A relationship between a crime of violating the Political Funds Act and a crime of bribery under the Criminal Act where money and valuables are received in connection with a member's duty.

The Political Funds Act imposes a punishment for contributing or receiving political funds in relation to the act that falls under the scope of solicitation or mediation in relation to the duties of a public official. However, in this case, there is no express provision excluding the application of the provisions on bribery under the Criminal Act with respect to the act of offering or receiving political funds in relation to the duties of a member of the National Assembly, and thus, even in this case, the crime of offering or receiving political funds is established under the Criminal Act. However, in a case where the number of political funds is not carried out in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Political Funds Act, the crime of offering or receiving political funds constitutes a crime of offering or offering of bribe under the Criminal Act in addition to the crime of violating Articles 30 subparagraph 3 and 11 (1) of the same Act.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act, Article 11 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and eight others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91 Gohap336, 340 (Consolidated)

1. The part concerning Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 among the judgment of the court below and the part concerning Defendant 6-c. to 9-g. at the time of original adjudication shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for defendant 4, by imprisonment for two years and six months; and by imprisonment for one year and six months for a crime set forth in Article 9-c through (g) at the time of the original trial by the defendant 6.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 135 days each included in the above sentence against Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4.

However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years for Defendant 6, for four years for Defendant 2 and for Defendant 3, and for three years for Defendant 4.

The defendant shall collect 170,00,000 won from the defendant 1, 30,000 won from the defendant 2 and 3, and 10,000,000 won from the defendant 4, respectively.

Defendant 5 is not guilty.

2. The appeal filed by the defendant 7, 8, and 9 and the original appeal filed by the defendant 6 is dismissed as follows: the appeal filed against the crime committed by the defendant 7, 8, and 9 and the appeal filed by the prosecutor as to the crime committed by the defendant 6 (Ga) and (h) of Article 9-1 at the time of the prosecutor's original appeal.

Of the days of confinement in the court prior to the rendering of a judgment, 150 days for Defendant 7, and 140 days for Defendant 8 shall be included in the punishment of the original judgment.

The grounds for appeal shall be considered as follows.

1. As to Defendant 1’s assertion that the facts charged are not specified, “date” as referred to in Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the specific method of the facts charged, requires entry to the extent that it does not conflict with the principle of double prosecution or prescription, and “place” requires entry to the extent that it can judge territorial jurisdiction. Since the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of Defendant’s right of defense, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that it is distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively considering these elements, and even if the time, place, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the extent that it is necessary to write the facts charged, such as “day”, “place, etc., and if it is deemed that there is no obstacle to Defendant’s right of defense,” it cannot be said that prosecution is unlawful because the contents of prosecution are not specified (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2920, Dec. 2, 198).

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the offering of bribe under Article 1-1 (a) through (i) at the time of Defendant 1’s original trial and the offering of bribe under Article 9-3 (c) at the time of Defendant 6’s original trial

A. In full view of the various evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is sufficient to fully recognize the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of offering of bribe corresponding to the crime of Defendant 6 at the time of Defendant 1's original trial. G. H. and the crime of offering of bribe, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as the theory of lawsuit.

B. However, at the time of Defendant 1’s original judgment, Defendant 1’s confessioned Defendant 1’s crime of receiving a bribe at KRW 30,00,000, which was issued by the said Defendant at each hotel hotel, on April 199, July 1, 199, and December 12 of the same year, and led Defendant 1 to receive a bribe at each of the above Defendant’s first instance judgment. However, Defendant 6 led Defendant 1 to the court below’s confession of the crime of receiving a bribe corresponding to the above bribery, but refused Defendant 6’s statement in the court of the original judgment, but rejected Defendant 1’s statement on this point, but it did not reach the court of the first instance.

