2010Gohap1682 A. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence)

(b) Subsequent to the acceptance of a bribe; and

(c) Fraud;

(d) Acceptance of bribe;

(e) Embezzlement;

(f) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(g) Forgery of private documents;

(h) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(i) Offering of bribe;

1. A. (a) . (c) . (f) . h. h. h. h. h. h. - o (000 - 0000) - ○○;

Residential Hanam-si ○○○ 0000000000000

Reference domicile ○○○○○

2. (a) ○○ (0000 - 0000000), ○○

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO in Daegu-gu

Seoul Guro-gu ○○○○

3. ○○○ (0000 - 000000), ○○○

The residence of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○

○○○○○○○ ○ in the place of registration

Yang Jinho

Attorney Kim Heung-ung (Attorney Lee Ho-hoon et al.)

Attorneys Yellow-gu et al. (Law Firm Yuk-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 17, 201

Defendant ○○ shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years, by a fine of KRW 10 million for a crime set forth in Article 3(b) through (3) of the judgment, and by a fine of KRW 10 million for a crime set forth in Article 3(b) of the judgment.

When the defendant ○ does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The amount of KRW 8.94 million from ○○○○, and KRW 4.5 million from ○○○○○, respectively, shall be additionally collected. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to ○○○○.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Records】

Defendant ○○ was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Incheon District Court on September 17, 2008, and completed the execution of the sentence on April 9, 2009. Defendant ○○○ was sentenced to a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.

12. The Seoul Western District Court sentenced a person who violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) to imprisonment with prison labor and on January 30, 2009, which became final and conclusive on January 30, 2009.

[Criminal Facts]

1. Defendant Lee ○○

A. Acceptance of bribe

around May 2007, Defendant ○○ served as a police officer belonging to the Song Police Station and the Narcotics Investigation Team, and was in charge of information collection, arrest, investigation, etc. of drug offenders.

On May 26, 2007, Defendant ○○ obtained information that Defendant ○○ was administered with Mesopha psychotropic drugs (hereinafter “Handphone”), which was released from the Seoul detention center, and received a bribe in relation to his duties from Defendant ○○○○○, a daily restaurant located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○○○○, on May 30, 2007.

(b) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

around June 27, 2010, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Seocho-gu, around the same day upon the request of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office around April 27, 2010, which was designated and allocated by the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office as a charge of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) around April 27, 2010. On the same day, around 19:30 on the same day, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Seocho-gu, Seoul, is highly related to the chief and investigators in charge. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ upon the request from the public. Defendant ○○○ requested that the instant case be closed and KRW 30 million, and Defendant ○○ approved this.

As a result, the defendant ○○ promised to receive money and valuables from the defendant ○○ under the pretext of solicitation or good offices with respect to the cases handled by public officials.

(c) Subsequent to the acceptance of bribe; and

Defendant ○○ served as a police officer from May 23, 2010 to December 3, 2010 of the Yongsan Police Station and a narcotics investigation team and was in charge of information collection, arrest, investigation, etc. of a narcotics offender. As such, Defendant ○ was under the duty to immediately arrest and hand over the relevant investigation agency when discovering a suspect, such as a narcotics offender who was nominated by an investigation agency after obtaining a warrant of arrest.

Nevertheless, Defendant ○○○ received a bribe of KRW 3.2 million in total on three occasions from Defendant ○○ who was designated and assigned by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, and Defendant ○○○ was aware of the fact that ○○○ was designated and assigned as above, and did not immediately arrest Defendant ○○○○, thereby committing an unlawful act. Defendant ○○○○, on June 30, 2010: around 00: (a) around 00, ○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, around the day when he received the name of Defendant 20,000 won; and (b) around the day when he received the name of Defendant 20,000 won from Defendant ○○○○○○○○, a police officer who did not know of the name of the head of ○○○○○○○○; and (c) around the day when he received the said name of Defendant 20,000 won.

2) On September 13, 2010, 2010, Defendant ○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○, located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, 1605 - 7, along with the head of both ○○○○, Park○, Kim○, and Defendant ○○○, etc., to drinks, beer, beer, and beer, etc., and Defendant ○○ ○ ○ was provided with an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 1.4 million in relation to his duties. As such, Defendant ○ ○ ○ was provided with an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 1.4 million in relation to his duties.

3) On September 18, 2010, 2010: around 30, 2010, Defendant ○○ received KRW 1 million from Defendant ○○ with respect to his duties from “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” in relation to his duties.

(d) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence);

Defendant ○○ is not a person handling narcotics.

1) On August 2010, 2010, ○○○○○○ was asked to request the Defendant’s ○○○○○ to use phiphones, and the Defendant agreed to seek phiphones if the security was thoroughly met, and the Defendant’s ○○ was urged to sell phiphones to the Defendant’s ○○○○, a person who is a criminal selling phiphones in Busan, who immediately engages in activities in Busan, to sell phiphones in the future.

On September 20, 2010, Defendant ○○ made a phone call to Defendant ○○○, and ○○ prepared for philopon. Defendant ○ said that 10g of philopon was 4,500,000 won, and Defendant ○ promised to trade philopon by phone call to ○○○○○, after consenting to this, and then Defendant ○ promised to trade philopon on the said condition.

Accordingly, ○○○ along with Defendant U.S. ○○ on the same day: around 59 around 18: around 59, using an automatic cash withdrawal machine at the agricultural cooperative ○○dong branch located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○.

The defendant, who transferred one million won out of the purchase price of philophone to the accounts in the name of the agricultural cooperative, and transferred 3.5 million won in the remainder of the purchase price of philophone to ○○ through this ○, an Kwikseter, who is an Kwikseter.

On September 21, 2010, 2010, after receiving ○○○’s request, Park Il-young concealed approximately ten grams of 10 opphonephones in the general futures box box, and sent it to ○○○ bus terminal via ○○○ high-speed bus at Busan-type bus terminal located in ○○○○○-dong, Busan-dong around September 21, 2010. The Defendant Lee○-○, and U-○ received ○○, around 13:0 on the same day, approximately ten grams of ○○○○○ bus terminal located in ○○○○○○, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant Lee ○-○ sold approximately 10 grams of 10,500,000,000, in collusion with Park○-○○ and U.S. ○○.

2) On September 24, 2010, Defendant ○○ was urged by Defendant ○○ to return the remaining philophones on the ground that the instant philophones purchased from Defendant ○○ on the ground that the instant philophones do not come, around 13:56 on the same day, Defendant ○○ transferred KRW 3 million out of the purchase amount of philophones to the post office account in the name of Defendant ○○○○ used by Defendant ○○, and returned it on the same day, around 18:0 on the same day, at around 18:0, he received approximately 5.3g of philophones from Defendant ○○ in the vicinity of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○-dong 983-1.

E. On November 23, 2010, 2010: around 30, 2010, ○○○○○○○○’s office located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○ Dong-dong (hereinafter “○○○○”). Around 30, 2010: (a) had ○○○○, an office manager, appointed a defense counsel before the completion of prosecution investigation regarding a violation of the Narcotics Control Act on the Defendant’s Lee○○○; (b) had ○○, who was arrested by the police and applied for detention from the Seoul Northern Site to dismiss the warrant from the prosecutor at the Seoul Northern Site, make an agreement to appoint a defense counsel stating ○○○ as ○○○’s delegate of the above agreement and have him sign it on his name (Provided, That ○○○○, an office manager, and the head of ○○○, a defense counsel, who acted in collusion with the Defendant for the purpose of exercising his authority without any authority.

Part 1 of the Agreement on Appointment of Defense Counsel which is sufficient to enter the rights and obligations of the name in a genuine private document was forged.

2) As in the same date and time as above 1) and at the same place as above 1), Defendant Lee ○, as in the above 1), issued a forged defense counsel appointment agreement to Kim ○○ who is aware of the forgery, and exercised it.

