208No394 (a) Occupational embezzlement

(b) Occupational breach of trust

(c) A good teacher;

(d) Offering of bribe;

(e) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

F. Acceptance of bribe

(g) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

1. A, B, D, D, Private;

New○○ (51***********), ○○ Representative Director Co., Ltd.

Not more than Cheong-dong, Cheong-dong, and Cheong-dong.

2. Omission of registration on the place of registration:

2. Fa;

○○○○ (51**********), public officials

Seo-gu, Daejeon:

2. Omission below the place of registration

3. E;

tea, ○○ (511***********************)) and public officials.

Seo-gu, Daejeon:

2. Omission of registration on the place of registration:

Defendants and Prosecutor

Scargs

Law Firm New Daily (for the purpose of Defendant New ○○○)

Attorney Cho Yong-il, Man-Jak, Lee Jin-hun, and Southern-Jak

Attorneys Kim Gung-sung, and Kim Gung-hwan (Defendant Shin ○○)

Attorney Choi Han-il (the national line for defendant Kim ○○)

Attorneys Park Jong-young, and Impathere (for the purpose of defendant Lee Jin-O○)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Gohap70-1 (Separation), 2008Gohap decided July 17, 2008

46(Joint), 208, 67(Joint), 208, 71(Joint) Ruling

January 7, 2009

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of conviction (including the part of acquittal on the grounds) against the defendant's new ○○ and the part on the defendant's next ○○ shall be reversed.

Defendant ○○○ shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The 192 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant New ○○. Of the facts charged against Defendant New ○○, the facts charged as to the offering of a bribe to Defendant 1, the offering of a bribe to Defendant 2, and the Defendant ○○○ is acquitted.

2. The appeal by Defendant Kim○-○, the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant Kim○-○, and the appeal against the offering of a bribe against Defendant Kim○-○ on or around June 2006, among the facts charged against Defendant Kim○-○, are dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant Shin-○○

○ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

It is true that Defendant ○○ received money, as stated in the facts charged, from the Consultative Council on the Regional Cooperatives of Daejeon Chungcheongnam-mixed Industrial Cooperatives. However, rather than being used for the purpose of raising the unit cost for the Guide to raise the unit cost for the Guide, Defendant ○○ received KRW 20 million from the Consultative Council on May 22, 2006 for the construction company’s site director and the head office in charge of purchasing the Guide for the purpose of raising the unit cost for the Guide. In particular, around 2, 2006, the amount of KRW 20 million received from the Seosan-dong Consultative Council on the Seoul-dong District Construction Project.

② As to a conflicting teacher

Defendant New○○ did not have instigated ○○○ to hold a meeting by finding it at the scene of the development of Taeamam, Co., Ltd. Even though Defendant New○○ had instigated ○○○○ to hold a meeting, Defendant did not have instigated ○○○○ to withdraw money at least to do so, but did not expect ○○ to do so.

○ Sentencing Points

B. Defendant Kim ○○

○ misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the fact that the defendant Kim ○ received the name of meeting expenses from the Park○○○ who was a Si of the defendant Shin ○○ on December 2, 2006 from the defendant Shin ○ on the part of the defendant Shin ○ on the part of the Si on December 12, 2006 is not more than three million won, but one million won. The defendant Kim ○ does not have the right to set the unit price for the procurement of

○ Sentencing Points

C. Defendant’s difference

misunderstanding of facts (no one has received money from Defendant Da○ on February 7, 2007 and April 14, 2007, as stated in its reasoning of the first instance court)

(d) Prosecutors;

misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the non-guilty part of the facts charged against Defendant Kim ○○, the charge of offering of a bribe on or around June 2006, the charge of offering a bribe on or around January 30, 2007 and March 14, 2007, the charge of offering a bribe on or around March 14, 2007, the charge of offering a bribe on or around June 2006 among the facts charged against Defendant Kim ○, the charge of offering a bribe on or around June 30, 207 and the charge of offering a bribe on or around February 7, 2007).

2. Determination

A. Defendant New ○’s assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant New ○’s Marshion

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") chief director of the Daejeon-nam Cooperative Industrial Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperative").

However, the victim Thaiam Co., Ltd., a member of the Consultative Council of the Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "Taiam"), gave instructions to the Cooperative, supplies the unit price for the container, and receives a penalty surcharge of KRW 200 million from the Fair Trade Commission by filing a lawsuit for a collusion with the Cooperative, etc., with the victim's behavior detrimental to the Cooperative, on the ground of a defective environmental organization.

Defendant New ○ stated, around August 2006, that “○○○, a national environmental disability research association, an incorporated association, and the head of an Asan branch, ○○, the head of a Dosan branch, who is the head of a Dosan branch, made it difficult to know the trade name in the river, “at anywhere there is a confusion within the river. At this point, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu is a Y, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, bears a photograph of a violation of the laws and regulations, and submit a written petition to the inspection agency, and hold a meeting at that time. On the other hand, money will be raised at a time, and if it is well resolved, 20 million won will be paid at the expense.”

Accordingly, ○○○○ and members of the Korea Environmental Disabled Research Association were raised to deduct money from Thai cancer in exchange for environmental issues, according to the direction of Defendant New○○○.

around September 206, 2006, ○○○○○, a general executive director of Taesan, found it at the development site of Taesan-si, Taesan-si, Taesan-si, and applied for a conference to the police station because it violated environmental laws and regulations, such as collecting aggregate without permission during the restoration period to the original state of Taesan-do and emitting flying dust at the site, etc., and submitted a written petition to the Seosan District Public Prosecutor’s Office. The 30 million won was not a meeting at will, and the petition submitted to the public prosecutor’s office was submitted to the effect that “I would also withdraw the petition.” The statement was made several times from that time to December 8, 2006, and sexual ○○ et al. considered the same attitude that “I will immediately hold a meeting.”