Recognizing that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of all the facts charged, it is reasonable to compare the above evidence with the record and review, as evidence corresponding thereto, that Defendant 1’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, Defendant 6’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, and Defendant 6’s statement at the examination procedure prior to the first trial

First, as to Defendant 1’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor only stated the day when the crime was committed in the first or second order, but did not specify what time the crime was committed. In addition, Defendant 1 did not specify the place as a restaurant of any pentas (at the hotel, a two restaurant of events and Maternasma in the hotel) among the hotel restaurant. However, Defendant 1 stated at the prosecutor’s office that the place of crime was "12:0 square meters"; Defendant 6 stated that the place of crime was "bench w"; Defendant 1 used only two restaurants of the hotel in the court room and the first or second order, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 testified in advance, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 testified in the first or second order, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 testified in the name of Defendant 1 and the first or fourth day.

Second, according to the testimony of the Lee Jin-hun, Jin-hun, Kim Tae-tae, Lee Jin-hoon, and Lee Jong-young's testimony, the fact that Defendant 1 appeared home immediately more than 21:00, while attending the above event for food gathering with the staff of the President's office and sending them to the Gwangju-gun of Gyeonggi-do at around 16:00 after he returned, Defendant 1 was present at the event for food gathering with the President's staff and then sent them for a bath, drinking, meals, etc.;

Third, according to the above evidence, Defendant 1's confession at the prosecutor's office of the above defendant 1 is insufficient in its credibility because it is difficult to view that the above defendant 6 met the defendant 3 at around July 4, 1990 and December 28, 197:30 of the above convention restaurant, since the defendant 1 was on duty until around 07:15, and was on duty at around 21:0, and was on duty at around 21:0, while he was on duty at around 1990, he was on duty, he was on duty with outside personnel, and was on duty at a cafeteria.

Next, Defendant 6's prosecutor's office and prosecutor's office prior to the first trial date, and Defendant 6 stated in the trial court that there was no memory in receiving investigation into the above facts of the offering of bribe from the prosecutor in relation to the time and place of the offering of bribe, but the prosecutor showed the suspect's interrogation of the above defendant including Defendant 1's confession statement of the crime of bribery, so it is consistent with each other as Defendant 6's statement in the examination procedure prior to the first trial date is transferred to the prosecutor's office. Ultimately, since Defendant 6's statement is based on Defendant 1's confession statement in the prosecutor's office, it is difficult to believe that Defendant 1's statement in the prosecutor's office prior to the first trial date and prosecutor's office's first trial date as well as in the examination procedure prior to the first trial date, as long as it is difficult to believe Defendant 1's statement in the prosecutor's office as above.

Therefore, the statements made by Defendant 1 at the prosecutor's office or at the examination procedure of Defendant 6 at the prosecutor's office and the first trial date prior to the first trial date cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge the facts of acceptance of bribe by Defendant 1 and the facts of offering of bribe corresponding thereto by Defendant 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

3. As to the defendant 1, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, and 6's assertion of mistake of facts as to the bribe

A. Bribery of this case is the direct legal interest protected by the law, which is the process of performing the duties and the credibility of society. Thus, the illegality of a bribe is not prior to or after the existence of a compulsory violation, the existence of a solicitation, and the conduct of performing the duties at the time of acceptance. Therefore, even if the relationship between the duties in the bribery is not only a duty prescribed by the law, but also a duty related to it, a duty related to it, a duty in the past or in the future, or a duty that is not actually performed according to the division of duties and duties, a public official, such as a duty belonging to the general authority under the law, shall be regarded as a duty in the crime of bribery (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568, Sept. 25, 198).

On the other hand, considering the relation between Defendant 1, 7, 8, 2, 3, and 4 and Defendant 6, the amount of money, the time of the act of giving and receiving money, and the contents of implied solicitation, etc., which are acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is clear that Defendant 1, 7, 8, 2, 3, and 4 received each bribe in connection with their duties and Defendant 6 received each bribe in relation to the above defendant's duties, and Defendant 7 received each bribe in relation to the above defendant's duties, but tried to return it, because the amount was too much high, the establishment of the crime of bribery does not affect the conclusion of the crime of bribery, and even if Defendant 7 received 30 million won in relation to his duties as stated in Article 2-C at the time of the original trial, even if the above defendant delivered 200 million won in relation to his duties to Nonindicted 1, the above defendant received the above amount of bribe including the above KRW 200 million.