(f) Fraud;

Defendant 1, who was arrested at the Seoul Eastdong Police Station due to the suspicion of philophone medication, received KRW 40 million as if the cost of appointing counsel necessary to resolve the instant case was the cause of KRW 40 million and received KRW 10 million from his defense counsel. Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that he received KRW 10 million from his defense counsel by receiving the aforementioned KRW 10 million from his defense counsel.

On November 22, 2010, Defendant ○○○ was arrested as above on the charge of salphon medication, and the Defendant asked ○○○○○ to dismiss the detention warrant by means of appointing a defense counsel, etc., and Defendant ○○ called 40 million won. Defendant ○○ called ○○○○○○, who was the head of the Yongsan Police Station’s narcotics team, sent KRW 40 million to this ○○○○○○, a defense counsel’s fee, etc., the Defendant sent KRW 40 million to Defendant ○○○, a new beneficiary account used by said ○○○○○○○, as the Defendant informed ○○○ around November 23, 2010.

In addition, at around that time, the defendant Lee ○-○, a chief secretary of Dong○-dong's attorney-at-law, "it is sufficient to conduct business in the past of this year, but now, the appointment fee will be cut down by the reason that is difficult at present. The appointment fee shall be cut at KRW 30 million, and the amount of KRW 10 million shall be cut at KRW 14:30,000,000 on the same day from Kim ○-○-○'s office. At around 14:30, the above amount of KRW 40,000,000, out of KRW 10,000,000, which was owned by the defendant at the Dong○-○'s office.

As a result, the Defendant ○○ acquired 10 million won from ○○○○○.

(g) Embezzlement;

On November 23, 2010, at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office, the Defendant, the victim of this case, was dismissed, and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office arrested the Defendant ○○ again on the charge of salphone medication at the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office, and thereafter, the Defendant called the Defendant ○○○○ by communicating his defense counsel and asking ○○○ to request ○○ to additionally lend KRW 20 million to ○○○○○○, and accordingly, ○○ transferred KRW 20 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of Shin-young used by ○○○○ Attorney at the same time on November 24, 2010.

After that, the defendant Lee ○○ refused to appoint a defense counsel and demanded the return of the above KRW 20 million, and on November 25, 2010, the Dong○○○ attorney transferred the total amount of KRW 5 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of Kim○, designated by the defendant Lee○, and KRW 15 million to the above account in the name of Kim○, around November 26, 2010, and the total amount of KRW 20 million to each of the above accounts in the name of Kim○.

Defendant ○○ returned KRW 20 million to Defendant ○○○, and kept it for the purpose of Defendant ○○○, and embezzled it by paying KRW 3 million to Kim○○ at his own discretion as a security expense.

2. The violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Defendant ○○, etc. (influence) is not a person handling narcotics.

A. In collusion with the Defendant’s Lee ○○○, the Defendant purchased approximately 10 grams of 10,500 gramphones from Lee ○ and Park ○○, as indicated in paragraph (1).

B. 1) On September 21, 2010: (a) around 00 to 15: around 00, Defendant U20 administered opphones in collusion with Kim○-○ by inserting approximately 0.05g of opphones on his arms at the dwelling of ○ Officetel 401, Kim○-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and inserting approximately 0.05g of opphones on his arms; and (b) injection of approximately 0.05g of opphones on the arms of Kim○-○, in collusion with Kim○-○.

2) On September 21, 2010, at around 00: around 00, Defendant U20 administered 0.05 gramopon on his own arms at the domicile of Kim○○, and subsequently, Defendant U20 administered phiopon in collusion with Kim○ by inserting approximately 0.05 gramopon on his arms.

3) On September 21, 2010, Defendant U20-20: around 00 to 20: Around 00, Defendant U20 administered opphones in collusion with Kim○-○ by inserting approximately 0.05g opphones on his own arms, and inserting approximately 0.05g opphones on his arms in collusion with Kim○-○.

C. On September 24, 2010, at around 30: around 30, Defendant U20: (a) returned approximately 4.2 grams to Defendant U2○○○ on the ground that the instant clause fell from the instant clause, and received approximately 3.2 grams from Defendant U2○○ on the ground that the instant clause fell from the instant clause.

3. Offering of bribe by Defendant ○○○

A. The Defendant ○○○ delivered KRW 3 million to ○○○ as indicated in the first paragraph (a) to give a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

B. As stated in paragraph 1-C, Defendant ○○ offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by providing Defendant ○○○ with meals, alcoholic beverages, etc. equivalent to KRW 800,000,000 in total.

C. As stated in paragraph 1-C, Defendant Lee ○ offered a bribe in relation to public official’s duties by providing Defendant Lee ○○○ with an alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 1.4 million.

D. As stated in paragraph 1-C, Defendant ○○ delivered KRW 1 million to Defendant ○○○, as indicated in paragraph 1-C, to offer a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendant’s partial statement in law and each legal statement of the Defendant’s ○○○ and the Defendant’s ○○

1. Each legal statement of the witness, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, Kim○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○○ (only the defendant’s ○○○)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant Lee ○-○

1. Statement to the prosecutor with respect to ○;

1. A written statement of ○○;

1. Each investigation report (in relation to the remittance, the dispatch of baggage and the receipt confirmation, the account used by the suspect ○○○○○○, the details of currency, payment details of the drinking value (excluding the part of the investigator’s opinion), the attachment of the invoice for the ○○○○○ Entertainment Start-up, the attachment of the invoice for the ○○○○○ Accounting Book and Cash Receipt, and the attachment of an attorney’

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records and personal records of ○○○○, and criminal records of personal records and copies of respective judgments;

Application of Statutes

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

A. ○○○○: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 129(1) of the same Act; (2) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); (3) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); (4) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.; (4) of the Criminal Act; (5) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.; (3) of the Criminal Act; (4) of the Act on the Election of Narcotics, Etc.; and (4) of the Act on the Selection of Fraud; and (4) of imprisonment Ordinance No. 200

(b) Defendant U20: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), 2 subparag. 4(b), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the trade and medication of phiphones, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the receipt of phiphones and the choice of imprisonment)

C. ○○○○○: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe and the selection of a fine) and Articles 133(1) and 131(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe under Article 3-2(1) through (4) of the Criminal Act, including the offering of a bribe under Article 133(1) and 129(1)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant ○○: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○: The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of offering of bribe and the crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the crimes of offering bribe as indicated in Article 3(1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) ○○○○: The former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes Concerning the Punishment of Illegal Action after the most severe bribery)

(b) Defendant ○○○: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [Article 42 of the former Criminal Act / [Article 42 of the former Criminal Act / [Article 42 of the same Act / [Article 37 of the same Act, /

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant ○○: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection;

A. Defendant ○○○: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act and the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

B. Defendant ○○: the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant ○○: Judgment on Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. As to No. 1-A or D in the holding

As to Article 1(a) of the Decision 1 of this Decree, Defendant ○○ was made in the so-called “public narcotics investigation act in order to escape from their detention in the form of philophones, thereby manipulating false facts, and Defendant ○○○ was made without any objective reasonableness, rationality, consistency, and credibility of the statement. 1)

Defendant ○○ was introduced to Defendant ○○ through Gamb○ at the same time and at the same place. At the time, Defendant ○○ was not guilty of cambalon medication, and Defendant 2 did not receive KRW 3 million from Defendant ○○○. 2) as to Article 1-B and (3) of the Decision

Defendant ○○ had been aware of the fact that Defendant ○○○ was assigned to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office at all times. Accordingly, Defendant ○○○ in the name of resolving the above-mentioned case, demanding KRW 30 million, or received KRW 1 million from Defendant ○○ in the name of its expenses, and only was a meal or drinking place with Defendant ○○ who was in close friendly relationship.

3) As to Article 1-D of the Judgment

Around September 20, 2010, Defendant 1 asked ○○○ to lend KRW 5 million to 00,000,000 to ○○○○○ through an automatic cash withdrawal machine, and Defendant 2,20,000 won to ○○○○○ through Kwikset services. Defendant 2,50,000 won to 3,50,000 won to ○○○○○○○○ through an automatic cash withdrawal machine. Defendant 2,50,000 won to 3,50,000 won to 3,50,000 won to ○○○○○○ through Kwikset services. Defendant 2,50,000 won to 3,50,000 won to ○○○○○○ by putting 3,00,000 won to 3,50,000 won to 3,50,000 won.