As can be seen, ○○ and sexual ○, etc. were transferred on December 8, 2006 to the damaged company, which caused the frighting of the victim and caused the frighten of the victim.

As a result, Defendant New ○○ had ○○○, sexual ○○, etc. force the victim to take 20 million won from the victim.

(2) Determination

(A) Defendant New ○ alleged that there was no crime of aiding and abetting ○○, an incorporated association, the draft of the Korea Environmental Disability Research Association, and its branch president, as stated in the facts charged, from the investigative agency to this court. Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the facts charged of the instant case, the remaining evidence, excluding ○○’s statement, is merely a professional statement or circumstantial evidence, and the direct evidence of the facts charged of the instant case is merely a statement of ○○○○.

(B) The head of ○○ stated at an investigative agency that the Defendant ○○ did not interfered with the first time, and the Defendant ○○ stated that the Defendant ○○ had instigated ○○ to hold a house at the development site of Thaiam. However, the head of ○○ stated that the investigative agency would confuse the instant situation with the Defendant ○○○ at around August 2006, and that it would cause the Defendant ○○ to confuse the instant situation with the Defendant ○○○○, which would cause the Defendant ○ to bring the instant case to the public prosecutor’s office, and that the ○○ would bring the case to a meeting. Accordingly, the head of ○ presented a petition to the public prosecutor’s office for viewing. In return, the head of ○ presented a petition to the Defendant ○○○○ in return for the submission of a civil petition to the Defendant ○○○ in return for the receipt of KRW 5 million with the Defendant ○○○ in return for the submission of a written petition against the Defendant ○○ in return for the said submission.

The part on which ○○○ appears as a witness in the trial of the political party and stated that ○○○ stated “the Defendant’s new ○○○ was said to have raised money” in the prosecutor’s examination protocol is not a voluntarily stated statement but a statement that stated that ○○ was merely a statement that ○○ stated that ○○ did not make the Defendant’s new ○ did not make such a statement or that ○○ would not have any choice but rather have to force ○○ to force ○○ to make the Defendant’s new ○ in advance. In fact, the statement that there was no fact that ○○ made the Defendant’s new ○ said statement or instigated the Defendant to withdraw money from Thaiam.

(C) In light of the following objective circumstances, which are acknowledged by compiling the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant’s new ○○○ has instigated the head of the ○○○○ to withdraw money from Thaiam.” The Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency of the head of the ○○○○ in the place where it was committed.

① At the time of the instant case, it is recognized that Taeamam, who filed an action of collusion with the Fair Trade Commission, was subject to a penalty surcharge of KRW 200 million, and the union withdrawn from the association around June 2006, when it supplied a unit price for delivery with the instruction of the union. Defendant Newam, an executive officer of an environmental organization, ○○, thereby coercing ○○○ to commit an act of violating laws and regulations regarding the environment of Taeamam. However, it is not entirely found that Defendant Newam, by explicitly threatening ○○○ to explicitly threatening ○○○, intended to withdraw money, or divided the money into ○○○○. Defendant Newam, which had the head of ○○○○○, submitted a petition to the Korea Environmental Research Association of Persons with Disabilities where the head of ○○○○○○ had the head of ○○○○○○○○○○, and had the head of ○○○○○○○, etc. deliver the money to the head of ○○○○○○ by committing a violation of law.

② On September 8, 2006, 2006, ○○○○ filed with the Seosan Office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office a petition against Thaiam, stating that “I would arbitrarily cut aggregate during the recovery period and punish it outside,” and reported to the Seosan Police Station that I would hold an assembly at the Seosan City, from September 18, 2006 to October 13, 2006. However, on September 2006, ○○○○ was to receive KRW 20 million at the time of receiving the general executive director and the on-site director of Thamam from the Defendant ○○○○, a petition against Thamam from the Defendant ○○○○ at the time of consultation with the Defendant ○○○○○ on these facts, even if I did not know that ○○○○ had first consulted with the Defendant ○○○○ at the time of consultation with the Defendant ○○○.

(D) As can be seen, it is contradictory to: (a) Defendant New ○○ paid the price to the head of the ○○○○○; (b) helps the head of the ○○○○○○ by forceing the head of the etropicizing the law of law by force; and (c) inducing the head of the ○○○○○ to take money by threatening the head of the ecoculation; and (d) at that time, the head of the ○○○’s actions taken against Defendant New ○○ and Thai cancer do not seem to have been taken by a person who has instigated the head of the ○○○○○○○ to take money from the head of the ○○○○○○○○○; and (b) in light of the purport of the statement made at the trial of the ○○○○○○○○, supra, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the head of the ○○○○’s statement in the investigative agency that “a person instigated the head of the ○○ to take money from the her

B. misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the defendant newly established by the new ○○○.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined about this part of the facts charged, the first instance court determined that: ① the process of determining the unit price for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s new source price was determined at a level below 90% of the prices of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s new source price applied to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s new source price applied to the ○○○○○○○○○○, and that the ○○○○○’s new source of cost was not necessarily a certain price for the ○○○○○’s new source of cost.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in comparison with the records, it is justifiable to determine that the first instance court received money and valuables from union members as described in the facts charged under the pretext that Defendant New ○○ was going to the Public Procurement Service. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following facts in the investigation agency of Kim Man, Walton, Yang Man, Red ○○, and South ○○○○, Defendant New ○○ received KRW 20 million from the Dongnam-nam District Council around May 22, 2006, and it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant New ○ received the facts under the same pretext, and it is difficult to reverse this merely with the statement of each fact written by the Red ○○ and Cho ○○, which was submitted by the defense counsel at the trial.