In this regard, the court below's decision was just for the acceptance of money and valuables by Defendant 1, 7, 8, 2, 3, and 4 under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and for Defendant 6's act of delivering money and valuables as the crime of offering bribe under the Criminal Act, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the bribe of the crime like the theory of lawsuit (Defendant 2 and 3 asserted that their confessions in the prosecutor's office do not have voluntariness as a statement made by means of intimidation, deception or long time, but considering all circumstances such as the period, place, public prosecutor's examination, the form and contents of the suspect examination of the above Defendants, such as the period and place of investigation, and the preparation of the prosecutor's protocol, were examined in light of all the above Defendants' age, academic background, social status, and intelligence level, and thus, there was no evidence to suspect that the above Defendants' statements in the prosecutor's office did not have been made without discretion.

B. Defendant 7, 8, 2, 3, and 6 claimed that the instant money was received or provided as a political support under the Political Funds Act, and thus, it should not be applied to the crime of acceptance of bribe or the crime of offering of bribe under the Criminal Act, and even if not, it should be applied to the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act.

Therefore, the Political Fund Act is punishable to contribute or receive political funds in relation to the act that falls under the scope of solicitation or mediation by a public official (Article 30 subparag. 5, Article 13 subparag. 2 of the same Act). However, there is no express provision punishing the act of offering or receiving political funds in relation to the duties of a member of the National Assembly. Accordingly, even in this case, the crime of offering or receiving bribe under the Criminal Act is established. However, in a case where the number of political funds is not carried out in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Political Fund Act, it constitutes a crime of accepting or offering bribe under the Criminal Act in addition to the violation of Articles 30 subparag. 3 and 11(1) of the same Act, and each of the above crimes constitutes a crime of accepting or offering bribe under the Criminal Act, and it does not constitute a crime of accepting or offering bribe under the Criminal Act. As seen earlier, the opinion of the court below that the amount or the number of funds in this case is a crime of offering or offering bribe under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and its independent opinion or independent measures should not be accepted.

4. As to the assertion that Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is unconstitutional by Defendant 7 and 8

Defendant 7 or Defendant 8’s defense counsel asserts that Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter only referred to as the “Special Act”) provides that the statutory penalty is excessively high, and that it violates Article 10 of the Constitution that provides for the guarantee of human dignity and value by losing a proper balance between crimes and punishment, and Article 12 of the Constitution that provides for the principle of no punishment without law, and Article 2(1)1 of the Special Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that where the amount of the accepted bribery is more than 50 million won, the amount of the accepted bribery shall be punished more than that of the above amount, and it violates Article 11(1) of the Constitution that provides for the equality right

Therefore, Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides that a person who commits a crime stipulated in Articles 129, 130, and 132 of the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years if the amount of the accepted bribery is at least 50 million won, and that person shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than five years if the amount of the accepted bribery is at least 10 million won but less than 50 million won, and that person shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than five years. As provided in Article 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, the legislative purpose of the above provision is to contribute to the maintenance of sound social order and the development of the national economy by aggravated punishment of the accepted bribery as provided in Article 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act. In light of the fact that the crime of the accepted bribery affects the social order and the national economy in Korea, it is difficult to say that there is a considerable need to punish the above crime compared to other crimes in order to eradicate the accepted bribery. Whether the statutory punishment stipulated in the above provision is more than the above legislation purpose or social norms.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that Article 2 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act is in violation of the Constitution (However, there is no room for discussion in the legislative theory as a matter of legislative policy about whether the standards and methods of the Aggravated Punishment Act are appropriate from the perspective of legitimate punishment).