Although Defendant ○○ does not have any means to deal with a philopon with Defendant Lee○-○, U.S., etc., Defendant Lee○-○ and U.S., asserting that there exists a simple monetary lending relationship as above, Defendant Lee○-○ and U.S. had no effect on Defendant Lee○-○, who purchased a philopon from Defendant Lee○-○, and returned it.

B. As to paragraph 1-e of the judgment

The defendant Lee ○-○ and Jung-○, upon comprehensive delegation from the defendant Lee ○-○ and Jung-○, prepared a written agreement on appointment of counsel in the name of Jung-○○○. This also accords with the presumption intention of Jung-○ and Jung-○.

C. As to paragraph 1(f) of the judgment

Defendant ○○○ requested the Dong○○ attorney-at-law to reduce KRW 10 million out of the cost of attorney’s appointment, and received a return of KRW 10 million from the Dong○○ attorney-at-law, and notified this to Defendant ○○○○. Defendant ○○ upon the request of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○, attempted to reach an agreement on a separate criminal case against Defendant ○○ case (Seoul Central District Court 2009Dadan46777) with respect to KRW 10 million, but failed to return the above KRW 10 million on the wind bound by the instant case. Defendant did not know at all that ○○○ or Kim○○, etc.

D. As to the matters No. 1 of the holding

With the consent of the head of the ○○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○”) Defendant, the president of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Defendant paid KRW 3 million to Kim○○○ as a expense required for appointing a defense counsel for the ○○○○○○○, and there is no lack of arbitrary embezzlement.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to the establishment of the crime of acceptance of bribe, violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, violation of the law after acceptance of bribery, violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives) and violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics

1) As to each of the facts charged against Defendant ○○○○○’s statements that correspond to the facts charged in this part, the investigation was initiated after the facts charged were discovered through the Defendant’s information and statement by this○○○○○○, and the most direct evidence corresponding to each of the facts charged is the statement of Defendant ○○○. The gist of Defendant ○○’s statement from the investigative agency to this court is as follows. A) The relationship between Defendant ○○ and the Defendant ○○○○.

Before several years, Defendant 00, who had worked for the Seoul Special Police Agency for narcotics investigation, found his residence in order to arrest himself as a suspicion of scopon medication, but he did not open his door, and became aware of Defendant 00 for the first time.

After July 19, 2006, he was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 19, 2006, and was released from the Seoul Central District Court on May 26, 2007, and around May 29, 2007, he was released from the Gambling○, who was a drug offender in a close-friendly relationship with himself, after hearing the speech that the Defendant ○○ was carrying out her as a suspected charge of philopon medication, he was ○○, along with the Defendant ○○ on May 30, 2007, upon requesting the Defendant ○○ to conclude his internal intention well, and delivered KRW 3 million in cash as described in paragraph (a) or paragraph 3 (a) of the judgment of the court below.

After that, ○○ and ○○ have developed on a very close-friendly basis, and around that time, she also gave her money or leave expenses to ○○○.

However, after a few months, Defendant ○○ was indicted of having received a bribe from a drug offender and was tried on the charge (the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced Defendant 2008 on March 27, 2008).

11. 13. The judgment became final and conclusive on August 12, 2008, and the person himself was sentenced by the Seoul Western District Court to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (favour) at the Seongdong-gu District Court on August 12, 2008, and was serving the prison in Seongdong-gu (favour).

12. 18. The release from prison was made on August 18.

On June 2010, 2010, 200 won, 200 won, 200,000 won, 200 won, 3.2 million won, 3.2 million won, 3.2 million won, 200 won, 200 won, was provided to 200,000 won, as stated in paragraph 1(b) of the judgment, after confirming that ○○ was assigned to ○○○ in Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office through ○○, Defendant confirmed that ○ had been assigned to ○○, and thereafter discussed several ways to resolve this case. In that process, ○○ promised to pay 3.2 million won, as described in paragraph 1(c) of the judgment or paragraphs 3(b) through (d) of the judgment, 2010. In addition, ○○, 200, 200, 200, 3.1.

However, after being arrested and investigated by the police station around November 22, 2010 at the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office, and being arrested and investigated by the above designated case at the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office, the defendant Lee Dong-○, on November 22, 2010, had been able to find himself, who is detained in the Seoul Eastdong Police Station, and to change his base so as not to cause the reaction of philopon training. The defendant Lee Dong-○, on November 22, 2010, made efforts to actively help him by putting the urine into the lue Sea so that he can change his base so as to prevent the reaction of philopon training (Provided, That the police officer in charge failed to change the base with the wind of surveillance near the suspect's act) and try to appoint a counsel on his behalf. The defendant Lee ○-○, as the above, sold a philop as the defendant's ○ sold it with an uneasiness.

On the other hand, on November 26, 2010, ○○○ found himself/herself detained in the detention room of the Seocho Police Station under the direction of the prosecutor on the prohibition of interview, and he/she knew that he/she traded philopon with amblopon with amblopon, and the Defendant ○○○ stated that he/she was aware of the transaction of amblopon with amblopon, and the Defendant ○○○ became complicated with ○○○, ○○, who called “the ○○ became complicated,” and “the amblopon was unilaterally replaced by ambrely called ○○, and 2). At the time, ambopon ○ alone called “A” alone with ambopon.

B) As to the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 1(1) of the judgment of the court below (1)

From around 2006 to 2007, he agreed to keep the body with the "Chairperson" (the name of ○○○ or ○○○○○) who was aware of before being living in the Seoul detention center, and agreed to keep the body once after being released from the body. On May 26, 2007, he released the body around 20:0 on the same day, and 20:0 on the same day, he am together with the chairperson, but he am for a large number of people who were suffering from the body of the board of directors. As the chief of the board of directors, she called 'clopphonephone' among narcotics offenders, she administered approximately 0.1g of the copphoneon on the body of the body of the board of directors in the way of drinking.

(2) The circumstances leading up to the contact between the Defendant ○○ and the Defendant ○○ through the Park Il-○.

However, around May 29, 2007, after three days from the time of the administration of phiphones as above, gambling called "the drug to be released from the ○○○" and called "the ○○○○○, working at the Pacific Police Team," "the ○○," called "the ○○○○," called "the ○○○, the day-day ○, entered the same ○, and the ○○ was changed by phone to the ○○○○○, and the Defendant ○○, "the day-to-day ○," and "the day-to-day ○○, if he did not come to the ○○○○, after being informed of the charge of medication," and "the day-to-day ○○, if he did not go to the ○○○○," and "the day-to-day ○○," and "the day-day ○, not the Defendant ○○, but the Defendant did not come to this."

(3) The reason why the defendant Lee ○ delivered 3 million won to Lee ○○.

On May 30, 2007: around 00, 00 : ○○○, etc., the agreement was reached between himself and herself, ○○, and Defendant Lee ○○, etc., and 50,000 won was placed on the part of Defendant Lee ○○○, and ○○, ○○, for example, on the basis of the case cost, 50,000 won was not prepared. Gana was well-known and well-known, and Park ○ asked to do so, and ○ asked to do so, and Gana was called “theme-pathy, which should be identified by this case.”

Since then, as ○○ asked ○○○, he asked her well to the head of the Song-gu Police Station where his name is unknown, ○○ calls to the head of the Song-gu Police Station to which his name is unknown, and ○○○ calls to the head of the Dong-gu Police Station and does not provide narcotics. The same is false information. The head of ○○ means that ○○○ is a false information. The paper that contains three million won in cash on the side page of ○○○○, and ○○○○○, who was seated on the side of ○○○, ○○, ○○, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong.