C. Defendant Kim ○-○’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

(1) Defendant Kim ○, on December 2006, asserted that the amount received from the head of the union management division, who received orders from Defendant Shin○○○, was not KRW 3 million but KRW 1 million. However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted in relation to this part of the facts charged by the first instance court, it is sufficiently recognized that the bribe attached to the school at that time was a cash of KRW 3 million.

(2) Defendant Kim ○ alleged to the effect that the money received from Defendant Kim ○○ was not related to his duties. However, Defendant Kim ○ at the time of the instant case, Defendant Kim ○ was in the position to exercise overall control over the affairs of the materials purchase team, such as the government-funded unit unit price determination, as the head of the Daejeon Regional Procurement Service’s goods purchase team at the time of the instant case, and Defendant Shin ○ delivered money to Defendant Kim ○○ with regard to the government-funded unit price determination in Daejeon Chungcheongnam-nam area. As such, Defendant Kim ○ received each of the money from Defendant Kim ○ in relation to his duties, it is also recognized that Defendant Kim ○ received it from Defendant Shin ○.

D. Defendant next ○○’s assertion of mistake of facts

(1) Summary of the facts charged

From March 14, 2006, Defendant 1 served as the head of the Dobong-gu Police Station in Daejeon District.

From June 2006, the investigation of the Chungcheongnam-nam Local Police Agency and the investigation division of the Daejeon Western Police Station have been conducted with respect to the public officials related to the increase in the unit cost of the purchase of the container by new ○○○, the president of the cooperative, and the suspicion of embezzlement of union funds and public funds.

The investigation of the Chungcheongnam-nam Provincial Police Agency and the metropolitan investigation group were in charge of the case of internal investigation, but Defendant 1 was in charge of the case of internal investigation, and Defendant 2 was in charge of the investigation of the Daejeon Western Police Station around 1997.

Since he was a subordinate employee, he was able to exercise his influence over Park ○, a subordinate position in connection with the handling of the case.

In addition, in the investigation department of the Daejeon Western Police Station, since ○○○○ was in charge of the above internal investigation case, Defendant 2 was in the position of mitigation, Defendant 2 was able to exercise influence over ○○, who is a subordinate, in relation to the handling of the case.

Using this situation, on February 7, 2007, Defendant 2 received five million won in cash from Dandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si Police Agency investigation and investigation by its regional police agencies and by exercising influence on the person in charge of investigation and investigation of its sub-Korean police officers, and requested that the above case be resolved well. On April 14, 2007, Defendant 2 received five million won in cash from Don-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

As a result, Defendant ○○ accepted a bribe by a public official on the intermediation of matters belonging to another public official’s duties by taking advantage of his status.

(2) Defendant 2’s argument

Defendant 1, 200,000 won and deposited into the bank account of Defendant 2,000 won on two occasions on January 30, 2007 and March 14, 2007, and there was no other fact that Defendant 2, 200,000 won and received cash under the name of Defendant 2, 200,000 won as stated in this part of the facts charged.

(3) Determination

(A) As evidence concerning this part of the facts charged, a copy of the statement of Defendant New○○, Gamb○, LO○○, and LO○○○○○○○, a copy of the 2007 book-keeping’s 207 book-keeping’s book-keeping, a copy of the records of an internal investigation of the Daejeon-nam Police Agency and a metropolitan investigative agency’s name, and a report on the attachment of the name of the investigation of the Chungcheongnamnam Police Agency and the inter-regional investigative agency’s name, and the fact that the head of GO○○ on April 14, 2007 delivered KRW 10 million to the suspect ○○○ on April 14, 2007 (o) and 200 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s telephone records, a copy of the report on the attachment of the cell phone from 00 ○○○○○’s phone number to 20 ○○○○○○○○○.

A report on the confirmation of the relationship between ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s name, Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, to attach a photograph of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s name, and to attach a photo of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s name, Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Daejeon, and Seo-gu, Seo-dong, to attach a report on the use of a corporate card, and to attach a report on the use of a suspect’s card at ○○○○○○○○’s name, ○○○○○○○○’s name, on January 22, 2007, 321,000 won, and 1,480, and 00 won, and on February 7, 207, 2007, the evidence presented to the new Defendant association or ○○○○’s name.

(B) In the case of bribery, in order for the Defendant, who was selected as the bribe to be the bribe to be convicted of the facts of the bribery, including financial materials to support the rejection of the bribe and there is no evidence, the evidence should be admissible, and there should be credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, the credibility should be examined on the premise of the legal principles as to the credibility of the statement, such as the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, as well as his human nature, in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime committed against him, and if there is a possibility that the investigation may be initiated, or if an investigation is being conducted, there is a possibility that the statement may be conducted, or if there is a possibility that the evidence of the statement would be denied, then the credibility of the statement should be examined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do5701, Jun. 11, 202).

1) Details and prosecution of the Defendant’s new ○○○

Defendant 1, ○○, after the commencement of an investigation by the prosecution from the prosecution to the trial of the court, has reversed his statement several times with regard to the amount of money and valuables granted to Defendant 1, the time and method of delivery, the frequency of delivery, the source of the funds given. The contents of the statement are as follows.

