Defendant

Lee Dong-Support

Attorney Park Tae-sung

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

361 days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

334,165,565 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On September 5, 1983, the defendant was specially appointed as a police officer, and the chief of the National Police Agency (department omitted) from January 4, 200 to April 22, 2002, through the head of the Criminal Police Agency of the Seoul District Police Agency and the head of the investigation division of the Jeonnam District Police Agency, etc. were in charge of counter-payment collection and investigation related to corruption of senior public officials, investigation of corruption-related incidents, collection and investigation of serious crimes contrary to the national and social interests, and management of intelligence related to President relatives, etc.

1. The case holding that, despite the fact that Non-Indicted 1's acquisition of shares by Non-Indicted 1's notification of the trends of friendship with the President during the performance of his duties and his refusal to do so to Non-Indicted 1's personnel, etc. (the omission of the political party)'s right to defense, the defendant would be able to properly process as stated in the "act of the defendant" in the [Attachment Table 1]'s solicitation and the defendant's act" with the same solicitation, and that the defendant would be able to assist in various solicitations of Non-Indicted 1, and that the defendant's money and valuables or proprietary benefits were to be provided by Non-Indicted 6's fraud, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3's delivery of shares in the name of Non-Indicted 100,000,000 won of shares issued by Non-Indicted 10,000 won of the above 100,000 won of shares [the above 100,000 won of shares issued by Non-Indicted 1, etc.

2. The case holding that on June 200, 200, after receiving the request from non-indicted 10, non-indicted 11, etc. to investigate the management rights of the non-indicted 5 corporation's non-indicted 10 and non-indicted 11, etc. who he had the management rights from non-indicted 8, he provided money and valuables or property benefits to the non-indicted 8 by investigating the above non-indicted 10 and non-indicted 11 under the suspicion of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act and sending them to the prosecutor, the case that "the non-indicted 1, 640,00 won and the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 10's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 25's non-5's non-indicted 25'

3. On April 2001, at the only investigative restaurant located in Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, 463, and the representative director of the 13 stock company, Nonindicted 14 prepared casino business, such as: “The 15 Nonindicted 15, who is in charge of promoting casino business, shall be granted a down payment of 2 billion won to his hotel in Busan Metropolitan City, and rent his stores.” At the request of the Government, Nonindicted 15, who is in charge of promoting the casino business, shall confirm the identity of the person in the vicinity, and it shall be confirmed whether the Government plans to permit the casino business to do so.” At the same place in the same month, it is KRW 1 million in terms of expenses, KRW 2 million in gold under the same name, KRW 2 million in the same month, KRW 1 million in total at the same place in the same month, and KRW 1,600,000,000 in the same name, and Nonindicted 160,000 in the surrounding hotel of Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.”

【Paragraph 1 of this Article】

1. Entry of the accused in part of the trial records in the first, second, sixth, and seventh trial records;

1. Partial statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 in the protocol of the 11 and 12th trial

1. In each part of the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (including Nonindicted 1’s statement among the interrogation protocol of the 13th time) in the prosecutor’s office (each bound in the investigation record of the 2004 high-level 349 case);

1. A certified copy of the investigation record of the prosecution concerning Nonindicted Party 1 (not more than 108 pages, 108 pages, of the investigation records of the case, 2004 high-scale 349)

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution or protocol of statement against Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 1 (the investigation records of the case of 204 senior 349, Nonindicted 3541, Nonindicted 3595, Nonindicted 3647, Nonindicted 3690, and Nonindicted 37) and Nonindicted 37

1. Statement of each of the statements or a certified copy of the statement in Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 41 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 3517”)

1. In an investigation report [the Korea Lease Deposit of KRW 8 million (3°3° 137~1387 of the same investigation record}, the confirmation of deposit resources of KRW 50 million deposited by the Defendant to Nonindicted 42 (3° the confirmation of the fact that Nonindicted 1 paid-in stocks of the Defendant (3° 188~1901 of the same investigation record) and the confirmation report on the fact that Nonindicted 1 paid-in stocks of the Defendant (3° 188~1901 of the same investigation record), the attachment of the data on purchase of stocks of Nonindicted 6 Co. 4 (4° 204~206 of the same investigation record), the report on the result of tracking cashier's account (4° 204~181 of the investigation record) and the confirmation of the details of the account of Nonindicted 3's account related to Nonindicted 4, 208(2) through 2324 of the investigation record and the statement on the number of voting rights of Nonindicted 2 and 475 of the investigation records (3).

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. The defendant's partial statement in the eighth trial records;

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 43 in the 9th trial record

1. In the second and third examination records of the accused, some statements and records of the accused in the investigation records of the prosecution (which are bound to one of the investigation records of the case of 2004 Gohap993);

1. The statement in each prosecutorial statement made by Nonindicted 26 (which was bound to one of the investigation records in the case of 2004 Gohap993), Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 43, and Nonindicted 45

1. In the investigation report [the defendant's investigation report (one right 5 and 19 of the investigation records in the case of 2004 high-level 993), one right 5 and 19 of the investigation records in the National Police Agency, one right 20 and 22 of the records of the investigation records in the case of application for investigation (one right 7 pages of the investigation records in the same investigation records), one right 1 right 7 of the copies of the investigation records in the case of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act (one right 82,83 of the investigation records in the same investigation records), one right 82, 83 of the report on commencement of investigation in the case of overlapping of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act (one right 92, 93 of the investigation records in the same investigation records), the investigation records related to the case of the non-indicted corporation 9 (one right 92,93 of the investigation records in the case of non-indicted corporation 9, one right 18 through 192 of the investigation records), the non-indicted 20 (12 and two right 94 of the air fares).