On the other hand, since ○○○○○○’s work was in progress on May 2007 a considerable scale of sales agency business, it was immediately after release, but at the time of release, it was sufficient to keep cash of 10 million won or more, and discussed in advance with ○○○○ in relation to the amount to be granted to Defendant ○○○○, and it was sufficient that ○○○○○ would have been preparing three million won in cash.

C) As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act No. 1(b) of the judgment and the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of bribery No. 1(c) of the judgment (1) of the judgment, Defendant 00 discussed the resolution method for the case of designated acceptance with Defendant 00 along with Defendant 1.

On January 201, 2010, he/she purchased a philophone and administered it. At that time, he/she became aware of the fact that ○○○, as long as he/she was arrested at the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office, stated that he/she sold philophones, he/she had become aware through ○○.

On June 2010, Defendant ○, who was aware of the mobile phone number that he had changed from ○○○○○, was called ○○○, and then called “the head of this Ban and ○○○○ was doing so, how she would have come to her, and how she would have come to her.” On the same day, Defendant ○○ was her talked with ○○○○, and Defendant ○○ was her 19:0 on the same day. At that time, Defendant ○ was known that her was her 'A’ as of 19:0, and ○○ was her 'A'. After that, Defendant ○ was her call with ○○○○○ at any time or directly talked with her, and discussed ways to resolve the instant case.

(2) When Defendant ○○ promised to pay KRW 30 million to Defendant ○○○, Defendant ○○, along with Defendant himself, tried to discuss how to resolve the instant case, Defendant ○○○, who was responsible for her relationship with the investigator of Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, and resolved the instant case. As such, Defendant 3 and KRW 0 million was prepared to resolve the instant case, and Defendant ○○ gave advice to her fluoring his hair and causing her strings with the investigator of Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.

그런데 당시 한○○로부터 필로폰을 매수한 다른 사람들이 모두 구속되었고, 서울중앙지방검찰청의 담당수사관도 성격이 깐깐하다는 사실을 알고 있었기에, 자신은 쉽게 해결할 수 있는 사건이 아니라고 판단하여 피고인 이○○에게 " 나를 구속하지 않고 위 사건을 확실하게 해결한다는 확답을 받아오면 바로 3, 000만 원을 주겠다 "라고 약속하였다. 이후 자신이 피고인 이○○에게 위와 같은 확답을 받았는지 여부를 수차례 물었으나, 피고인 이○○이 얼버무리면서 확실하게 답변하지 않기에 3, 000만원을 주지 않고 있었다 .

(3) The circumstances leading up to which the defendant Lee ○-○ provided meals, drinking, etc. to the defendant Lee ○-○

Around June 30, 2010, Defendant ○○ made a call to Defendant ○○○○ and gave his consent to ask Defendant ○○○, etc. as to whether it is possible to drink or drink with his employees. On the same day, around 16:00, Defendant ○○ and the head of both ○○○○○○ and the drug investigation team affiliated with Defendant ○○ and the same narcotics investigation team, and two police officers, etc. who are unable to know the name, and then ○○○○○○○○○○○ and paid 200,000 won of food, and ○○○○○○○○○○○ and thereafter made a statement with Defendant ○○’s initial trade name “○○○○○○ and made a statement with Defendant ○○, etc.” At the same time, Defendant ○○ and made a settlement in cash, but Defendant ○○ and made a cash call to Defendant ○○○ and made a cash call to Defendant ○○.

60,000 won was remitted to the nominal account.

In addition, around September 13, 2010, 2010, ○○○○○○○○, which was an entertainment drinking house, performed drinking at KRW 1.4 million with Defendant Lee○○ and Yang ○○○○, boom○, Kim○, etc., and paid a drinking amount of KRW 1.4 million with the drinking value. Defendant Lee○ resolved the instant case on his booming booming for himself, and Defendant Lee○ had no choice but to provide the above meals as desired by Defendant Lee○○.

(4) While Defendant ○○ delivered KRW 1,00,00 to Defendant ○○○, he did not receive a definite answer that Defendant ○○○ would settle the above-mentioned designated number of times without being imprisoned, he suggested that ○○○○ was a meal with Defendant ○○ on September 18, 2010, which was 2 to 3th day before 14th day of New Year’s Year’s Year Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day’s Year’s Year’s year of New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s year of New Year’s Year’s Year’s year.

On the other hand, he met ○○ prior to the day on which he met the Defendant’s ○○○, and at the time, ○○○ was 50,000 won with a right of 50,000 won to look at the amount of money. The principal suggested that ○○ was a defective meal and ○○ was waiting for the Defendant’s ○○○○○ at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. While ○○○ was now waiting for the Defendant’s ○○○○○ at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant ○○○○, as above, was 100,000 won and 300,000 won among ○○○○○○○○○ and 170,000,000 won, he had been aware of the above facts.

D) As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.(1) in Article 1(d) of the judgment, the reason why the Defendant Lee ○○ promised the transaction with the Defendant Lee ○, etc.

At the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○ where he continued to have a scopon and want to administer a scopon without overcoming the addiction of the scopon. It is difficult to say that he purchased goods from the scopon. Since the scopon appears to have purchased goods from the scopon, the scopon tank refers to “an act in which he receives only the purchase price of the scopon from the scopon and does not cover the scopon and scopon the scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon scopon s, and that he would purchase goods if he had a scopon scopon s.

(2) The reason why the Defendant ○○ purchased a philopon from the Defendant ○○, etc. along with the Defendant ○○.

After the end of September 20, 2010, the day before the end of the next year, Defendant Lee ○-○ called her own phone and called her " Park○-○ did not have any things so far," and now there was a door door to her. (The meaning of 'copon was prepared among drug offenders' and '4.5 million won should be given to her 10,000,000 won. It was called '.' When you called '○-○' and called '○-○' and sent 4.5 million won to the account under the name of Defendant Lee○-○' and called '○-○' and '○-○' called '○-○' to transfer 4.5 million won to '○-○' and '○' to '○-○'.

However, at the time, he had no more than 10 million won in cash, so he had the intention to purchase the penphones together with the Defendant U.S. ○○○○○ to purchase them together, and had the Defendant U.S. ○○○ to prepare 3.5 million won and move Defendant U.S. ○○ to the Defendant U.S. ○○ branch in the future of the No. ○○○○ branch around the same day and around the same day, at the latest, Defendant U.S. ○○. In addition, he intended to include KRW 1.3 million in the said cash source and transfer it to the said account under the name of the Defendant U.S. ○○○. However, since the cash source can be deposited only one million won per time in the control of the said cash source, the remaining KRW 300,000 won was transferred to the said account under the name of the Defendant U.S. ○○○, and the remaining KRW 300,000 won was returned from the said Defendant 1.5 days after this contact.

However, he did not know the above circumstances at the time, and therefore, "○○○ was less than KRW 300,000,000,000." The machinery also called "the remainder" and "the defendant U200,000,000 won was not entered. The defendant U20 should not give up her little vote among the body in which ○○ would have been distributed. The defendant U20, who also consented to the proposal, notified her post office account number in the name of this ○○, and then received 80,000,000 won from Kim○○ to the above account."

On the other hand, ○○ calls to Defendant ○○○ and calls to the effect that more than one million won should not be deposited in the cash automatic withdrawal machine. Defendant ○ demanded to send the remainder of 3.5 million won to Defendant ○○ through Kwikset service to her own home in the city of subordinate country. Then, ○ requested to deliver the said shopping bags to Defendant ○○ by sending cash amounting to 3.5 million won in shopping bags. Then, ○○ asked Kwikset service engineer to deliver the said shopping bags to ○○.

Since then, ○○○ intended to call to inform ○○○○ of the mobile phone numbers of Kwikset service engineer, but he used the phone, and Defendant U.S.’s U.S., ○○○, who was believed to have been involved in the instant philopon transaction, was immediately prevented Defendant U.S. ○○ from leaving the phone to ○○○○○○○○○○○○. immediately thereafter, Defendant U.S. ○○, who sought to keep his phone, was her own phone, and Defendant ○○ was called “h○○○○’s mobile phone with ○○○○○○○○○,” and “○○○○ was used to purchase goods from ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s mobile phone with her cell phone number at present.”