① 검찰에서 처음으로 피고인 신○○이 피고인 차○○에게 금품을 제공한 사실에 관 하여 작성된 검찰 제5회 피의자신문조서에서는 “피고인 차○○가 2007. 1. 30. 대전 서구 소재 상호불상 일식집에서, 충남지방경찰청 광역수사대에 근무하는 박모 경찰관 을 데리고 와서 피고인 차○○에게 현금 1,000만 원 준 사실이 있다. 피고인 차○○가 먼저 와서 쇼핑백에 담은 돈을 피고인 차○○에게 건넸는데, 식사를 마친 후 헤어지면 서 보니까 그 쇼핑백을 박모 경찰관이 가지고 있었다. 2007. 3. 중순경 피고인 차○○ 에게 통장으로 1,000만 원을 빌려 준 사실이 있고, 그 이전에 대전 유성구 소재 리베 라 호텔 주차장에서 1,000만 원을 준 적이 있다.” 고 진술하여, 피고인 신○○은 피고인 차○○에게 2007. 3. 중순경 1,000만 원을 빌려 준 이외에, 조합에 대한 진정사건을 충남지방경찰청 광역수사대에서 수사하고 있을 무렵인 2007. 1. 30.경 사건청탁 명목 으로 현금으로 1,000만 원을 제공하고, 그 사건을 서부경찰서에서 수사하고 있을 무렵 인 2007. 3. 초순경 사건 청탁 명목으로 다시 현금으로 1,000만 원을 제공하였다고 진 술하였다.

② On July 12, 2006, the Prosecutor’s 6th interrogation committee, which was drafted after the case was transferred to the Seonam Police Agency, started internal investigation around 006. At the time of investigating the case at the Seonam Police Agency’s metropolitan investigation team, Defendant 1,00,000 won for each time at the time of investigating the case at the Seonam Police Agency’s regional investigation team. At the present time, Defendant 1,000 won was sent to Defendant 2,000 won for each time, and then, Defendant 1,000 won was sent to Defendant 2,0000 won for each time after the date of investigating the case at the Seonam Police Agency’s regional investigation team. At this time, Defendant 1, 2006, Defendant 2,0000 won was sent to Defendant 3,000 won, and Defendant 1,0000 won was sent to Defendant 1,0000 won.

③ After that, on January 30, 2007, the fact that the Defendant’s new ○○ transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account was confirmed. On February 7, 2007, and April 14, 2007, the telephone conversations between Defendant’s new ○○ and Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○ was revealed, and then on the 7th suspect examination protocol of the prosecution, the following was written: “The KRW 10 million remitted to Defendant’s ○○○○○○’s passbook on January 30, 207 and March 14, 2007, respectively, was lent to the Defendant’s next ○○○○○○. The same applies to the Defendant’s previous statement on January 30, 2007 to ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○ on the same day before remitting KRW 10 million on January 30, 2007.”

1) No. 1) The 9th suspect examination protocol of prosecutor's office, "If the book contains a statement that ○○ was delivered on February 7, 2007, the day will be met. On that day, the amount of money paid to ○○○○ was recorded in the book, and the shopping bags containing money were recorded in red color, and 5 million won was recorded in the book. The entry "500 won" in the book was written in the amount equivalent to the amount of money paid to ○○○ and ○○○○○○, and the above statement was written on April 14, 2007, stating the expenses used by ○○○○ and 200 won. The statement made to ○○○ and 5 million won was consistent with the statement made by ○○○ and 5 million won.

⑤ At the first instance court, 50,000 won was 000 won and 70,000 won was 20,000 won, and 70,000 won was 10,000 won and 7,000 won was 0,000 won and 7,000 won was 0,000 won was 7,00 won and 7,000 won was 0,000 won was 10,000 won and 7,000 won was 0,000 won was 0,000 won and 7,000 won was 0,000 won was 0,000 won and 7,00 won was 0,000 won.

④ In the trial of a political party, the court stated that “The shopping bags consisting of two weeks in the vehicle of a new ○○” and that “The shopping bags consisting of two weeks in the vehicle of a new ○○ are not memoryed if there was any other shopping bags that the shopping bags alleged to have been used in the investigation on February 7, 2007 when they completed meals at the investigation on February 7, 2007.” In addition, the court reversed the statement that “The value of the day is 2 million won, and 50 million won is 2 million won, and 5 million won is 5 million won.”

2) Entry of a copy of the Defendant’s 2007 book, which was seized by the prosecution, in a copy of the Defendant’s 2007 book, and the explanation and investigation process of the Defendant’s ○○.

On January 7, 2008, the opportunity to investigate the bribery case of Defendant 1, 200 is because the contents of Defendant 2007’s pocket book discovered as a result of search and seizure of Defendant 2’s new residence by the prosecution’s office on the part of Defendant 2007. The book includes the name of the chairman of the Do Council in addition to Defendant 200, the chairman of the Do Council and the public officials of the Do Council in the 2007. The book contains a statement on the name side or below, and contains a statement on whether Defendant 200 is suspected of not offering money or goods to the public officials in relation to the partnership or its business.

Among them, there is a statement related to the police officer in charge of the appeal case against the defendant 1, 200 or the cooperative, stating that "the tea ○○○ on January 22, 2007, 2007, 700 won in Daejeon investigation unit on January 25, 2007, 2000 won in the tea ○○○ on January 30, 2007, 200 on February 7, 2007, 200, 500 tea ○○○.