5. As to the misconception of facts about the violation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory No. 9-A at the time of the original adjudication by Defendant 6

A. In light of the fact that the contents of the instant land sales contract, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, received down payment, and only one parcel of land was rejected after filing an application for land transaction permission with the competent authority, and no further application was filed after return, and the ownership transfer registration was made by means of reconciliation in litigation, the court below's decision that recognized Defendant 6 as having concluded the instant land sales contract with the intention of performing the contents of the contract from the beginning to the authority without reporting or obtaining permission, is justifiable. We cannot accept the argument that the instant land sales contract is merely an act of preparing the transaction contract on the premise that the pertinent land sales contract is to obtain a report or permission from the authority, and it is merely an act of preparing the transaction contract on the premise that it

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 6 entered into the instant land sales contract with the housing association, etc. at the time of original adjudication in collusion with Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4, the trustee in the name of the trustee, in connection with the land set forth in No. 1-2 through No. 6 of the List of Crimes in Attached Table 1 and the List No. 2 of Crimes List No. 2. However, it cannot be deemed that the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 6 alone was recognized as having entered into the said sales contract, or that it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, although examining the records, it cannot be found that the lower court's error affecting the process of fact-finding and judgment

6. In full view of various evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the point of receiving property in breach of trust and the 'illegal solicitation' of the 9-party 1 at the time of the original adjudication by Defendant 9, Defendant 9's original adjudication, the court below's decision that recognized that Defendant 9 received money at the time of original adjudication upon receiving a request from Defendant 6 to the same effect as the original adjudication, and that Defendant 6 did so and gave money to Defendant 9 at the time of original adjudication. It is just in the judgment of the court below that there was no ground for arguments as to the violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there was no ground for finding that the defendants violated the rules of evidence such as the crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust, the amount of property granted or received in relation to this request, and the frequency of this case's act of giving and receiving property in breach of trust, and there was no reason to recognize the above 9-party 6's unlawful solicitation with regard to this case's unlawful solicitation.

7. As to Defendant 5’s assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant 8’s attack at the time of original trial

Defendant 6’s statement that Defendant 6 met with Defendant 5 was previously heard from Defendant 7 on August 1990, it is clear that Defendant 5 received KRW 30 million cashier’s checks from Defendant 6 at the seat of Defendant 7 on August 18, 199, at around 19:0 and around 18:00.

Defendant 5 denies the fact that Defendant 6 voluntarily used for political activities from the original trial to the trial court, and delivered the above money to Defendant 6, such as the facts charged, and there was no threat by notifying Defendant 6 of harm and injury in relation to the issue of Suwon District Housing Association.

It is true that Defendant 5 knew of the problem of the above housing association in the course of discussing the measures to deal with the written applications for coal submitted to the ordinary public under the name of the 4th, 26th, the 4th, cooperative of Suwon District, in the name of the political party, using the status of the representative of the political party to obtain explanation or data on the above case, and to take money and valuables from the office of Defendant 6 below, and to the following purport that Defendant 5 would like to seek an explanation as necessary for the external announcement, and to hear the external problem, it would like to give an implied notice of harm and injury, and again, to present the same attitude as Defendant 6 only, or in relation to the above housing association, at the above 6th, in the above 4th, the defendant 5's office at the third, after the defendant 6's prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office at the first and the first trial date at the prosecutor's office at each of the above 7th, and thus, it should be viewed as an examination of the evidence.

First, as to Defendant 5’s statement of confession after the third time in the prosecution, the health expenses;

First, according to the statements made by Defendant 5 at the prosecutor's office, Defendant 5 took part of the facts of this case's crime when he was examined on February 14, 191 at the prosecutor's office, and when he was examined on February 14, 1991 at the first time on the following day, he was paid the money from Defendant 6 without any condition, and completely denied Defendant 6 the fact of attack that he was not guilty of telephone. On the same day, when the second interrogation was conducted and the third time statement was made on February 16, 191, he was made on February 16, 199, he was made to Defendant 6's office, but he stated that this case's crime was partially launched, and again, when he was examined on February 3, 1991, he was made on May 17, 199, and again, he made a statement on this case's housing association related to this case's issue, and he made it more concrete to deliver the money to Defendant 214.