【Paragraph 3 of this Article】

1. The defendant's partial statement in the eighth trial records;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the defendant (including Nonindicted 14 of the interrogation protocol of the suspect in the fourth interrogation protocol of the case, which is bound to two copies of investigation records of the case)

1. Statement concerning Nonindicted 14 at each prosecutor’s office’s examination protocol

1. Report on the result of tracking the account of the financial resources from the Defendant’s debt repayment (2: 4.13 pages of investigation records in the case of 2004Dahap9993), investigation report [2.135 pages of the file of the casino casino lease agreement (2.2.12.135 pages of the investigation records in the case of 14), confirmation of the universal identification of the investigation as well as the Seoul Location Confirmation (156 pages of the investigation records in the case of 156 pages)]

1. Determination as to the assertion on Paragraph 1 of the judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

(i) argument on the facts related to business relationship (the entire indictments)

In addition, the Defendant did not receive a request from Nonindicted 1 for an investigation related to his duties as stated in the Act on the Trusting Contents and the Defendant’s Act, as well as the fact that: (a) neither informed Nonindicted 1 of the presidential relative trends, etc. nor asked the personnel of the (name omitted) party, etc. to request the preference to Nonindicted 1; (b) the investigation into the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation is merely directed the head of the Jeju District District Office to contact and investigate the fact that he received money in connection with the sports lottery tickets; (c) it was internal investigation upon Nonindicted 1’s request by Nonindicted 1 with Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 33; and (d) it was investigated as part of normal business affairs by understanding the suspicion of a crime; and (d) there was no question from Nonindicted 1 about the current status of investigation into the doctor belonging to the hospital; and (e) it was confirmed that the investigation into the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation was conducted with Nonindicted 31 and confirmed that the investigation was conducted with Nonindicted 36.

Brin [Attachment 2] Claim on Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Brain (related to duties)

In the case of Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant received them on the idea that he will receive help when it is purely or economically difficult, and in the case of Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from Nonindicted 1 because of lack of director's expenses, and borrowed KRW 20 million as he urgently needed for the repayment of debts, etc., each of the above money and valuables is not received money and valuables from Nonindicted 1 in relation to his duties as a case for solicitation from Nonindicted 1.

【Attachment 2】 Claim on Nos. 3 of the Bribery

㈎ 유상으로 구입하였다는 주장

The Defendant heard from Nonindicted 1 the word “10,00 won per share,” Nonindicted 6 purchased KRW 5,000 per share, which was 20,000,000, and agreed with Nonindicted 6 that the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 would jointly manage the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 as a measure for the old age while purchasing KRW 5,000,00 in addition to the remaining KRW 5,00,000, and agreed with Nonindicted 6 to take it as a measure for the old age. Nonindicted 1’s statement that “If Nonindicted 6 wishes to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 4, the transfer of KRW 100,000,00,00 to Nonindicted 6 was promptly returned to Nonindicted 6, but not by telephone, but was later remitted from Nonindicted 6, and thus, the profits equivalent to the said shares or shares were purchased to a legitimate amount, but not received in return for any solicitation.

㈏ 직무관련성이 없다는 주장

Even if the defendant was given free of charge, it is not the receipt of money or property benefits from the non-indicted 1 as a case for solicitation in connection with his duties, but it is the receipt of the money or property benefits in purely or economically difficult circumstances.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of facts

㈎ 직무관련성과 관련한 사실관계

(1) The facts listed in [Attached Table 1] Nos. 1 of the content of solicitation and the Defendant’s Act.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed by the prosecutor’s office: (a) the Defendant: (b) stated that “The Defendant was holding a pro-Japanese file, which was in custody of the retired team upon the abolition of the private team; (c) was in custody of these files in the office; (d) the Defendant was in custody of these files during the second half of 2001; (e) did not cause any problem if they were kept in the office; (d) the Defendant had been in charge of the investigation records of 204Da349 case; (e) there was a fact that the Defendant was in charge of the President’s pro-Japanese-related information; (e) Nonindicted Party 1, who was in force after the presidential election, was unable to receive treatment as much as his contribution; and (e) Nonindicted Party 1 had been in need of securing the surrounding information; (e) Nonindicted Party 1’s pro-Japanese relationship with the Defendant; (e) Nonindicted Party 1’s prosecutor’s right to the investigation records of this case; and (e) Nonindicted Party 3537 and Nonindicted Party 11’s statement during the trial date.

(2) The facts described in [Attached Table 1] 2 Nos. 2 of the content of solicitation and the Defendant’s Act.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to the effect that “it is true that there is any problem, although there is no explicit statement to the Defendant,” Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to the effect that “The 11th trial record is being examined,” Nonindicted Party 26, Nonindicted 22, and Nonindicted Party 20, etc. who was investigated as employees of the said Corporation at the time of investigation, are consistent with each other. According to their statements, according to their statements, the Defendant explicitly directed Nonindicted Party 20 to visit the said Corporation in relation to “the selection of sports-for-all business operators,” the fact that Nonindicted Party 21 et al. requested data from Nonindicted Party 20 at the time of the said investigation, the fact that Nonindicted Party 21 et al. was recognized at the Jeju-do Office’s request for data on sports-for-all lottery business (the investigation record 7 rights 3591 through 3594 pages of the said investigation record), but there was no fact that the business related to sports lottery tickets was promoted.

(3) The facts listed in [Attached Table 1] 3 Nos. 3 of the content of solicitation and the Defendant’s Act.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, i.e.,, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “ Nonindicted 48 asked the Defendant to commit a fraudulent case through Nonindicted 46” (204Dahap349, 6, and 2676). Although Nonindicted 46 passed through, it was recognized that he requested to do so, it is recognized that Nonindicted 29 made it; and Nonindicted 29 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 48 received an investigation instruction by the Defendant on the basis of information related to the instant case.”