However, the prosecution asked the public officials whose name was written in this book to whether the amount corresponding to the number stated in the original text was given as a bribe. However, the number of the defendant's new ○○ was denied by asserting that it was difficult to understand that the number was expressed in the depth of the talk that was divided from the public officials, and that it was given a bribe. The defendant's new ○○ does not indicate that it was related to private life in the first instance trial and the first instance trial, or that it was expressed in the first instance trial that it was said that it was about private life, and that it was about 1 minute if it was expressed in 2 minutes, and that it was expressed that it was 2 minutes.

However, on January 30, 2007, among the contents written in this book, Defendant tea ○○ was given KRW 10 million to Defendant tea. The part written in this book is true, and Defendant tea stated that Defendant tea ○ was given KRW 10 million in cash twice including this. However, until before the 7th protocol of interrogation of a suspect, Defendant tea ○ was written up until the 7th protocol of interrogation of a suspect was prepared, Defendant tea ○ did not have any fact about the part written in this book, and there was no fact that Defendant tea ○ was paid an amount equivalent to the number.

On the basis of this book, the prosecution conducted an investigation of the acceptance of bribe against Defendant 2,00, and conducted an investigation against Defendant 2,000, which is operated by Defendant 1,000, on the basis of this book, on the basis of the application for quarrying permission, and confirmed illegal facts such as the preparation of false official documents by public officials in charge of viewing in the Quarrying regarding the application for quarrying permission. However, even though Defendant 2,00 did not clearly explain the meaning of the number recorded in the book until the end, it was concluded without any further investigation into the acceptance of bribe portion.

3) Individual review by charges of this case

A) The portion received in cash of 5 million won on February 7, 2007

① As seen earlier, Defendant New ○ made a statement on January 30, 2007, on the basis of the fact that the first time of offering of a bribe for this part of the facts charged was stated “the time of the offering of a bribe was stated to ○○○○○○○○○ on January 30, 2007,” and it was immediately reversed on June 7, 2006, and on January 30, 2007, it was confirmed that it was deposited in the Defendant’s account at ○○○○○○○○○○○, and that it was not the first time of the offering of a bribe, but the first time of the offering of a bribe to ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s statement was not the same as that of the first time of the offering of a bribe. Moreover, the first time of the offering of a bribe to ○○○○○’s statement was made by lack of consistency in the amount of cash that was paid to ○○○○○.

② In addition, Defendant New ○○ made a statement at an investigative agency on several occasions that the shopping bags containing money to Defendant ○○○○ were used for gambling. On February 7, 2007, the second day of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the first instance, Defendant New ○○○ stated that the shopping bags containing two shares of the vehicle at the Defendant New ○○○○○○○, with the shopping bags containing two shares of the vehicle at the bar at the bar at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the same time. Defendant New ○○○○○○ was stated as “500ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

B) The portion received in cash of 5 million won on April 14, 2007

① In the part on April 14, 2007 of the Defendant’s new ○○’s pocketbook in 2007, there is no indication to doubt that the Defendant only met the Defendant’s tea ○○, or that the Defendant’s new ○○ gave money to the Defendant’s tea ○○.

② As seen earlier, Defendant New ○ made a statement at first on March 3, 2007 as ○○○○’s first time on the date and time of this part of the facts charged, and reversed it on January 30, 2007. In the prosecutor’s office, the fact was confirmed on several occasions on April 14, 2007 as the result of checking the telephone conversations between Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○○○, an employee of the association, made a statement on April 14, 2007 that KRW 10 million was created to the Defendant, and then, according to such confirmation by the prosecutor’s office, the date and time was reversed to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s present statement that was 50,000 won, which was 10,000 won and 50,000 won, was the date and time of its withdrawal to ○○○○○○○’s present statement that was 50,000 won.

As a result, on April 14, 2007, the part on which Defendant New ○○ stated the amount equivalent to five million won to Defendant next ○○○○ on the date and time of the initial bribe delivery and the amount of the bribe delivery, is confirmed on April 14, 2007 as follows: (a) the fact was confirmed on April 14, 2007 by Defendant New ○○ and Defendant next ○○○ was withdrawn from the corporate bank account of Defendant New ○○ on the day of the occurrence; (b) on the basis of this fact, on April 14, 2007, on the basis of the prosecutor’s office’s order on April 14, 2007, the part on which Defendant New ○○ stated that Defendant ○○ was to bring five million won as a solicitation for the internal affairs of the Union; (c) Defendant ○○ stated on the basis of his reasoning that Defendant ○○ made a statement in accordance with this, and thus, did not present an objective statement in the process of investigation.

③ At the same time, prior to April 14, 2007, Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 20 million from Defendant 2,00,000 from Defendant 1 ○○○○, and there was a fact that Defendant 1 and ○○○○○ had telephone conversationsd with Defendant 1 on April 14, 2007. On the other hand, Defendant 1 had been in Daejeon on April 14, 2007, Defendant 2: (a) Defendant 1 and ○○ was in call, and (b) Defendant 2 was in the name of Defendant 1 and ○○○. However, Defendant 1 and ○○○ was in the name of Defendant 1, it was difficult to dismiss Defendant 2 and ○○○ was in the name of Defendant 1 and ○○○’s defense counsel.