Accordingly, he/she informed ○○○○ of the fact that he/she sent the purchase price of a philopon to ○○○○ by informing ○○○○ of the fact that he/she sent the philopon, and asked ○○○○○○ asked to send a philopon within the around September 21, 2010, the next day. On September 21, 2010, in fact, around September 21, 2010, the Defendant called ○○○○ to ○○○ bus terminal through ○○○○○ bus in Busan and sent goods to ○○○○○○ bus in Busan and 13:00 on the same day as the date when he/she informed ○○○○ of the bus number, arrival time, and baggage number, etc. at around the same time.

After that, ○○○○, a person himself/herself and Defendant ○○, who had been staying in ○○○○○○○, moved to 1009, and 1.4g of 10 grams of philophonephones in the above boxes, carried about about 1.4g of 10 grams, and had about 8.6g of 8.6g of the remainder.

(3) Defendant ○○, U.S., etc. returned part of a philophone to Defendant ○○○, etc.

Details

As above, he administered the philophones purchased and distributed on three occasions, and delivered part of it to the head of the investigation station, Kim ○, etc. who was aware of a usual part of it, without compensation. However, Defendant U2○○, on September 22, 2010, resisting that the seller’s contact number is good for people who bring about philophones by telephone to himself, and thus, the seller demanded that he be informed of the seller’s contact number, he notified the seller’s cell phone number to ○○○, and then Defendant U2’s U2 was immediately called “the number was the ○○’s three degree of connection with Busan, and Defendant U2○ requested that the ○○○ request for the exchange of lophones by exchanging lophones to ○○.”

Accordingly, on September 24, 2010, 2010, ○○ was said to have the phone phone returned. At around 13:56 on the same day, the Defendant transferred KRW 3 million to the above account in the name of Lee○○○, and returned part of the phone purchase price. At around 11:30 on the same day, 4.2g of the phone, which was contained in 6 for a single-use injection device, was returned to ○○○, and around 18:0 on the same day after adding approximately 1.1g of the phone phone in his possession, the Defendant returned KRW 2,00,000 in cash to ○○○, and around 18:0 on the same day, the Defendant returned approximately 3g of the phone to ○○○○ around the same day.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly examined evidence, the Defendant’s respective statements made by ○○○○○○, which correspond to each of the facts charged against the Defendant’s Lee○○, are sufficiently reliable. (A) Defendant Lee○○, who was issued a philopon from Park○○, without compensation, and was arrested at the Seoul Eastdong Police Station around November 22, 2010 and applied for a detention warrant on the charge of having been administered.

11. Around January 23, 2010, the application for detention warrant was dismissed at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office. However, since around January 25, 2010, the charge of purchasing honphones and administered honphones was already designated at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, it was immediately arrested as the above-mentioned case and transferred to the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office. On November 25, 2010, when the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office requested for detention warrant against himself, it is clear that he could not be subject to serious punishment, and at the same time, he was investigated as a suspect of the existing designated hon receipt case, he started to inform and make statements on each of the facts charged against Defendant hon○, etc. from around November 25, 2010 to the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office.

Defendant ○○○ stated that “○○○○○○○○” is a mere fact that he/she made a false statement on the grounds that he/she provided information on each of the facts charged regarding this part of this case’s ○○○○○○○○○, etc., and that he/she tried to inform the investigation agency of all of his/her accomplices who traded his/her phiphones. It cannot be denied that ○○○○○ cooperates with the prosecutor’s investigation on the facts charged for the purpose of punishing him/her. In fact, ○○○ was released by cancellation of detention on December 14, 2010, and it is difficult to view that ○○○○○’s statement was inconsistent with the aforementioned facts charged on the part of this case’s ○○○○○○○○, etc., on the grounds that he/she provided his/her ○○○○○, etc., with an objective testimony on the part of this case’s ○○○○, etc., on the grounds that he/she provided his/her ○○○○.

B) As to Article 1-1(a) or Article 3-1(a) of the judgment of the court below as to the crime of acceptance of bribe (1) of the first A, Defendant Lee ○○ stated the following particulars: (a) himself/herself, on May 26, 2007, the fact that he/she administered a phiphone immediately after the release of the police officer, and (b) by himself/herself, he/she voluntarily

(2) On May 30, 2007, Defendant ○○, like Defendant ○○’s statement, acknowledged the fact that ○○ was introduced to Defendant ○ through ○○○○ through ○○○○○’s daily restaurant, which is the cause of his drug information, on May 30, 2007. However, Defendant ○○ merely introduced ○○ to Defendant ○○ as a good-friendly relationship, and Defendant ○○ was aware of the fact that ○○ was a drug offender.

However, it is difficult to readily understand that ○○○○○, which is the cause of narcotics information of Defendant Lee ○○, introduced only the Defendant Lee ○, who is a narcotics offender, as a good friendship in the process of introducing the Defendant Lee ○○, to the Defendant Lee ○○○. In addition, if the Defendant’s statement was not a circumstance as stated by this○○○○, the Defendant Lee ○○, who was a police officer in charge of narcotics investigation at the risk at the time, seems to have never been a reason to see this ○○, a police officer in charge of narcotics investigation at the risk at that time.

(3) If the defendant ○○ makes a statement by manipulating the false facts about the facts charged in this part in order to mislead the defendant ○○○, it is sufficient that the defendant ○○ makes a statement by putting his and the defendant ○○ in a face-to-face situation, and it seems that there is no reason to make a statement that the defendant ○○ gave 3 million won to the defendant ○○ through Ga○○○ through Ga○○, while discussing Ga○○, which has her favored the defendant ○○.

C) In relation to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act No. 1(b) of the judgment and the crime of illegal action after acceptance of the bribery No. 1(c) of the judgment, Defendant ○○ did not have any way to inquire, etc. against Defendant ○○, so the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office was completely aware of the fact that Defendant ○○ was assigned to Defendant ○○.

I asserts that this case is.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1, as indicated above. As indicated above, Defendant 1 appears to have continued to pay KRW 300,000, 100.

Although there was a change in the above on the statement of the defendant Lee ○○, prior to that time, at the time of the investigation by the prosecution around December 4, 2010, the defendant Lee ○○ had already sought money at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Accordingly, the defendant’s statement was 100,000 won per 1 million won cashier’s checks (referring to 754 pages of investigation record) and stated the facts that the above 1 million won was ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was a circumstance that the above statement was impossible to obtain a specific statement by manipulatinging the above facts.

(6) As to No. 1-C. 1-2 of the judgment, Defendant 00 won is stated as follows. Although Defendant 00,000 won, which was given to Defendant 00, did not directly witness Defendant 00, Defendant 000 won, this part of the statement made by Defendant 00 corresponds to Defendant 0’s statement on the circumstances, etc. closely related to this part of the facts charged. (A) Defendant 00 was staying in ○○○ hotel, which was sent from Daegu to Seoul and without a specific residence, around 2010, and ○○○○○, which was occupied by Defendant 00 without a specific residence.

18. Around the time of the first instance trial, around 14:00, around 00, around 18:00, Defendant Lee ○○ requested to change the amount of money to Defendant Lee ○○, and received KRW 1.50,00 as a new right of 50,00 won, and Defendant Lee ○○ offered that he did not take meals to Defendant Lee ○. In addition, around 14:0, at around 14:0, Defendant Lee ○ and Defendant Lee ○○. However, at the time of the first instance trial, Defendant Lee ○, as he administered the philop, went first to Defendant Lee ○ because it was difficult for Defendant Lee ○ to meet the ○.

