logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.01.13 2014고합239 (2)
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
Text

1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by imprisonment for two years, respectively.

2...

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

C It is the actual management owner of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “K”), L Co., Ltd., M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”), M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”), and O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) (the change of trade name in P Co., Ltd. on December 12, 2010).

1. On May 2010, Defendant A Korea Electricity Corporation contracted part of the R section to T Co., Ltd., and U.S., Inc., Ltd., for each of the R section parts among the construction of the Incheon QR and the S section power distribution line (hereinafter “ Q Q Corporation”).

Defendant

C was awarded a subcontract for the part of the S Section among Q Q in the name of U, etc. and subcontracted for the R Section in the name of L and K from T, etc.

On the other hand, on July 9, 2010, the Korea Electric Power Corporation entered into a supervision service agreement with Q&V corporation, and Defendant C was awarded a subcontract for the said supervision service in the name of P(O).

Defendant

A is a person who becomes a responsible supervisor for Q Q Corporation and is deemed a public official under the Electric Technology Management Act.

Defendant

A received a total of KRW 214,679,610 from around September 3, 2010 to around 4,707,870 from around September 3, 2010 and from around that time to June 11, 2014, Defendant C received a transfer of KRW 214,679,610, as shown in attached Table 4, from around that time to around June 1, 2014. Of the aforementioned money, the part of the bribe as an unfair profit, in addition to the portion of the price for the supervision of Q Q corporation, was included

As a result, Defendant A accepted a bribe which could not specify the amount of his duties.

2. Defendant B

A. The Defendant B, who leased a supervisor’s qualification certificate, was verified as a supervisor of construction supervision of electric facilities pursuant to the Electric Technology Control Act, and was operated by the company X (the management owner of V), which was located in the company of the Nam Young-gun from October 19, 2009 to January 7, 2010.

arrow