4) Other circumstances that doubt the credibility of the Defendant’s new ○○’s statement

① Defendant New ○○ and Defendant ○○ continued to have been accumulated with the motive window for an elementary school, and even reaching the instant case. As such, Defendant tea ○○ had a pro rata relationship and had engaged in monetary transactions, such as borrowing KRW 20 million from Defendant New ○○○ through account transfer at the time of the instant case at the time of the instant case, as seen below. In light of the ordinary relationship between Defendant New ○○ and Defendant tea ○○, etc., in addition to borrowing KRW 20 million from Defendant New ○○, Defendant tea received KRW 20 million from Defendant New ○, not an investigator in charge of the instant case, in cash twice in relation to the instant solicitation, separately from this case’s solicitation, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to readily accept. In addition, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to accept.

② Defendant ○○○’s defense counsel did not voluntarily ○○○○○○○’s ○○○○’s concealed heart of offering of a bribe to Defendant ○○○○○○. However, the prosecution’s 2007 pocket book was seized by the prosecutor’s office on January 7, 2008. However, the five-time protocol of examination of Defendant ○○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2.

5) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, there is no doubt about the rationality or objective of the statement itself and the consistency before and after the statement is considerably lacking, as seen earlier. In addition, since ○○○○○○’s statement that provided a bribe in cash separate from lending money to Defendant ○○○○ through a bank account at a time similar to giving a bribe to a police officer in charge of investigation by removing a police officer in charge of investigation, who is not a police officer in charge of direct investigation, instead of a police officer in charge of investigation, and by exercising influence over the case, it does not seem that there is any doubt about the reasonableness or objective of the statement itself. In addition, since ○○○○ was revealed by the crime of this case recognized below, it did not constitute various crimes such as embezzlement of the funds of the association or the company in charge of the investigation, receiving the money under the name of the public official in charge of investigation in the investigation agency and the court, or using it for personal purposes, the name of the public official in charge of investigation agency and the meaning of the number stated below in the statement at the time of ○○○○’s new statement, other than the public official in charge of this case.

E. The prosecutor's new ○○○○ and Defendant’s next ○○○ on the acceptance of bribe

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant ○○ delivered KRW 20,000,000 on January 30, 2007, and KRW 14,000,000 on March 14, 2007, respectively, to the account in the name of Defendant ○○, as described in paragraph (1) above, with the same name as described in paragraph (1) above. Defendant ○○ received it, and Defendant ○○ received it, and Defendant ○○ issued it, and Defendant ○ issued it, and Defendant ○○ offered it to a public official for the purpose of arranging matters pertaining to other public officials’ duties, and Defendant ○○ received it.

(2) The first instance court held that, in light of the following facts: (a) since the investigation agency consistently made a statement that the amount was the money lent to Defendant 1 ○○○○; (b) the part on which Defendant 1 ○○ stated that Defendant 1 was a bribe; (c) the part on which Defendant 1 ○○ stated that Defendant 1 was a bribe; and (d) it appears that Defendant 1 ○○ was using cash that did not keep the material as to transactions, etc. in which it was not open to ordinary places; (d) Defendant 2 ○ and ○ was difficult to expect that Defendant 1 would receive a bribe as a bribe as a long-term person engaged in the investigation; and (e) Defendant 1 ○ and ○○ were urged to pay the money to Defendant 1 ○○○ on several occasions, it is reasonable to deem that the nature of the money issued as stated in this part of the facts charged was a loan.

According to the reasons cited by the first instance court as the grounds for innocence and the documents submitted by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, who stated that Defendant 2 would repay money to Defendant 3,00,000 won as dividend on the land where auction was in progress at the time of borrowing money to Defendant 2, and thereafter, Defendant 2, who received 100 million won at the end of 2007, paid off obligations to other creditors, and did not repay money to some creditors including Defendant 2, the investigation of this case commences and the relationship between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, it is sufficiently acceptable to conclude that the first instance court is a loan given as stated in this part of the facts charged.

F. Defendant New○○○○ and Defendant Kim○○○ of the public prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts regarding the acceptance of bribe

In accordance with this part of the facts charged, the first instance court held that, although it is difficult to recognize that ○○○ made the above statement to the effect that each of the above statements and prosecutorial statements on ○○○ and ○○○○○○○ was made in the court of first instance, and that all of these statements were made to the effect that ○○○○○ gave KRW 10 million to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, who was a defendant Kim○, and that ○○○○ made the statement to the effect that ○○○○○ was not receiving the above money from ○○○○○, which is consistent with this part of the facts charged, it is difficult to recognize that ○○○○○ made the above statement to the effect that ○○○○○○ was made, even if there was a fact that ○○○○○ made the above statement, it is probable that ○○○○○ made the above statement to be used for another purpose, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that ○○○○○ actually made a statement on this part of the facts charged.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance in comparison with the records, we fully affirm the first instance court’s determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

G. Defendant Kim ○-○’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the amount of money and valuables received by Defendant ○○○ from Defendant ○○○○ in relation to his duties, the circumstances leading up to the receipt of brain, and other circumstances, such as Defendant ○○’s criminal records, social career, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence of the first instance court, which sentenced Defendant ○○○ by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the suspended sentence for 2 years, is too unreasonable

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal by Defendant Kim○, the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant Kim○, and the appeal against Defendant Kim○○, the prosecutor’s appeal against the offering of a bribe to Defendant Kim○○ on or around June 2006, each appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the judgment of the first instance court, the guilty part against Defendant Shin○ (including the acquittal part of reasoning) and the part on Defendant Kim○○, among the judgment of the first instance, are all strikeed, and the following is again decided after the pleading

Criminal facts

Defendant ○○ is working as the president of the Daejeon Asia Industrial Cooperative, the president of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business, and the president of the Daejeon District of Small and Medium Business. Defendant ○ is a person who operates four companies, including Jeju, Jeju, Jeju, Jeju, and Jeju, Jeju, and Jeju.