However, on December 15, 191, 190, Defendant 5 conspired with Defendant 7 through Defendant 7 at the time of the third examination of the suspect, to the extent of KRW 20,000,00,00,00, which was delivered by Defendant 6 to Defendant 7, immediately after being asked for whether the petition related to the district is a bribe received from the National Assembly, and there was a confession by telephone related to the investment of the district housing association (No. 115, the investigation record) and Defendant 5 confirmed that the number of the funds in this case was received as pure political funds without any condition at the time of the second written statement by Defendant 7 at the time of the prosecutor's examination (No. 28, the investigation record) and that it was not possible for the prosecutor to make a statement at the time of the trial on February 15, 191, it was clear that Defendant 7 had made the above statement, but it was not clear that the first statement on Defendant 7 had been made to the public prosecutor's contrary to Defendant 7's statement prepared on the same month.

Second, on August 190, when Defendant 5 submitted to Defendant 6 a civil petition that the housing association and the company side request the special allotment of the housing site to the public, ordinary party, Seoul Special Housing Association, etc. in response to their mutual assistance, and it is not easily known that there is any corruption in relation thereto, it is not easy for Defendant 5 to find out that Defendant 5 knew of the corruption even during the bad work of the opposite person, and made intimidation in relation thereto.

Third, according to the statements of Nonindicted 5, 6, and 7 on August 20, 190, immediately before receiving the instant money, Defendant 5 had a positive expression of intention to accept a civil petition in accordance with the basic policy of the ordinary citizen's housing policy from the governor at the second interview with the person related to the housing association and the president of the ordinary citizen's political party on August 20, 190, and the next day, it is recognized that the political party had been collected in the direction of cooperation of the party in the issue of the horizontal political party association at the meeting of the ordinary citizen's political party, and under the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of a confession after the third time at the prosecutor's office of the Defendant, in view of the fact that the Defendant called the party against the party's policies or the president's will to whom he belongs, and that there was no clear understanding that the Defendant called the same contents as the facts charged as the Defendant tried to leave the problems of the party's policies or the president's (title omitted) group.

Furthermore, the prosecutor's office of Defendant 6 and the prosecutor's office of the first trial before the date of the examination of witness are examined.

First, the defendant 6 stated that he had a call from the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office's association and (name omitted) group that there are many problems with the witness examination process, and that there was a call to the effect that he wanting to give an explanation as necessary for the external announcement. However, according to the statement of the non-indicted 8 of the trial witness directly made to the defendant 6 and the statement of the certification statement made by the defendant 6, among the non-indicted 6, the defendant 5 was called to "I want to communicate with the defendant 6's body and want to confirm the authenticity without disclosing the specific authenticity," and the defendant 6 was reported to the defendant 6, "I have been called from the defendant 5's body," and the defendant 1 and the witness's statement made to the prosecutor's office as a witness, and the contents of the above statement made by the defendant 6 and the witness were not only the above 8's own phone and the witness's statement made to the prosecutor's office (the above statement made by the defendant 1 and the witness).

Second, Defendant 6, while he was tried to solve the problem of securing the housing site in the examination procedure of the prosecutor's office and the court of first trial before the trial date, thought that if he received a telephone from Defendant 5 and left as a change of the party, he would cause a enormous impediment to the promotion of special supply of the said housing site and business damage, and he would promptly give and resolve the money, and requested Defendant 5 to Defendant 7 as soon as possible by giving and arranging a job with Defendant 5. However, Defendant 6 does not deny the content of his own statement at the court below and the court of first trial that he did not deliver the money (No. 1028 of the trial record). Although Defendant 6 was able to listen to the sound of the above statement, even if Defendant 6 was able to have a telephone as above, Defendant 6 was able to easily obtain and deliver the money to Defendant 7 of the housing association without his own opinion and without his own opinion, Defendant 7 of the housing association's attempt to supply it.