(B) On the same day: 17:00 on the same day, Defendant Lee ○, who sought money from ○○ and gave money to ○○○○. However, ○○ said money to be known to ○○○ to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her,

(7) On September 18, 2010, 201, such as the statement by the Defendant ○○ and ○○○○, the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant’s U.S. heading the Defendant

D) As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (1) in Article 1-D of the judgment of the court below, the summary and credibility (a) of Defendant U20’s statement made by Defendant U20 and the credibility of the statement made by Defendant U20 (a) was revealed due to Defendant U20’s information and statement made by Defendant U20, etc., and the Defendant U20 was arrested around December 3, 2010. The summary of Defendant U20’s statement made by Defendant U20 from the investigative agency to the court of this Court is as follows.

① The circumstance in which the Defendant U.S. U.S. ○ purchased a phiphone from the Defendant’s ○○○, etc.

On September 2010, 2010, Defendant ○○○ had “○○○, and there was a place to seek a philopon.” At the same time, I see kn't kn't kn't, and kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn'

그러던 중 2010. 9. 20. 경 피고인 이○○이 자신에게 " 오늘 저녁쯤 필로폰을 구할 수 있을 것 같다. 10그램에 450만 원으로 하기로 하였다 " 라고 말하였는데 , 무척 조심스러워 하는 눈치이기에 자신은 피고인 이○○에게 누구를 통하여 필로폰을 구하는 것인지 거듭 물었고, 피고인 이○○은 " 절대 눈탱이 맞을 리가 없다. 확실한 사람이다. 공무원이 낀 일이다. 잘못되면 큰일 난다 ", " 사실 이○○이 관련된 일이다 " 라고 말하였다. 이에 자신은 김○○ 및 강○○ 등에게 연락하여 필로폰 매수대금을 보내라고 말하였고, 강○○, 맹○○ ( 사실혼 부부관계이다 ) 는 2010. 9. 20. 18 : 30경 자신이 사용하는 동생 유○○ 명의의 ○○○ 금고 계좌로 250만 원을 송금하였으며 13 ), 김○○는 같은 날 18 : 40경 서울 강남구 ○○역 인근 편의점 앞에서 자신에게 70만 원을 교부하였다 ( 김○○는 당초 1회용 주사기 1개 분량인 필로폰 약 0. 7그램을 80만 원에 매수하기로 하였는데, 위 편의점 인근 현금자동입출금기에서 70만 원밖에 인출되지 않아 위와 같이 70만 원만 교부하였다 ) .

Afterwards, he moved ○○○ to the front of the cash withdrawal machines from ○○○ branch of NA○○ branch. Defendant ○○ did not deposit more than one million won in the said cash withdrawal machines, and Defendant ○○ was on his next side, and Defendant ○○ was given the name of ○○ in the addressee column of the screen, and ○○ was on his own name in the said cash withdrawal machines.

The issue of whether the value of the article is transferred or not, and the defendant Lee ○ said that the value of the article would result in a far away from the market.

Meanwhile, at the time, 1.3 million won was remitted to the said automatic cash withdrawal machine, and the remaining 300,000 won remains as it remains. However, he and the defendant Lee ○○ was mistaken for the shortage of 300,000 won without gathering it. He again called to Kim○○ and requested that 80,000 won be transferred by calling again to the Kim○○, and the Kim○ demanded that 80,000 won be transferred later, and the Kim○ stated that the amount of 80,000 won should be transferred to the last 80,000 won to the last 80,000 won.

On the other hand, the money of ○○ and the other 3.5 million won was collected, and this ○○ sent the money to Hakset through Kwikset service to Hakset and Hakset’s home.

Before doing so, he had previously been involved in this philophone transaction from Defendant Lee ○○, and had heard about Defendant Lee ○○’s talk, but, considering the above circumstances, Defendant Lee○ had been aware that he was involved in this philophone transaction by delivering the philophone sales amount in the middle.

Since then, Defendant ○○ intended to call to the other party to whom the money was delivered, but Defendant ○○○’s cell phone was leaked, the other party’s phone call to the other party to whom the money was delivered, and the other party’s cell phone call to ○○○○○, and the other party’s phone call to ○○○○○, and the other party’s phone call to ○○○○○○, and the other party’s phone call to ○○○○○, and the other party’s phone call to ○○○○○. Defendant ○○ opened her cell phone to her own cell phone with ○○○○○. The other party’s phone call to ○○○○○, and the other party’s phone call to her own cell phone with her own cell phone, and she called “○○○” to ○○○○.

On September 21, 2010, around 13, 2010, the day following the day on which Defendant ○○ called “the same day on which the goods arrive,” and around 00: (a) Defendant ○○○, along with Defendant ○○○○, went to the ○○○○○ bus terminal, with ○○○○○○○, and Defendant found one of the ○○ General Futures Boxes, where approximately 10 grams of the philopon was concealed according to the direction of ○○○○○○, and he was moved to the ○○○○ hotel No. 1009, in which ○○○○ was in her possession, with Defendant ○○○○. Around 10 grams of the 10 grams of the 10 grams of the philopon in the said box, Defendant ○○, while carrying approximately 1.4 g of the 10 grams of the 10 grams.

After that, in contact with Kim○, Kang○, Ma○, etc., he provided approximately 1.4g of philophones contained in two types of a single-use injection machine to Kim○○, and provided approximately 4.9g of philophones contained in seven types of a single-use injection machine to Gangwon○ and Ma○○, and administered philophones over three occasions, along with Kim○, on the same day.

② The reason why Defendant ○○○ or ○○, etc. returned part of a philophone to Defendant ○○, etc.

However, after that time, Kim○-○ argued that he did not have a good condition of philophones, and even though he took the philophones in order to bring the Kim○○○, Kim Jong-○ again resisted that he "I am much good." The seller was not able to keep the seller, and the strong ○○ also argued that the situation of philophones is not good, and that he did not seem to have a sense of being administered.

Accordingly, on September 22, 2010, which was the same day, he informed ○○○ of the above circumstances, and around September 22, 2010, he notified her of the seller’s contact address by directly communicating with her seller. While her mobile phone number was viewed, her was Park○○’s number known to her usual meeting. While her phone was called her Park○○○, her phone call was again called her “sc and well-being Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, which her had been aware of the relationship between her instant phone and this her own phone transaction, her “○○” means “I amhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that?hhhhh...

In the end, he decided to return the penphones by discussing with the Defendant Lee ○○, and agreed to return KRW 2 million on September 23, 2010, the next day: 00 on the penphone 4.2 grams, which is contained in the 6 pages of the single-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based------------

On September 24, 2010, the next day: around 30, 2010: Around 30, he returned approximately 4.2 grams of the instant philopon to the Defendant Lee ○○○, which was returned KRW 2 million from the Defendant Lee○○. The Defendant said that the sum of approximately 1.1g of the philopon was returned to Park○○.

Although ○○○○, Do○○, and Do○○○○, etc. demanded that the philophone be returned instead of receiving a refund of the philophone purchase price, he/she could no longer seek a philophone, and he/she returned KRW 500,000 to Kim○○○, respectively. (B) Defendant U2 made a statement to the same effect as above from the time he/she was investigated by the prosecutor around December 3, 2010, on the day he/she was arrested, at the same time. Defendant U2 made a statement to the same effect in this court. Defendant U2○ had already made a statement from around December 3, 2010, which appears to have never been given an opportunity to look at the Defendant ○○ and the Do○○○, and made a very consistent statement with detailed matters concerning this part of the facts charged and the circumstances before and after it. Accordingly, Defendant U2○’s statement sufficiently conform to this part of the facts charged.

다만, 피고인 유○○은 2010. 12. 5. 경 피고인 이○○과 함께 대기하면서 서울중앙지방법원에서 구속 전 피의자심문을 받을 당시 피고인 이○○으로부터 필로폰을 매수한 적이 없다는 취지로 일시적으로 진술을 번복한 적이 있는데, 그 이유에 관하여 ' 한때 마약수사를 담당하는 경찰관이었던 피고인 이○○이 불쌍하였고, 피고인 이○○도 함께 대기하면서 자신에게 진술을 번복하라는 신호를 보냈으며, 주변 사람들도 피고인 이○○을 지켜주라고 계속 당부하였고, 늘 피고인 이○○을 지켜주어야 한다면서 자신의 입단속을 하던 피고인 이○○이 혼자 처벌을 면하고자 피고인 이○○의 범죄사실뿐만 아니라 자신의 범죄사실까지 털어놓은 것이 너무 괘씸하였으며, 압수된 필로폰도 없는 상태에서 자신이 부인하면 처벌을 면할 수 있을 것 같았기 때문이다 ' 라는 취지로 진술하는바, 피고인 유○○이 위와 같이 일시적으로 진술을 번복하였던 경위에 납득할 만한 사정이 있는 것으로 보인다 .