(4) The facts described in [Attached Table 1] 4 Nos. 4 of the content of solicitation and the defendant's act

The above facts are sufficiently recognized in full view of the following facts: (a) the process of the investigation of this case, which was acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, including Nonindicted 26’s statement, by the Defendant; (b) Nonindicted 49 was not included in the investigation agency; (c) after the completion of the first investigation report, the first investigation was included in the investigation agency by the Defendant himself; (d) Nonindicted 49 was issued a search and seizure warrant for Nonindicted Company 49 by a simple method, such as requesting a search and seizure warrant, while requesting a search and seizure warrant for Nonindicted Company 50 even though there was no internal investigation data on Nonindicted Company 49; (e) Nonindicted Company 49 was included in the subject of the investigation; and (e) even if Nonindicted Company was not drug wholesalers at the time of the first investigation; and (e) there was only an intention to accept more than five million won at the time of the first investigation, each of the above evidence was accepted by the doctor affiliated with the hospital (name omitted) as a result of the second investigation.

(5) The facts described in [Attached Table 1] 5] Nos. 5 of the content of solicitation and the defendant's act

Nonindicted 36 investigated Nonindicted 31 by Nonindicted 31 upon receiving the Defendant’s order from the Defendant as the principal of the marriage. After that investigation, Nonindicted 36 looked at Nonindicted 31, and thereafter, the Defendant’s “Non-Indicted 1’s talking about Nonindicted 1’s talking about Nonindicted 1’s talking about Nonindicted 1’s talking about it.” Nonindicted 1 stated that his act was by a deceased request (case No. 1 omitted), the investigation records of the case (case No. 3232, less than 3297 pages), and that Nonindicted 36’s statement and other evidence as seen earlier, the above facts are sufficiently recognized.

㈏ [별표 1] 「뇌물 수수 내역」 순번 3의 사실관계

In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 consistently made a statement that “the Defendant paid shares to Nonindicted Party 1” (where Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that Nonindicted Party 1 purchased 10,00 won in the name of his/her officer who is a broadcasting station that he/she knows, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that he/she was aware of the Defendant’s purchase of the said shares (7 rights of investigation records of 2004Gohap349 case) on the 12th trial date, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that “the above statement made at the prosecutor’s office is caused by mistake.” In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1’s prosecutor’s office and court’s other statements regarding this part of the facts, it is consistent, and it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted Party 1 and his/her family members and Nonindicted Party 1’s account that Nonindicted Party 2 did not receive 300 million won from his/her own account as stated in Nonindicted Party 1’s court’s written statement that he/she would not receive from Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1’s family members from 25200 billion.

【Judgment on the assertion that he does not have a business relationship

Whether a public official's profit constitutes a bribe as an unfair profit in relation to his duties shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official's duty, the relationship between the provider of the duty and the benefit, the relationship between the parties, the degree of interest, the circumstances and timing of receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is the legal interest protected by the legal interest protected by the law, whether the public official's receipt of the benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties and the trust in society and the misappropriation of the act of performing his duties, or whether the public official's receipt of the benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties from the general society shall be the basis for determining the gender of the crime of bribery. If a public official receives the benefit or other benefits from the person who is subject to his duties, it shall be deemed that the person has received the benefit or other benefits from the former public official, and it shall be deemed that it is merely a reward in light of the social norms, or if it is obviously deemed that the individual relative relationship was due to the demand of the public official, even if having received the benefit from 90.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant received money and valuables or proprietary benefits as stated in [Attachment Table 2] from Nonindicted Party 1 [Attachment Table 2], without consideration (the Defendant and his defense counsel claimed that the money stated in 4 and 5 above were borrowed money, but, in other words, Nonindicted Party 1 did not have the intent to repay money at any time to the investigative agency, but did not have the intention to do so, at any time, because it would not have the intention to do so.” The Defendant stated that “in fact, he would be flick to the Defendant,” and “in fact, he would have left the Defendant.” In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 stated for the same purpose in the court (the Defendant’s name and the National Police Agency) and that there was no difference between the Defendant and the Defendant’s money and the Defendant’s money and valuables at any time (the value of the Defendant’s money and valuables at any time was 6) and there was no difference in the amount of money and valuables at any time when it was actually borrowed to the extent that it did not have been directly different from the Defendant’s money and money and valuables.

Rather, even if the defendant and the non-indicted 1 entered into a very friendly relationship with the non-indicted 1 as the same head of the Dong, the defendant and the non-indicted 1 stated that the defendant met with the status of the person to be polled or rapidly friendly with each other, the non-indicted 1 stated that "on the occasion of the defendant's delivery" (the 11th protocol of trial) is not different from the government of the citizen, and the non-indicted 1 stated that the defendant's act of receiving money from the non-indicted 1's investigative agency is not very reliable if he/she received money from the defendant's non-indicted 2's official's official duties and the defendant's act of receiving money from the non-indicted 1's official duties and the non-indicted 1's official duties and the defendant's act of receiving money from the non-indicted 1's official duties and the acts of receiving money from the non-indicted 2's official under his/her own name during his/her own trust, etc. (the 1111st protocol of trial) is recognized that the defendant received money from the defendant.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, as seen above, this part of the facts charged is fully convicted, and the above argument is without merit.

2. Determination as to the assertion on Paragraph 2 of the judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

(i)The assertion on the facts

㈎ 금원 수수 부분에 대한 주장

The amount that the defendant received from Nonindicted 8 in early April 2001 is three million won.