1. Occupational breach of trust;

Defendant 1 is the representative director of ○○○ Special Oil Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○ Special Oil Sales”). From December 204, 204, the Special Oil Sales Co., Ltd. established KRW 500,000 for each company to purchase asphalt oil with a smooth and low amount of KRW 500,000,000 for each company. However, until February 207, 2007, the above Defendant 200,000 KRW 60,000,000,000,000 KRW 60,000,000,000 KRW 96,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 706,00,000,00,000,000.

2. Occupational embezzlement in the environment of victim stock companies;

피고인 신○○은 피해자 주식회사 제원환경( 이하 '제원환경'이라고만 한다 ) 의 대표이 사이다. 피고인 신○○은 2005.경 제원환경을 운영하면서 한국환경자원공사 대전·충남 지사로부터 재활용산업육성자금 30억 원을 대출을 받기로 계획을 세웠다. 그런데 차용 금 변제 등 개인적으로 돈이 필요해 지자 주식회사 디테코( 이하 '디테코'라고만 한다 ) 로부터 크랴샤 플랜트를 19억 원에 구입하는 것처럼 허위 계약서를 작성하여 대출 승 인을 받고, 디테코가 한국환경자원공사 대전·충남 지사로부터 매매 대금을 송금받으면 동 회사로부터 7억 4,000만 원을 반환받기로 디테코와 이면 계약을 하였다. 그에 따라 2005. 7. 19. 천안시 광덕면 행정리 68 -2에 있는 천안농협 행정지점에서 제원환경 이 름으로, 한국환경자원공사로부터 송금받은 물품대금 6억 2,700만 원 중 4억 700만 원 을 디테코로부터 되돌려 받아 제원환경을 위하여 보관하던 중 그 무렵 천안시 일원에 서 차용금을 변제하는 등 임의로 개인적인 용도로 사용하였다. 또 2005. 11. 21. 충북 청원군 현도면 선동리 485에 있는 현도 농협에서 위와 같은 방법으로 3억 3,300만 원 을 디테코로부터 되돌려받아 제원환경을 위하여 보관하던 중 그 무렵 천안시 일원에서 차용금 변제 등 임의로 개인적인 용도로 사용하였다. 이로써 피고인 신○○은 업무상 보관하던 7억 4,000만 원을 횡령하였다.

3. Bribery;

A. On May 2006, Defendant New○ issued a bribe in relation to public officials’ duties by delivering KRW 5 million as an honorarium to Kim○○○, who was in general in charge of the affairs of the goods purchase team, such as the establishment of a unit price for government-level container procurement, to the head of the goods purchase team of the Daejeon Regional Government Procurement Service through the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ of the Daejeon Regional Government Procurement Service, as the head of the goods purchase team of the Daejeon Regional Government Procurement Service.

B. On December 206, 2006, Defendant New○ offered a bribe to public officials in relation to their official duties by making a solicitation to the effect that the said Kim○○ through the head of the division in charge of the management of the union would continuously provide convenience by continuously engaging in the business of the union at the office of the materials purchase team located in the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Government Procurement Agency located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon. The head of the division in charge of the management of the union, and granting three million won at the end of the year of the goods purchase team on a yearly basis.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

Daejeon Chungcheong Industrial Cooperatives, as a partnership corporation, is comprised of five regional councils, including Daejeon-dong, Middle-west, North-west, west-west, and west-west, with 51 members of the company affiliated with Chungcheongnam-Nam-Nam-west, Daejeon as its members. The method of business has been established under the name of the cooperative to allocate the amount of goods to each regional council and to allow its members to supply Arabic containers. As such, it is necessary to increase the unit price and maintain the price of Arabic containers. In addition, in order to raise the unit price of the goods to be procured and maintain the price of the goods to be supplied to the Public Procurement Service, the association members will benefit in the whole if the unit price of the goods to be supplied to the Public Officials of the Public Officials of the Government Administration is increased by 00,000,000 from 20,000,000,0000 members of the Association, which are members of the Association. The above Defendant received 20,000,000 members of the Association from 20,0000.

5. Occupational embezzlement on the part of the injured party's Daejeon C&C industrial cooperative;

From around February 2003, Defendant New ○○ was in office as the president of the Daejeon Amcom Industry Cooperative, and was in general in charge of the operation of the union funds. Daejeon Amcom Industry Cooperative accumulated 1.9% of the price that its members supplied the Amcom to the Public Procurement Service and used as the fund for the operation of the union under the name of the head of the cooperative, and Defendant New ○○ was in custody as the head of the union. On February 11, 2004, at the office of the Daejeon-dong 2-Ma2, 113-20 Dong-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do 2, 113-20 Dongdong Building 3, through the head of the Park○○○, an employee of the union, and then arbitrarily released KRW 1,00,000,000 for the purpose of cooperation with the Dmcom Council, and then arbitrarily used it for the personal consumption of KRW 1,000 during that time, from that time to that time, the Defendant New ○ was made up to 207 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of Defendant New ○○ and Kim○○

1. The witness of the first instance trial, each of the ○○○○ and the partial statement made by the witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect by the prosecution against the defendant, ○○, and Kim○;

1. 김○○, 양○○, 현○○ , 홍○○, 원○○, 김▲▲, 박◎◎, 마○○, 박○○, 이○○,

Each prosecutor's office's team on Kim, Kim △△, Man, Man, Man, Man, Man, Man, Man○, Man, and Malsan.