(2) Defendant ○○ stated that ○○ had been unaware of ○○ prior to the transaction of instant phiphones. Defendant ○○ and ○○○○ appears to have made a statement that he had been aware of ○○○ and ○○○○○○ was a death that he had been aware of her. However, Defendant ○○ could not make a statement by specifically memorying ○○ and the date and place (○○○○’s clothes) on which ○○ and ○○ was exchanged (○○○’s early August 2010) and the place (○○○○’s clothes) on which ○○ and ○○○ was called.

(3) On September 20, 2010, around 17: 50, around 22:27, and around 16:05, around September 21, 2010, which was around the time when the Defendant sent money to ○○○○, Defendant Lee ○○ and Park○○, who was unaware of, inter alia, used a telephone call to ○○○○ on several occasions on September 21, 2010, around the time when the ○○ was received through ○○○ bus, and on September 21, 2010, he used a telephone call to ○○○○○ on several occasions. As Defendant Lee○’s assertion, as one of the above, only lent money to ○○○○○○, a relationship between the Defendant and Park○○○, did not seem to have any reason to call as above. All of the ○○○○, Kang○○, and Ma○○○, made a statement identically with the above Defendant’s U.S. statement.

In addition, ○○ stated from ○○○’s U.S. that “this philopphone was related to the “employee” or “public official”, and that ○○○ and Machi○○ made a statement from ○○○○○, that it was an “n’t abunding the seized articles by an incumbent police officer,” and that ○○○ and Ma○○ made a statement from ○○○○○, when the Defendant was detained to ○○○○, that ○○ and ○○, sent Dolopphone to ○○○○ through Galop○, and ○○ and ○○, etc., who did not know the ○○○, was false and disadvantageous to ○○○○○.

(5) At the time, ○○, Kwikset service provider, who received money from ○○○ from ○○ and delivered it to ○○○○○, stated that “A man (the Defendant refers to ○○○○) and female (the Defendant refers to ○○○○), but the male asked that there was no female if he had been asked about her to her.” (referring to 1347 pages of investigation record). This conforms with the relevant statements of ○○ and ○○○○.

3) Thus, the crime of acceptance of bribe, violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, illegal disposition after acceptance of bribery, and violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (favour) shall be all established in the judgment of the defendant Lee ○ and his defense counsel. Thus, the defendant Lee ○ and his defense counsel's related arguments are accepted.

v. n.

B. Determination as to whether the crime of forging private documents and uttering of private documents under subparagraph 1(e) of the holding constitutes the crime

1) The crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to make a document in the name of another person. As such, in preparing or amending a private document, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented to the preparation or alteration of the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document, and on the other hand, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act without the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, it is presumed that the nominal owner naturally consented to the fact at the time of the act does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. However, if the nominal owner knew of the preparation or alteration of the document without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be readily concluded that the consent is presumed solely on the basis that the nominal owner anticipated or predicted that the document was approved (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do99

2) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by this court based on the evidence duly examined by this court, Defendant ○○ may establish an agreement on appointment of a counsel sufficient to enter Defendant ○○ into a genuine private document in the name of ○○○ without any consent from ○○○○ without authority and use it as stated in paragraph 1(e) of the judgment without authority, and if Defendant ○○○ knew of the above facts at the time of ○○○○○, it cannot be presumed that Defendant ○○ and ○○○○’s defense counsel’s consent was naturally accepted. Thus, Defendant ○○ and ○○○○’s defense counsel’s assertion related to this part cannot be accepted. Around November 23, 2010, Defendant ○○○ and ○○○, the office manager of the Dong○○○○○, found Defendant ○○○ and agreed to appoint a defense counsel with Defendant 30 million won, and then, Defendant ○○ and ○○○ signed the agreement on appointment of a defense counsel.

B) However, in this court, Ma○○ stated that he only lent his attorney fee, etc. to ○○○, but he did not want to intervene in this case “○○○○,” and that he only deposited money into the account that ○○○○ was not made, and that he did not allow the appointment of a counsel for this ○○○ in his name, and that he did not have any intention to permit this because he did not want to speak in the case of this ○○○○.

In fact, ○○ does not have a separate and separate obligation on the request of the Defendant ○○○, and only lent the appointment fee, etc. of the counsel to the Defendant ○○○○. The Defendant did not actively participate in the appointment, etc. of the counsel for the purpose of ○○○○.

C) At the time of preparing an agreement on appointment of a defense counsel at an investigative agency or this court, Kim○ stated that, “I am well-known in his name,” and “I am well-known, I am asked ○○○ to sign the agreement on appointment of the defense counsel at the time of signing the agreement on appointment of the defense counsel at that time, I am not to confirm whether I am actually-known or not.”

C. Determination as to whether a crime of fraud under Article 1(f) of the judgment is established

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court’s duly examined evidence, this court may recognize the fact that ○○○○○, etc., as described in the judgment of the court No. 1, by deceiving ○○○, etc., and by deceiving 10 million won from ○○○○, as indicated in the judgment of the court. As such, this part of the assertion regarding Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel is not accepted. Defendant 1 contacted with ○○○ on November 22, 2010 and around November 23, 2010, after consulting 40 million won with respect to the detention warrant case of ○○○○○○, which was requested by ○○○○○○○, to appoint 0 million won, it is difficult to find that 00 million won was returned to ○○○○, etc., Defendant 1’s defense counsel at the time of this case’s request to appoint ○○○, who was so requested. This part of the above 1 million won was returned to ○○○, etc.

12. From the process of the prosecutorial investigation on September 1, 12. From the process of the prosecutorial investigation, the fact that the maximum ○○○ in a de facto marital relationship with himself was confirmed by Kim○, and was paid to the same ○○○ attorney for the above case for himself, was only KRW 30 million, and the remainder of KRW 10 million out of KRW 40,000,000, which he remitted to the same ○○ attorney at his own request, was known that this ○○ was arbitrarily used after he was returned to the same ○○○ attorney's knowledge.

In light of the fact that ○○○○○○’s statement was a position to inform and state his misconduct at the time of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in order to punish the Defendant, it seems that ○○○○○ was merely related to his personal legal interests, and there was no reason to dismiss ○○○○○○ by manipulatinging minor fraud damage caused by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. 3) around December 6, 2010, ○○○○ made a specific statement about the appointment of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s office around December 14, 201, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○ was not an attorney at the expense of 0○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was not an attorney at the expense of 100,000 won. In fact, ○○○○ was not an attorney.

D. Determination as to the establishment of embezzlement of No. 1 of the holding

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by this court based on the evidence duly examined by this court, since ○○ may recognize the fact of arbitrarily embezzlement of KRW 3 million, which was kept by Defendant Lee ○○ and his defense counsel, as stated in the judgment No. 1, Defendant Lee ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not accepted. 1) Defendant Lee ○○ in the initial prosecutor’s investigation process at the Seoul prosecutor’s office, and Defendant Lee ○ did not appoint a defense counsel on the case of request for detention warrant of the Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Office at the Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Office at around November 25, 2010, Defendant Lee○ requested that Defendant Lee ○ return KRW 20 million, which was paid as defense counsel’s appointment, and up to now Defendant Lee○○○○ received KRW 17 million from Defendant Lee○○, and the remainder of KRW 3 million will know of his address. This was confirmed by the prosecutor’s office at around December 14, 2010 through the investigation process.

Although ○○ attorney returned the full amount of KRW 20 million to ○○○, he began to make a statement that ○○ was aware of Defendant’s arbitrary use of KRW 3 million among them.