㈏ 왕복항공권 등 수수 부분에 대한 주장

The Defendant received from Nonindicted 43 the right of return flight in Indonesia and Nonindicted 9 Company’s peace visa card, and was unaware of whether it would give Nonindicted 8.

Doz. argument that there is no duty relationship

The Defendant heard from Nonindicted 8 that he would request the investigation of the Alley M&A's forces, and received the application for investigation from him, and received it from Nonindicted 45 to examine whether it is possible to investigate the facts, and requested the person in charge of investigation to fairly change the handling of the case because Nonindicted 8's children were assaulted by Nonindicted 8, so it does not receive money and valuables in return for the request.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of facts

㈎ 금원 수수 부분에 대한 주장

The Defendant consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office that the amount received from Nonindicted 8 is KRW 15 million (204 high Gohap993 investigation records of the case), and the initial prosecutor’s office stated that “No money was paid from Nonindicted 8, and there was only a fact that there was any money returned from Nonindicted 8, and there was any money transaction with Nonindicted 43, which was returned KRW 15 million (1st page of investigation records of the same investigation records),” and stated that “the Defendant received KRW 15 million from Nonindicted 8 on April 1, 2001 after receiving KRW 15 million from Nonindicted 8” (1st page 214 of investigation records of the same investigation records) and “The Defendant’s statement that was returned money from Nonindicted 43 is false unless there was any money transaction with Nonindicted 43 and that it was returned from Nonindicted 43 on the previous investigation records of the case). In full view of the changes in the Defendant’s statements made from the prosecutor’s office about KRW 15 million,500,000.

㈏ 왕복항공권 등 수수 부분에 대한 주장

The Defendant made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “Non-Indicted 8 purchased two copies of the right to return to and from Indonesian Republic of Indonesia’s coffee shop on July 200, 200, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted 8 purchased two copies of the right to return to and from Indonesian Republic of Indonesia,” and that the credit card is “the 1st, 213, and 274 pages). Nonindicted 43 who introduced the Defendant and Non-Indicted 8 in the court and prosecutor’s office consistent with “Non-Indicted 8 did not know that there was any kind of work between the Defendant and Non-Indicted 8 on June 1, 200 at the New Hotel shop in Seoul, the Defendant did not receive any money relationship or solicitation between the Defendant and Non-Indicted 8, and it did not seem to be contradictory to the Defendant’s statement or solicitation from the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office, even if there was no reason to believe that it was difficult for the Defendant to receive any money relationship or solicitation from the Defendant.”

【Judgment on the assertion that he does not have a business relationship

In relation to the crime of bribery, even if the pertinent public official does not have the right to decide on his/her duties, it includes cases closely related to the act of his/her duties and acts of actual management (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do597 delivered on September 12, 1989). As seen earlier, if a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties from the person subject to his/her duties, it shall be deemed that he/she received money and valuables or other benefits from the former public official, and it is merely an ordinary cost in light of the social norms, or it shall not be deemed that there is no relation with his/her duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where he/she can be clearly recognized that his/her personal-friendly relationship is due to the need for school division. If he/she received money and valuables in relation to the public official's duties, it shall be deemed that the received money and valuables are a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4940 delivered on January 21, 200).

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, according to the defendant's statement and investigation report at the court of the National Police Agency (the filing of rules on division of duties of the National Police Agency), it is recognized that the defendant was responsible for the investigation with the National Police Agency chief (the name omitted). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's receipt of an investigation application and instruct subordinate employees to investigate the case, and the act of receiving money and valuables by calling to the person in charge of investigation at the police station and requesting a fair handling of the case, constitutes an act that is closely related to or actually managed in relation to the defendant's duties within the authority and authority of the police station. In light of the social rules that the defendant received money and valuables from the non-indicted 8 and the non-indicted 8 received money and valuables, it is difficult to view that the defendant and the non-indicted 8 were an act that is included in a duty that is closely related to or actually managed in relation to the defendant's duties. In addition, considering the fact that the defendant's receipt of money and valuables from the non-indicted 8 coincides with the time of the defendant's money and valuables.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, as seen above, this part of the facts charged is fully convicted, and the above argument is without merit.

3. Determination as to the assertion on Paragraph 3 of the judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

(i)The assertion of facts

The Defendant did not receive KRW 5 million over three occasions between Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 14 from the beginning of April 2001 to the end of the last day.

Shesing that there is no relevance to duties or business relationship.

The defendant confirmed the identity of the person near the part of the president's denial, and received a request from the government to confirm whether the casino business permission plan has been plans for the casino business plan from the non-indicted 14, but he did not know it. However, in the case of hearing such remarks, the defendant merely consulted the non-indicted 14 to the effect that "the person's identity is changed, the casino business is two only," and the amount of KRW 10 million received from the non-indicted 14 was introduced by the non-indicted 14 to the non-indicted 1 to export the singing machines produced by the non-indicted 14. Even if the defendant received money under the same name as the facts charged, the matters related to the casino permission plan of the government are not included in the scope of the defendant's authority.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of facts

Nonindicted 14 consistently made a statement to the effect that “The defendant delivered KRW 1 million, KRW 2 million, and KRW 2 million to the defendant in sequence on or around April 2001,” upon the prosecutor’s investigation three times (However, it was somewhat unclear that the defendant received KRW 3 million or KRW 5 million after he/she under investigation with the defendant, but Nonindicted 14 made a statement as to the reasons stated above. However, it is clear that Nonindicted 14 made a statement as to the reasons stated as above, “It was due to the fact that the defendant alleged that he/she did not continue to be the defendant, and that he/she did not cause any confusion with others at his/her suspicion,” and that it was sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant received KRW 2 million from Nonindicted 14 on April 14, 201, including the above evidence (204Da993 investigation records of the case of this case, KRW 1.5 million), and that it was sufficient to accept the above Nonindicted 14 on April 5, 2004.