Third, Defendant 6 stated that Defendant 5 took the horses that Defendant 5 entered the above Western hotel hotel room containing a problem related to (name omitted) (No. 64 of the investigation record), and the facts charged also stated that Defendant 5 had the same attitude in relation to the housing association at the hotel hotel room based on the above statement. However, Defendant 6 also reversed the above statement that Defendant 5 did not talk about the area housing association at the hotel hotel room located in the court below (No. 151 of the trial record), and Defendant 7's testimony that Defendant 5 did not take the place of promise at the late arrival of the promise place (No. 1151 of the trial record), and it is difficult to accept the above statement that Defendant 6 did not take the place of promise from the late arrival without the name of Defendant 6, and it is difficult to reach the late arrival of the promise, and there is no time to divide it between Defendant 5 and 2, and there is no other relevant personnel affairs (no. 3,000 if the next promise was made without the name of Defendant 6).

Fourth, Defendant 6 voluntarily delivered KRW 30 million to Defendant 7 on December 22, 1990 after the bill of commitment was concluded at the National Assembly Construction Committee. Defendant 6 delivered cashier's checks to Defendant 5. It is difficult to see that it is an act as a victim of public conflict.

Ultimately, the defendant 6's statement also lacks credibility.

Finally, in relation to the statement made by Defendant 7 at the prosecutor's office, Defendant 7 asked whether Defendant 5 met with Defendant 5 before the arrival of Defendant 6, at the guest room of the above Western hotel, and asked Defendant 5 to see whether Defendant 6 met with him, which is an issue of waterway, or Defendant 5 met with Defendant 6 before the arrival of Defendant 5, and stated that Defendant 5 met with the question of waterway housing association (the investigative record No. 172 et al.). However, as examined in relation to Defendant 5's confession statement, it is difficult to see that the prosecutor changed the initial statement to Defendant 5's advantage of the interests of Defendant 5, and that it is difficult to see that Defendant 6's testimony was made from the above prosecutor's hotel. However, it is difficult to see that Defendant 7 and Defendant 6's above statement was made from the above prosecutor's hotel.

Therefore, the confessions made by Defendant 5 by the prosecution, the statements made by Defendant 6 at the prosecutor's office and the examination procedure of witness examination before the first trial date, and the statements made by Defendant 7 at the prosecutor's office before the first trial date are not reliable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

8. Therefore, at the time of Defendant 1’s original judgment, the point of acceptance of each bribe under Section 1-C. H. and the corresponding point of the offering of bribe under Section 9-C at the time of Defendant 6’s original judgment, and the charges of Defendant 5 on the charge of the offering of bribe under Section 9-C at the time of Defendant 6’s original judgment and the charges of Defendant 5 should be pronounced not guilty because they fall under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts, but there is an error of law that the court below found Defendant 1 and 6 guilty of the facts charged without any evidence and affected the conclusion of judgment

However, the court below sentenced a single punishment by deeming that the above crime of acceptance of bribe and the remaining crime of the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime

9. The defendant 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 9 and the defendant 6's original adjudication of the court below 9-A. (b) and the defendant 9-A. (h) as to the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on the crime and the prosecutor's original adjudication of the defendant 2, 3, and 6's original adjudication of the court below 9-A. (h) as to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the crime.

Examining the records in light of all the circumstances that form the basis for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, such as the motive and background of the instant crime, the age, character and conduct, career, social status, impact on society, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is inappropriate for the lower court to sentence Defendant 7, 8, 9, and Defendant 6’s original judgment as to the crime. However, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is too unreasonable.