Considering that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s position to inform and state his misconduct in order to punish the Defendant, it appears that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was merely related to one’s personal legal interests, and there is no reason to dismiss the ○○○○○○○○ by manipulating a minor embezzlement of the damaged amount of water. 2) The Defendant stated that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s attorney returned the 17 million won to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was an attorney-at-law who did not return the entire amount of KRW 20 million to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon his request.

After all, the defendant Lee ○-○ continued to provide the above KRW 3 million out of the above KRW 20 million to Kim○-○, while hiding the fact that he paid the above KRW 20 million to Kim○-○ on the basis of objective data, etc., the above facts were finally acknowledged, but the defendant Lee ○-○ et al. began to make a new argument that he accepted this fact. In light of the above reversal of the statement, it is difficult to believe that the above argument by Lee ○-○○

Reasons for sentencing

1. The crimes of this case committed by Defendant 00,00,000 won, in collusion with Defendant 0, who is an incumbent police officer in charge of narcotics investigation, sold philopon to Defendant 0,00,00 won, and Defendant 0, who was an incumbent police officer, obtained a bribe by receiving a solicitation from Defendant 0, who was a narcotics offender, and received a bribe from Defendant 00, in response to Defendant 1’s domestic investigation or a designated-related case, and Defendant 00, who was a designated-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-out-

Although a police officer in charge of narcotics investigation is in need of obtaining information from a narcotic offender as near a certain degree due to the nature of the investigation, each of the instant crimes committed by ○○○, even though the Defendant was a serious level exceeding the ordinarily acceptable limit and necessity, Defendant ○○, who was in charge of the instant crimes, is consistent with the defense by denying his or her mistake, and his or her attitude is very bad, and thus, he or she should be subject to strict punishment corresponding to his or her mistake.

However, in addition to the above unfavorable circumstances, Defendant 00 worked as a police officer for the past 20 years, and the circumstances favorable to Defendant 00 have been considered, such as having no specific criminal record, and having determined the same sentence as the order against Defendant 00 in consideration of the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

2. The crime of this case committed by Defendant U2○○○○○ was administered, taken over, or taken over, phiphones. Since 1996, since the commencement of punishment for the medication of phiphones, Defendant U20 had reached seven times only the sentence imposed due to the same crime for the past few hundreds of years since the commencement of punishment for the medication of phiphones, and even during the period of repeated crime, it still seems that the crime of this case was committed again during the period of repeated crime.

However, Defendant U2Bio committed each of the crimes of this case while attending his wrongness, and Defendant U20 filed an appeal against Defendant U20 with his wife, taking into account the following factors as provided in Article 51 of the Criminal Act: (a) Defendant U20 has given a relatively short period of detention and provided one opportunity for rehabilitation in society; and (b) Defendant U200 has imposed the same punishment as the order against Defendant U20.

3. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant ○○○○○○ was offered a bribe to the Defendant ○○, a police official, along with a solicitation to ask the instant case to be closed at the time when the instant crime was committed on the charge of medication of phiphones. Although each of the instant crimes was limited to each of the instant crimes of offering of bribe in the judgment, the nature of the relevant crime is heavy even if the prosecution was limited to each of the crimes

However, Defendant Lee ○-○, who took part in his mistake, expressed his past mistake, including each of the crimes of this case, and actively informed and made statements on the criminal facts of this case, including Defendant Lee ○○, etc., to a certain extent to establish social justice. Defendant Lee ○-○, who is dissatisfied with the repetition of being a new person, complained of a prior conviction, and should be sentenced separately for the crime of offering of a bribe in Article 3(b) through (d) of the judgment and the crime of offering of a bribe in Article 3(b) through (d) of the judgment, due to the previous conviction in the judgment of the first head, in consideration of the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced Defendant Lee ○-○, who is given an opportunity to correct himself in society.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Equitable

Judges Lee Lee-min

1) The defendant Lee ○-○ asked the prosecutor to lend KRW 5 million at any time, while the prosecutor asked the plaintiff to rent KRW 5 million, and the prosecutor asked the defendant Lee ○-○.

When suggesting the contents of currency between ○○○, the statement has been reversed (for reference, 2 rights 742, 743 of investigation records).

2) While recognizing the fact that the Defendant’s Lee ○ at the time found the Defendant’s Lee ○○ and changed the phone to make a call with Park ○○, the Defendant’s Lee ○○ and the Defendant.

○○ stated that he was unable to hear the conversation (2° 749, 750 of investigation records).

3) Defendant ○○ also recognized that there was a seal that he had " Kim Jong-chul" in his relative-gu.

4) The initial Defendant ○○ stated that he was “Sickingman on August 2010,” but the Defendant’s sending and station of ○○ was stated as “Sickingman on August 2010,” but the sending and station of ○○○.

As a result of analyzing the contents of the phone call, the time when the defendant Lee ○-○ and Lee ○-○ was called from the defendant Lee ○-○ and the ○○-○○.

was determined.

5) At the time when the prosecutorial office made the first statement on November 25, 2010, Defendant Lee ○○ was the Defendant as above on September 18, 2010 or on September 19, 2010.

A statement that ○○ had sent a phiphone purchase price upon contact with ○○, was made one time at the time of making a statement by the prosecution around November 26, 2010, following the day of the statement.

진술내용이 전부 사실이지만, 곰곰이 생각하여 보니 필로폰을 매수한 날짜는 2010. 9. 20. 경인 것 같고, 박○○으로부터 필로

The bus sent with the Phphone stated to the effect that it is an O-high speed, but it is not aware of the fact that it is an O-high speed. The investigation process thereafter is conducted.

On September 20, 2010, when Defendant ○○ et al. sent money to Defendant ○○○, etc., and the bus sent with philophones is a member of ○○ high-speed.

The facts have been confirmed, and it seems that the defendant ○○ is trying to make a statement to the maximum extent consistent with his memory.

6) On September 20, 2010: around 59, 2010, Defendant ○○ transferred KRW 1 million to the above account in the name of Defendant ○○○ branch (Fraud)

annex 1.m. 95 References.

7) On September 20, 2010, 2010, Kim○-○ transferred KRW 800,000 to the above account in the name of Lee○-○, by means of the bank account in the name of ○○○○○.

(2° 736 Reference to Investigation Records).

8) Defendant Lee ○○ (000 - 0000 - 00000) called on September 20, 2010: around 26: around 26: Defendant U-○ (00 - 0000 - 0000 - 0000) called on (2 investigative records 614 pages).

[Reference].

19) Defendant Lee ○○ (010 - 5825 - 0202) called on September 22, 2010: around 27, 2010, Defendant Lee ○ (010 - 777 - 8248) called on (one investigative record, 457 pages).

10) On September 21, 2010, the above 00 high-speed bus came from Busan around 00 to 12:0 on the same day, and arrived at 00 ○○ ○○ high-speed bus terminal, and the Defendant

○○ signed on the receipt of the inbound baggage and received baggage (see, e.g., 118 pages of investigation records).

11) 1° 446 of investigation records.

12) Defendant ○○ paid approximately KRW 1.3 million with the initial drinking value, and Defendant ○○ is well aware of the head of the OOO entertainment bars, so he has paid the drinking value.

I explained that I would like to find back the station (referring to 3° 1374 of investigation records), and after they were released by revocation of detention, I met the head of Park Jong-dae on December 14, 2010.

In September 2010, 2010, 140,000 won was 1.4 million won on the basis of the books when the head of gambling division asked to find and request the statements that he paid the drinking value.

The statements were presented with gender, and the statements were presented.

13) Three sphere 1529 of investigation records for reference.

14) On September 21, 2010: around 41, 2010, Defendant ○○ was asked in cash to Defendant ○○○, “A case where the instant case was fluenced so that she would be asked in cash, and the case was fluenced with fluenced rice.

In this case, “a text message with the content of the investigation record” was sent (as referring to the 3rd page 1272 of investigation record).

15) 1° 457 Reference to investigation records.