D. Determination on the assertion that she has no relevance to duties or business relationship

In the prosecution, Nonindicted 14 stated that “The reason why the Defendant gave KRW 10 million to the Defendant was known that he did not have a casino permission plan. If he had known that he did not know that he did not have a casino permission plan, Nonindicted 14 said that he would do so. If he had known that there was a lot of expenses incurred in operating the casino office related to the casino permission, he thought to be a party in order to prevent waste by informing the Defendant of accurate information, and so he could have been able to do so (2nd right 143 of the investigation records of the case of 2004Dahap993).” Meanwhile, the prosecution consistently stated that “The Defendant made a statement that was given to Nonindicted 14 in consideration of the fact that he was enrolled in Seoul and was in need of a close room at the time of Nonindicted 14’s entry in Seoul, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Defendant’s statement as a substitute for Nonindicted 14 in the prosecutor’s office’s statement that was given to him in consideration of the above facts.”

In addition, even if the public official does not have the right to decide on his duties in the crime of bribery, the act of collecting and notifying the information on whether the plan for the casino business is planned by using the status and connection of the chief of the division of the National Police Agency (name omitted) and giving and receiving money and other valuables shall be recognized as receiving money and other valuables in relation to the duties of managing the Presidential-friendly data, which are closely related to the defendant's duties or actually managed by him, according to the evidence mentioned above, such as the defendant's statement in the court of the National Police Agency (name omitted).

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, as seen above, this part of the facts charged is fully convicted, and the above argument is without merit.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) and Article 134 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment) comprehensively for the acceptance of bribe under Article 1 of the Decision

- Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively cover the acceptance of bribe under Article 2 of the Act.

- Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively cover the acceptance of bribe to the third person

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of the Criminal Act with the largest punishment

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances in the grounds for sentencing)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Ratification;

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

[Calculation of Additional Collection Value] The value of 15,000 won for shares of non-indicted 4 corporation received by the defendant should be based on the value as at the time of the declaration. However, according to the investigation report (the confirmation of the market price of shares of non-indicted 4 corporation, the calculation of the bribe value), it can be recognized that the monthly average share price of 20,000 won for each of the above shares was formed before and after March 201 through June of the same year, which is the time when the defendant acquired the above shares. Thus, even if the non-indicted 1 at the time recognized as the basic price for the calculation of the additional collection amount for each share acquired from non-indicted 4 corporation, the additional collection amount for the defendant is no less than 34,165,565 won [=8,000 won + 100,000 won + 100,000 won + 70,000 won + 50,000 won + 500 won + 50,50000 won shares

Although the defendant is a police officer who is in the position of the chief of the National Police Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "National Police Agency") and has a duty to perform his/her duties fairly, he/she did not abide by the integrity of duties required as a police officer by accepting a bribe in relation to his/her duties for a specific private person's interest. Furthermore, the defendant caused enormous national and social losses due to the so-called Cheong investigation or involvement in private interests by taking advantage of the status of a high-ranking police officer, and caused public officials to fall off the ground. Even if the defendant actually committed a criminal act upon the request of a private person, it is nothing more than an incidental result, and the defendant's act of duties has already been lost social authority, as the defendant's act of performing his/her duties is against unjust money and goods or interest, it has already been obtained more than KRW 300 million due to the crime of this case, and the defendant was punished overseas to escape from punishment than punishment in the United States, and it is inevitable that the defendant did not have any mental harm or punishment for his/her own criminal act.

1. Summary of the facts charged

From January 4, 200 to April 22, 2002, the defendant served as the director of the National Police Agency (name omitted) division, and was in charge of the overlapping, repair collection and investigation of high-ranking public officials' corruption-related corruption-related corruption-related investigation, investigation of Cheongcheon-gu subordinate case, investigation of national and social interests, and informed Non-Indicted 1 of whether (name omitted) hospitals are involved in the rebates of medicines being investigated in the National Police Agency (name omitted) and ordered Non-Indicted 49 to additionally investigate the subordinate employees upon the request of the investigation of Non-Indicted 49, and to additionally investigate the proceedings of Non-Indicted 49, the defendant received KRW 500,000 from Non-Indicted 50,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 500,000,000,000,00.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

There is no fact that the Defendant received the above money and shares from Nonindicted Party 1.

3. Determination

A. Determination on whether to receive money

(1) Evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged

As evidence that the defendant was found to be consistent with or consistent with the fact that he was given the same money as the above facts charged by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 56, the prosecutor's and the court's statement (including the court's statement in the case where Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 56 were tried by the defendant as the defendant), Nonindicted 41 and Nonindicted 53's prosecutor's and court's statement, Nonindicted 57's prosecutor's statement, investigation report (Attachment to the prosecutor's statement in the first instance court, the appellate court, the court of final appeal, the court of final appeal, the court of final appeal, and the court's protocol) are written, each investigation report (204Da349's investigation records of this case less than 568 pages, not more than 961 pages, not more than 1045 pages, not more than 1071 pages, not more than 1134 pages, not more than 1215 pages, not more than 124, not more than 1270 pages, etc.) are examined.

