌고, C은 위 2010. 4. 24. 경 이전에도 피고인과 내연관계로 지내면서 피고인에게 2007년경 부산 동래구 사직동 소재 반도보라아파트 ( 40평 ) 를 임차해 주고, 2007. 12. 경부터 2008. 7. 경까지 임차보증금 5, 000만 원에 월차임 300만 원인 부산 해운대구 우동 소재 포스코 더샾 아델리스 아파트를 임차해 주었으며, 2007. 10. 경 3, 000만 원 상당의 다이아몬드반지 , 2007. 10. 26. 2, 650만 원 상당의 까르띠에 시계, 2007. 12. 25. 크리스마스에 1, 200만 원 상당의 근화 모피롱코트, 2008. 1. 경 450만 원 상당의 근화 모피반코트, 2009. 4 .

19. 379만 원 상당의 샤넬 핸드백, 2009. 5. 경 600만 원 상당의 골프채를 각 선물하고 , 수시로 현금을 송금하거나 교부하였고 ( C의 당심 법정진술에 의하면 1달에 100만 원 내지 300만 원 정도였다고 함 ), C은 이 사건 신용카드의 교부전에는 자신의 개인카드나 이 사건 신용카드 외 다른 법인카드를 피고인에게 잠시 주어 사용하게 하거나 피고인과 같이 있으면서 피고인을 위하여 사용한 사정에 비추어 C으로부터 D 고소사건에 관한 청탁을 받은 이후의 이 사건 신용카드 사용 빈도와 금액이 그 이전에 비해 눈에 띄게 증가하였다거나 위 청탁 이전에 비해 이후에 피고인이 C으로부터 더 많은 경제적 지원을 받았다고 할 수 없는 점, ③ 위 샤넬 맥시백과 관련하여, 피고인은 C에게 추가 고소장 초안 파일을 이메일로 받은 2010. 11. 30. ' 백값 보내도 ~ 540만 ' 이라는 문자메시지를, 2010. 12. 6. 위 추가 고소장에 대한 검토 의견을 문자메시지로 보내기 전에 ' 진짜 오늘 샤넬 가방값 보내줘요 ~ 540만원 ' 이라는 문자메시지를 보내기도 하여 C으로부터 D 고소사건에 관한 청탁을 받은 이후 그와 관련하여 백값을 요구한 것처럼 보이기도 하나, C의 당심 법정 진술, 이 사건 신용카드 사용내역 등에 의하면, 피고인의 생일이 9월 13일인데 C이 피고인의 생일선물로 가방을 사주겠다고 약속하였으나 , 당시 또다른 내연녀인 H과 깊은 관계를 유지하면서 피고인을 만나기 어려운 상황이 되자 가방을 사주겠다는 약속을 차일피일 미루어 2010. 11. 30. 피고인이 ' 백값 보내도 ~ 540만 ' 이라는 문자메시지를 보냈고, C이 가방값을 보내지 않자 2010. 12. 5. 이 사건 신용카드로 539만 원을 결제하고 위 샤넬 맥시백을 구입한 다음 C으로부터 540만 원을 받아 위 신용카드 결제를 취소하기 위하여 2010. 12. 6. ' 진짜 오늘 샤넬 가방값 보내줘요 ~ 540만원 ' 이라는 문자를 보냈는바, 위와 같은 위 샤넬 맥시백 구입 및 신용카드 결제 경위, 문자를 보내게 된 경위에 비추어 보면 피고인이 C으로부터 D 고소사건에 관한 청탁을 받은 이후 그와 관련한 대가로서 백값을 요구하였다고 보기는 어려운 점, ④ D 고소사건에 관한 청탁이 없었다고 하여 C이 이 사건 청탁 무렵인 2010 .

9. The firstman stated that he did not request the Defendant to return the instant credit card and benz automobiles, and 5 The F prosecutor, the chief inspector of the D accusation case, to the effect that the Defendant would be exempted from handling the D complaint case as soon as possible on October 2010. The Defendant sent a text message to F prosecutor around October 8, 2010, stating that he would be able to process the D complaint case as soon as possible, in addition to the F prosecutor's request to the effect that the Defendant would be able to process the D complaint case as soon as possible. The Defendant sent the D complaint to F prosecutor at the request of other F prosecutor on October 8, 2010, without any other request, to C on the same day even though there was no other request.

11. 22. 피고인이 F 검사에게 연락한 적이 없음에도 C에게 ' F 검사한테는 말해뒀으니 그리 알어 ' 라는 문자를 보내는 등 내연관계에 있는 C을 위하여 자신이 D 고소사건과 관련하여 많은 신경을 쓰고 있다는 것을 C에게 보여주려 했던 사실에 비추어 F 검사에 대한 ' D 고소사건을 가급적 신속하게 처리해주면 좋겠다는 취지의 부탁 ' 전화는 C의 청탁이 있던 차에 내연관계에 있는 C을 위하여 호의로 한 것이지 어떤 대가를 바라고 한 것은 아닌 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인은 위 청탁 시점 이전에 내연관계에 기하여 교부받은 이 사건 신용카드와 벤츠 승용차를 위 청탁 시점 이후에도 내연관계에 기한 경제적 지원의 일환으로 계속 사용하거나 보관 · 사용하였다고 할 것이다 .

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there exists a quid pro quo relationship between the continued use, storage, and use of the instant credit card and the passenger car based on internal relations before the time of the instant solicitation and the said solicitation, even after the time of the instant solicitation.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the facts charged of this case did not have proof of a crime and found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the quid pro quo in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (in case where the credit card of this case and the passenger car based on an internal relation are continuously used, kept, and used after the time of solicitation of this case and the above solicitation cannot be viewed as a quid pro quo pro quo relationship between the above solicitation and the defendant's remaining reasons for appeal are not required to be judged

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again.

The facts charged of this case are as indicated in the above 2. A. C., which constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the above 2.C., and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2)

Judges Kim Jong-cheon

Judges Song Jin only

Judges Kim Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.