10. Accordingly, at the time of the appeal by the defendant 7, 8, and 9 and the original adjudication by the defendant 6, the appeal by the defendant 7, 8, and 9 and the appeal by the defendant 9-A. (h) at the time of the prosecutor's original adjudication and the appeal by the defendant 6-A. (h) at the time of the public prosecutor's original adjudication, the part of the judgment below against the above defendants is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and all of these appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 150 days for the defendant 8, and 140 days for the number of days of confinement after the appeal by the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the original adjudication by the defendant 6.

Except for the case of the first instance of the criminal facts of the first instance (the last sentence of the original judgment, No. 13), the term "in a restaurant" in the first instance of the criminal facts of the first instance (the last sentence of the original judgment), the term "in a restaurant" shall be read as "in an aquaculture," and the facts of the first instance of the first instance at the time of the original trial, the term "in a bribe of KRW 260,000,000 in total for nine times" in the first instance of the criminal facts of the first instance (the second half of the original judgment), and "in a bribe of KRW 17,00,000 in total over six times" in the first instance of the second instance judgment, the term shall be as follows:

Of the summary of the evidence at the time of the original adjudication, the "Defendant 5" is added to the "Defendant 1" in the third (Class 14 of the original judgment No. 28) and the fifth (Class 2 of the original judgment No. 29). In addition, the "Defendant 7" in the 9th (Class 6 of the original judgment No. 29) is deleted.

Of the above facts, Defendant 1’s act is comprehensively included in Defendant 4’s imprisonment, Article 2(1)1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 129(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1)3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and Article 129(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Defendant 1 and several acts against Defendant 6’s National Assembly members during the period of initial adjudication on the offering of securities (including several acts against Defendant 1 and Defendant 7), Article 133(1) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 40 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 6 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 30 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 6 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 7 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and Article 52(1)3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 6 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and Article 7(1)3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act.

Of the facts charged of this case

1. From March 1, 1989 to February 11, 1991, Defendant 1, who was in office as a secretary of the President’s office, while performing duties concerning the presidential performance of duties concerning culture and sports under the jurisdiction of the chief secretary of the administrative affairs and the handling of civil petitions against administrative agencies including Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc.;

A. On April 8, 1990, 1990, in the hotel restaurant located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, and 26 housing associations such as the No. 4th workplace housing association, etc. from Defendant 6 to the presidential secretary's office on January 8, 198 of the same year, submitted to the President's office and the defendant was in charge. He received a solicitation to the effect that the public officials concerned are urged to encourage and urge the public officials concerned so that civil petitions regarding the request for special supply of housing sites in the housing association in the river zone can be accepted by Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and

(b) to receive a solicitation from Defendant 6 to urge the relevant public officials in charge of construction of the above civil petition from Defendant 6 at the above lot hotel restaurant on July 1 of the same year, and to receive KRW 30,000,000,000;

C. On December 12 of the same year, in response to Defendant 6’s request from Defendant 6 to the National Assembly Construction Committee to the effect that it would have been passed at the same petition as the above civil petition, the National Assembly will be well promoted later, and the cashier’s checks received 30,000,000 won in total on three occasions in connection with his duties, and received a bribe of KRW 90,000,000 in total, over three times;

2. (Name omitted) Defendant 6, as the president of the Group, delivers a bribe of KRW 90,000,000 in total to Defendant 1 on three occasions on the same basis as the statement in paragraph 1;

3. Defendant 5 is a member of the Peace Democratic Party of the preceding North Korea to be elected from November 1, 1989 to January 6, 191. From January 7, 1991 to the office chief of the office of the president from January 7, 1991, and around June 190 to the above 26 housing association's special supply of the above housing site to the above housing association is suspended in accordance with the opinion that the above 6 housing association's special supply of the housing site is unreasonable, and since the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th election offering of bribe, Defendant 5 is not guilty of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th order of the above company's provision of the above housing site to the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th order's explanation or request for materials, it is hard to see that the above 6th order of the above company's general supply of the housing site to the victim's 6th of the above 6th order.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-han (Presiding Judge)