Shed Nonindicted 1’s statement

In the course of investigation, Nonindicted 1, a doctor of a hospital (name omitted) denied the fact that he/she received money from Nonindicted 57 until he/she was investigated into the suspicion that he/she received unjust money and valuables from a pharmaceutical company in return for solicitation of the Defendant and received money from Nonindicted 57, and made a statement to the effect that on May 30, 2002, he/she received KRW 150 million from Nonindicted 57 and delivered KRW 70 million among them to the Defendant. On June 24, 2002, he/she maintained a statement to the effect that he/she received interrogation of the suspect and delivered all or part of the above facts charged to the court of this case, but it is difficult to believe that such statement was made for the following reasons.

㈎ 진술의 일관성 결여

Non-Indicted 1’s statement was originally made on the date, time and place where the Defendant delivered KRW 70 million to the Defendant, that “it was delivered at the Hack Scam restaurant on March 2001.” However, as seen in the part on Non-Indicted 1’s statement change [Attachment 3] of Non-Indicted 1’s statement change [Attachment 3], the statement is inconsistent with the following: (a) whether and whether to deliver the above money; (b) the date and place of delivery; (c) the reasons for determining the amount of money; (d) the reasons for determining the amount of money; (d) the source of money packaging; (e) the process of cash packaging; and (e) the circumstances after the delivery; and (e) the statement that was delivered at the Hacam restaurant on March 2001; and (e) the statement that was not in conformity with the previous and previous facts charged.”

㈏ 진술 번복의 합리적 이유 결여

On the other hand, it is difficult to reasonably explain the background or process that Nonindicted Party 1 changed the statement as above.

(1) The statement on whether to issue the certificate and the amount of delivery

However, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 5’s initial statement was 70 billion won, and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5’s statement was issued to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 50 million won, and that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 were divided into KRW 700,000,000 and KRW 700,000,000 for the Defendant’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 were 700,000,000,000,000 won, and that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 were 700,000,000,000 won, which were 70,000,000 won and 70,000,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won, which were 1 and 70,000,00 won.

(2) The statement concerning the process of preparing a “fact-finding certificate”

Around October 203, Nonindicted Party 1 prepared a written confirmation stating that, at the request of the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1 found Nonindicted Party 1’s defense counsel at the school university and hospital of the household that he was hospitalized, “I do not deliver KRW 100 million and shares of Nonindicted Party 55,00,00 to the Defendant,” and that “The Defendant’s statement that he issued it to the Defendant is insufficient to meet with the prosecutor’s oil and intimidation” (at the time of the aforementioned written confirmation, Nonindicted Party 1 prepared a written confirmation at the prosecution that “I would not know what Nonindicted Party 1 had already been hospitalized and that I would not return to the Defendant,” and that it would be difficult for the defense counsel to find out the fact that the Defendant’s defense counsel was unable to confirm the fact at the time of his interview with the Defendant at the time of his initial interview with the Defendant, and that it would be difficult for the Defendant to find out the fact that the Defendant’s defense counsel did not have any other content of the Seoul detention house at the time of interview with the Defendant.”

㈐ 최종적으로 유지되는 진술 자체의 신빙성 결여

① Contents of Nonindicted 1’s statement finally maintained

The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1, which is maintained following the change in the statement as seen earlier, can be summarized as follows: “Before completing the meal with the Defendant at around March 2001, Nonindicted Party 1 sent the shopping bags containing KRW 70 million to the Defendant, and Nonindicted Party 1 additionally delivered KRW 30 million in cash, which he/she had in order to provide KRW 50 million to the Defendant at the office, with Nonindicted Party 53, and around March 2001 (in the middle and lower order, it is unclear whether it is a business restaurant or a day restaurant at the office, it is unclear whether it is a business restaurant or a day restaurant at the office). In addition, it is difficult to believe that the above statement was made in light of the following circumstances.

② Posting Nonindicted 53’s statements

Examining the above 70 million won and the statement concerning the circumstances leading up to this, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted Party 5,000 won in cash,” which was first made by the prosecution, “Non-Indicted Party 5,000 won in cash,” and that Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted Party 5,00,000 won in a way that 10,000 won can be accumulated and 40,000 won in newspapers, and 30,000 won in a way that it was made up to 30,000 won, and 40,000 won in newspapers, and 200,000 won in cash, and 70,000 won in each of the above statements to the effect that “Non-Indicted Party 5,00,000 won were stored in newspapers,” and that it was difficult for the public to consistently make a statement to the effect that “non-Indicted Party 5,00,000 won in cash.”

(3) Examination points concerning the details of the delivery of KRW 30 million;

Nonindicted 1 made a relatively detailed statement on the source of KRW 70 million or its preparation. However, Nonindicted 1 made a statement that “it is difficult to disclose the source because it was prepared in cash at the time.” As to the packing method of KRW 30 million, it is difficult to deliver KRW 30,000 to the Defendant’s office’s 100,000 won or KRW 10,000,000 to the effect that it is difficult to deliver the said 300,000 won or KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s 10,000 won or KRW 70,000,000,000 to the above 10,000,000 won or KRW 10,000,000 to the above 30,000,000,000 won to the Defendant’s 1,000,000 won to the above 30,000,000 won.”

④ The fact that Nonindicted 56 had rapidly sought KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 56.

Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “ Nonindicted 10 million won was received from Nonindicted 48 on March 2001 and deposited KRW 150,000,000 among them on several channels, such as having the remaining money in cash, but Nonindicted 50,000 won was insufficient, and Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “ Nonindicted 56 would have received KRW 20,000 from Nonindicted 56 without speaking the purpose thereof, and delivered KRW 50,000 to the Defendant” (20,000,000 won, 578,000 won, which was received from Nonindicted 48). However, it is difficult to accept that Nonindicted 20,000 won, out of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was 10,0000 won, was 0,000 won for each of the following purposes, not for one another’s own account.