Written Statement

1. 김▲▲, 홍○○, 박○정, 조○○, 김◎◎, 김○중, 김△△, 정연, 김○수, 우○식,

E. ○○ machines, clothes, Kim Il-so, Lee Dong-ho, Lee Do-ho, Park ○, Choi ○-so, Lee Jong-il, Kim Ma-so, and transfers;

A written statement of ○○ Kim Sung, Park ○, Lee ○, Park ○, and Lee ○○

1. Each protocol and list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (including a certified copy of ○○ resident registration and a certified copy of the original register of a corporation, or a procurement of asphalts);

Attachment of unit price details, comparison and arrangement of unit price contracts by unit price size, and addition of the current status of Daejeon ASEAN;

Sub-report, the attachment of the articles of association, etc. of the Daejeon-Namnam Cooperative, Daejeon-ASEAN Industrial Cooperative, Chungcheong,

Any report attached to the certified copy of the corporate register of the current special oil sales corporation, any source, original environment, and any title development law;

A report attached to a certified copy of the personal register, a report on confirmation of the relationship between ○○○ and Lee ○○, and an internal investigation, and an internal investigation

The mobile phone confirmation report under this use, the Daejeon-dong Council under the Daejeon-nam Cooperative;

Attachment of a copy of the transaction passbook, a report on the attachment of a copy of the cash withdrawal to the Jung-gu Council, Daejeon-Namon.

A report on the attachment of a copy of the head of the Tong ○○○, the head of the Council in charge of accounting of industrial cooperatives;

Public officials of the Public Procurement Service discovered in the car of the new ○○, shall report on the binding of a certified copy of the name cards by the public officials of the Public Procurement Service.

A document in which the suspect ○○○ has made a provisional payment in the food company and which is accompanied by a document in which the suspect ○○ has made a provisional accounting

Attachments, such as the current status of investments by the current sales company of Chungcheong special milk and the current status of credit purchase funds, such as the source;

c) the suspicion of the outflow of corporate funds through the appropriating the processed assets of ○○, and the borrowed account, and the suspect’s personal information ○○

This Korea Environment and Resources Corporation has received a loan of 3 billion won from its branch office in Daejeon.

A document attachment report, Kim○○, attachment of a personnel record card of the Nam○, and a new ○○○○’s custody, and ○○○,

2. The report on the filing of the name cards of the Daejeon Regional Government Procurement Service in 2006 and the filing of copies of the phone number of the staff of the Daejeon Regional Government Procurement Service

United States, the Daejeon District Government Procurement Organization's report on the binding of individual allotment of duties in the Daejeon District Government Procurement Agency's Materials Purchase Team in 2006, h 2006

Attachment of contract documents related to the increase of the unit price of container procurement, and mobile phone calls used by the suspect ○○;

The reverse analysis, the confirmation of the details returned by the New ○○ (State) dico, and the addition of the deposit certificate of a passbook without a passbook.

[Divisions]

법령의 적용(피고인 신ㅇㅇ)

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of good offices and the choice of imprisonment) and each Criminal Act

Articles 356, 355(1)(the point of occupational embezzlement, the choice of imprisonment), 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

(In the case of occupational breach of trust, choice of imprisonment), Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of each Criminal Code

In this regard, the court may decide to punish the

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Punishment and Pronouncement of Criminal)

19.Aggravation of concurrent crimes with regard to concurrent crimes resulting from occupational embezzlement against the environment of the border.

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

Parts of innocence

1. The point of the Defendant’s new ○’s empty building

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as indicated in Article 2. A. (1) of the judgment of the grounds for appeal, and as seen in the decision of the court below, this part of the facts charged is the relevant low-priced and not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if there is no proof of a crime.

2. The offering of a bribe to Defendant 1 ○○○○○

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: on February 7, 2007, at the border investigation in the Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District of Seo-gu, Daejeon District of Police Station, Defendant 2: (a) at the request of the competent police agency, the head of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District of the Daejeon District of Police Station, for an investigation into the Dong-gu, Daejeon District of Police Station; (b) at the request of the competent police agency, by exercising influence over the person in charge of the investigation into the area and the investigation into the Seo-gu police station, and for a smooth resolution of internal investigation into the union; and (c) on January 30, 2007 and March 14, 2007, Defendant 200,000 won as the head of the Tong-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District of the Daejeon District of Police Station; and (d) on April 14, 2007, Defendant 200 won was not proven in relation to a bribe of the public official.

3. Defendant tea ○○

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant 2 was transferred to the head of the Seo-gu Police Station in Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon. On February 7, 2007, 200, Defendant 4 received KRW 5 million in cash from ○○, the president of the cooperative, from Danam Provincial Police Agency investigation and investigation of metropolitan investigation units and the Seo-gu Police Station, upon request of the person in charge of investigation and investigation into the Seo-gu Police Station, and received KRW 5 million in cash. On January 30, 2007 and March 14, 2007, Defendant 200 won as the head of the Tong-dong, respectively. On April 14, 2007, Defendant 2000 won in cash at the Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon Police Station, and received KRW 5 million in total, and obtained KRW 30 million in consideration of the status of the public official, and there is no evidence as to the facts charged in relation to the public official duties.

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

Kim Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)

A line already made

Theirs kin

* The list of crimes that can be stored in a computer is written in the real name, and non-defensive work is not made.

as such, deletions