(5) Questions about the time when money is delivered to the defendant.

Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “after Nonindicted 57 received KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 57 to the Defendant, the Defendant made the statement to the effect that “The Defendant would come to come to go to the present, because he would be a bad,” (2nd right 1277 of the investigation records of the case of 2004Dahap349). At the 11st trial, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “The reason why the Defendant was unable to deliver money from Nonindicted 57 to the Defendant was “the reason why he was unable to deliver it to the Defendant is difficult to reach due to bad,” but according to the Defendant’s statement during the 6th trial date, etc., at the time, the Defendant was at a risk beyond the auction due to Non-Indicted 58’s failure to pay the guaranteed debt owed by the Korean Lease, and was given KRW 8 million from the Defendant to solve this problem, and there is considerable economic difficulty, such as changing money from other places, making it difficult to obtain money later.”

(6) Points of inconsistency between statements.

Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that, at the time of receiving KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 57 on the 11st trial date, Nonindicted 57 stated that “The Defendant would have prepared to deliver KRW 100 million to him.” However, during the 12th trial, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “ Nonindicted 57 would have come together with Nonindicted 55 Company on the ground that she would have contributed himself/herself to assist himself/herself, namely, Nonindicted 57 would have attempted to assist himself/herself, and that Nonindicted 57 would have attempted to assist himself/herself.” In case where Nonindicted 57 delivered money to Nonindicted 1 in relation to the business of Nonindicted 55 Company, the name of Nonindicted 1 would have no relation to having him/her properly handle the investigation related to hospital (name omitted) and thus, it is clearly contradictory to the statement at the 11th trial date of Nonindicted 1.

【Judgment on the remaining evidence

㈎ 공소외 56의 진술

Nonindicted 56’s statement mainly pertains to “the circumstances in which the Defendant and himself acquired some of the money and valuables from Nonindicted 57 and returned the stocks of Nonindicted 55 to Nonindicted 57” among the said money and valuables, and it is difficult to prove that Nonindicted 1 delivered KRW 100 million to the Defendant: Provided, That Nonindicted 56’s statement to the effect that “it was Nonindicted 1’s speech to deliver KRW 70 million or KRW 80 million to the Defendant at the end of the lapse of Nonindicted 1,” among Nonindicted 56’s court and prosecutor’s office’s statement, Nonindicted 56’s statement to the effect that “The statement was made that the Defendant delivered KRW 70 million or KRW 80 million to the Defendant,” which did not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, is inadmissible pursuant to the provisions of Article 310-2 of the said Act. In addition, there is no evidence that Nonindicted 56’s statement that “the Defendant received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 1, as the above Nonindicted 1’s statement.

㈏ 공소외 57의 진술

Nonindicted 57’s statement is primarily to the effect that “the Defendant provided money and valuables to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 56, and among them, it included the purport that the Defendant would be delivered as a case to the Defendant.” In fact, there is no evidence to prove the fact that Nonindicted 1 delivered money to the Defendant by Nonindicted 57 according to the purport that Nonindicted 1 gave money to the Defendant.

㈐ 공소외 53의 진술

Nonindicted 53’s statement is inconsistent with Nonindicted 1’s statement, as seen in the part of the judgment on Nonindicted 1’s statement, that read, “The Defendant prepared the shopping bags or bags 70 million won with the Defendant’s order, but there was no memory as to the fact that the Defendant packed the shopping bags or bags 70 million won with the Defendant’s office, but there was only the fact that the Defendant brought the shopping bags or bags 70 million won with the money, left part of them back, left back the remainder, and delivered the balance to the Defendant again.” In light of Nonindicted 1’s statement that “ Nonindicted 53 brought the shopping bags or bags 70 million won with the Defendant’s office and delivered the money to the Defendant,” it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 53 took part of the shopping bags or bags 50 million won with the Defendant’s office and delivered the money again to the Defendant, and therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that Nonindicted 53’s statement was delivered to the Defendant.

㈑ 공소외 41의 진술

공소외 41은 피고인의 운전기사로서, 그 진술 취지는 피고인을 ‘겨울이 아닌 계절에 신사동 이즈미일식당에 모셔다 드린 적이 있다’는 것일 뿐이고(그 후의 상황에 대한 기억은 없다는 것이다), 당시 공소외 1이나 공소외 1의 운전기사를 본 기억이 없다는 것이며( 공소외 1의 운전기사가 있었다면 밖에서 같이 대기하면서 서로 대화를 나눴을 가능성이 크다), 그 시기 또한 정확한 것이 아니고, 더군다나 당일 돈이 든 쇼핑백 따위를 본 기억이 없다는 것이며, 앞에서 공소외 1의 진술에 대한 판단 부분에서 본 바와 같이 공소외 1은 이 사건 법정에 이르러 위 이즈미 일식당에서 돈을 교부했는지 여부가 잘 기억나지 않는다는 것이므로 위 공소외 41의 진술은 이 사건 공소사실을 인정할 증거로 삼기에 부족하다.

㈒ 수사보고( 공소외 1에 대한 1심, 항소심, 상고심 판결문 및 공판조서 첨부)의 기재

According to the above evidence, in the criminal case against the non-indicted 1, it can be acknowledged that the non-indicted 1 was sentenced to a final judgment of conviction on the ground that the non-indicted 1 provided money and valuables as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, according to the above evidence, the non-indicted 1 conspired all of the facts charged at the trial at the time of the trial, and the non-indicted 1 was merely a statement and investigation report (information on the track name omitted) by the non-indicted 57 and the non-indicted 56 (information on the track name omitted). Thus, it can be found that the non-indicted 1's confession statement was actually used as a conclusive evidence of guilt. At the time, the attorney of the non-indicted 1 appears to have been able to have shown in the regular argument related to the sentencing (for example, the part on the investigation record of this case 204Da3499). However, as seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to believe the non-indicted 1's statement in this case, it is hard to say credibility of the non-indicted 11's statement in the final judgment.

㈓ 피고인의 해외도피 경위에 관한 판단

According to evidence such as the statement of the Defendant at the court and the prosecution and the transcript of the investigation report (the attachment to Nonindicted Party 1). The Defendant left Hong Kong on April 14, 2002 immediately after the issue of the so-called “Nonindicted Party 1,” and went through Hong Kong and Japan, and was arrested in the U.S. on April 20, 202, and was delivered to the U.S. police on March 18, 2004 pursuant to the extradition treaty between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. on the charge of Nonindicted Party 1’s accusation of Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 1’s accusation of Non-Indicted Party 1. However, as seen in the judgment of the court below, it appears that there was no suspicion of the Defendant’s involvement in the investigation of Non-Indicted Party 1 as to Non-Indicted Party 4’s right to escape and thus, there was no reason to support this part of the facts charged, including the Defendant’s instruction of Nonindicted Party 1 to arrest.

㈔ 기타 수사보고서 등의 증거들

The remaining evidence is mainly related to the investigation process with respect to Nonindicted Co. 55, the movement route of money and valuables between Nonindicted Co. 57, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 56, and so long as it cannot be deemed a direct evidence to prove that the Defendant received money and valuables, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 1, as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Determination as to whether Nonindicted 55 Co., Ltd. received shares

(1) Evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged

The evidence attached to this part of the facts charged as follows: each statement of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 56, and Nonindicted 57, investigation report (the first instance trial against Nonindicted 1, the appellate trial, the judgment of the court of final appeal, and the protocol of trial) and each investigation report, as seen in the part as to whether the above money was received or not; therefore, the evidence is examined as to each evidence.

Shed Nonindicted 1’s statement

Although Nonindicted 1 maintained the statement to the effect that “the defendant has delivered shares as stated in the facts charged above,” before the statement in the instant court was made, Nonindicted 1’s above statement is not reliable in light of the following circumstances.

㈎ 진술의 일관성 결여

Non-Indicted 1’s statement (attached Table 3), as stated in the statement on the issuance of shares to Non-Indicted 55 of the Act on the Details of Non-Indicted 1’s change in statement, is reversed or lacks consistency as to whether or not the Defendant issued shares, as stated in the statement on the issuance of shares to Non-Indicted 1.

㈏ 진술 번복의 합리적 이유 결여

위 금원 수수 여부에 대한 판단 부분{3. 가. ⑵ ㈏ ②항}에서 본 바와 같이, 공소외 1이 자신의 종전 진술과 전혀 다른 내용의 사실확인서를 변호인에게 작성해 주면서 그 뒤 다시 사실확인서의 기재 내용을 번복하고 있는 이유에 관하여 납득하기 어려운 점이 있다.

㈐ 진술 자체의 신빙성 결여

With respect to the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in this part, the health team, and Non-Indicted 1 initially made a statement that “the degree of 5,000 shares was delivered from Non-Indicted 57 through Non-Indicted 56,” and that “the degree of 40,000 shares was delivered” thereafter, and the statement that “the defendant delivered several shares” was changed over two times, and Non-Indicted 1’s attitude to reduce his responsibility is likely to be deemed to be aimed at reducing his responsibility. On the other hand, Non-Indicted 1, who made a consistent statement at an investigative agency, stated that Non-Indicted 1 who delivered 40,00 shares consistently, does not seem to have any special reason to reverse his statement, Non-Indicted 1’s statement that “the defendant and the defendant delivered shares?” After being examined by the prosecution, it is difficult to reverse the above statement that “the defendant and the defendant are not memory or memory in the event of a clear delivery of shares.”

【Judgment on the remaining evidence

① Each statement made by Nonindicted 56 and Nonindicted 57

Each statement made by Nonindicted 56 and Nonindicted 57 is sufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, insofar as Nonindicted 57’s primary purpose is Nonindicted 56 and Nonindicted 57’s own share 140,00 shares to Nonindicted 56 and Nonindicted 1; Nonindicted 56 had 40,00 shares among them; the remainder was brought to Nonindicted 1; and it does not include the fact that Nonindicted 1 delivered shares to the Defendant; thus, insofar as Nonindicted 1’s statement is not believed to have been made, each of the above statements is insufficient

② A statement of investigation reports (to be attached to the first instance court, appellate court, the final appeal court, the final appeal judgment, and the protocol of trial against Nonindicted 1).

According to the above evidence, in the criminal case against Non-Indicted 1, it can be acknowledged that Non-Indicted 1 was sentenced to a final judgment of conviction on the ground that he provided money and valuables as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, as seen in the judgment on the receipt of money, the above final judgment cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

③ Determination on the circumstances leading up to the defendant’s overseas escape

For the same reason as seen in the part of the judgment on whether to receive the above money, as long as Nonindicted 1’s above statement is unable to be trusted, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

(4) Other evidence including investigation reports.

The remaining evidence concerns the progress of the investigation on Nonindicted Co. 55, and it cannot be deemed a direct evidence to prove that the Defendant received shares from Nonindicted Co. 1, and so insofar as it does not believe the above Nonindicted Co. 1’s statement evidence, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received shares as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is a case where the necessity to examine whether a bribe exists or not, etc. does not exist, but as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of Article 1 of the holding that a single comprehensive crime is related,

[Attachment Table]

Judges, the highest perfecter (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea