Defendant 1 and seven others

Defendants

Kim Young-young et al.

Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 95Mo1228 (Partial part), 95Mo1237 (Joint), 95Mo1238 (Joint), 95Mohap1238 (Joint), 95Mohap1320 (Joint), 96Mo12 (Partial and Joint) Decided August 26, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed.

A person who, at the time of the original adjudication, has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years, with prison labor for a term of two years and six months, with prison labor for a term of two years and six months, for a term of one (b)(1) and (c), and one (b) and two (2) years, for a term of one (1) and six (2) at the time of the original adjudication, for a term of two (2) years and two (2) years, for a term of two (1) and (3) at the time of the original adjudication, for a term of one (1) and (2).

With respect to transfer of a defendant, 280 days out of the detention days before the judgment of the court below is made shall be included in the above sentence.

However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years for Defendant 1, Defendant Kim Woo, and Defendant Kim Woo for three years for the first time.

The amount of KRW 610,000,000 shall be additionally collected from the defendant's free will.

The defendant Lee Jin-hun shall be acquitted.

The charge of obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant Park Jin-ho and Park Jong-ho is not guilty.

The offering of a bribe among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1 is acquitted.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal, etc.

A. As to the defendant's obstruction of business of Jinho, Lee Jin-hun, and Taek's obstruction of business

Defendant Park Jin-ho, Lee Jin-hun, Lee Jong-hun, and Park Jong-chul asserted as follows as the grounds for appeal.

In other words, it is wrong that the court below recognized that the defendants interfere with the conversion of the real name of financial institutions by converting another person's non-real-name deposit account into the real name of the defendants, on the premise that the business of financial institutions under the Emergency Financial and Economic Order for Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy ("emergency Order") is merely a person who actually exists under the name of real name verification or the business registration certificate under the resident registration card, and it is not a financial institution's business to confirm who is the actual trader or the actual owner of funds.

Doctrine,

First, Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Emergency Order provides that the term "real name" in this order means the name as prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as the name on the resident registration card and the name on the business registration certificate. Article 3 of the Presidential Decree for the enforcement of the Emergency Order provides that "the name and resident registration number recorded on the resident registration card in the case of an individual", "the name and registration number of a corporation recorded on the business registration certificate issued under the Corporate Tax Act in the case of a corporation", and "the real name of a person representing the relevant organization" in the case of an organization which is not a corporation, and Article 3 (1) of the Emergency Order provides that "the above real name" shall be referred to as "the real name" and Article 3 (2) of the Emergency Order provides that "the name of the holder of financial assets whose financial transaction account has been opened before this order enters into force shall be confirmed at the time of the first financial transaction after this order enters into force." Article 5 (1) of the Emergency Order provides that "the name of the person who traded the existing financial assets without using the real name shall be converted into the name or real name under the resident registration certificate."

Second, giving the civilian employees of financial institutions the authority to investigate and confirm the funding sources, which is a public authority, is not consistent with the nature of the service chain financial institutions, and there is no way to verify whether they are the actual owners of the funds under the absence of the authority to investigate and confirm the financing sources, and it is not possible to request or make any impossible business to the financial institutions.

셋째, 금융실명제가 실시되기 이전에 있어서는 원래 금융기관과의 “거래자”라함은 통장과 도장을 소지하고 금융기관에 대하여 자신이 거래자라고 주장하는 자를 가리키는 것이었으므로 그의 배후에 자금의 실소유자가 따로 있다고 하더라도 그것이 드러나지 않는 이상 그 실소유자를 금융긱관과의 거래자로 볼 수 없었기 때문에 긴급명령 제3조 제1항 과 제5조 제1항 의 “거래자”의 실명을 확인함에 있어서도 금융기관은 통장과 도장을 소지하고 자신이 거래자라고 주장하는 자의 명의가 주민등록표상의 명의, 사업자등록증상의 명의인지의 여부만 확인하면 된다고 할 것이다.

Thus, it is difficult to confirm that a trader on the surface is the actual owner of the fund as the business of a financial institution by the enforcement of an emergency order, and therefore, the charge of obstruction of business on the defendant Geum-jin, Lee Ho-hun, and Tae-chul, which assumes that the above confirmation is the business of a financial institution, shall be judged not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the charge of obstruction of business on the ground that the above confirmation is the business of a financial

Nevertheless, the part of the judgment below convicting the above facts charged is difficult to accept and the appeal against the above defendants as to the above facts charged is justified.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the above judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided after pleading.

B. As to the offering of bribe to Defendant 1

The defendant's fixed number of reasons for appeal is as follows.

In other words, although it is recognized that Defendant 1’s fixed number of testimony was granted 10 billion won to the old-age who was before and after November 1990, Defendant 1 was indicted on November 27, 1995 for the crime of offering the above money. The statute of limitations for the crime of offering the above money was five years, but the prosecutor’s proof as to whether the above offering of the bribe was made after November 28, 1990 is insufficient, the above facts charged should be sentenced to acquittal on the grounds of expiration of the statute of limitations.

Doctrine,

The crime of offering of a bribe is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding one million won under Article 133(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995), and the statute of limitations is five years under Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 50(1) and 41 of the Criminal Act, and Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is obvious that a public prosecution was instituted against the above offering of a bribe for the number of defendants' emotionals. As such, the issue of whether the above provision of 10 billion won was made after November 28, 1990, within five years from the date of the public prosecution is examined and adopted as to whether the above provision of 10 billion won was made after November 28, 199 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Nov. 1, 190). 198.

According to the statement of the prosecutor's testimony and the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol as to the number of the defendants prepared by the prosecutor, "10 billion won was delivered to the police officer around the end of November 1990 (11 or around the beginning of December)", and according to the statement of the prosecutor's 10 billion won, "10 billion won was raised around the end of November 1990 and 10 billion won was given to the police officer," and according to the statement of the first suspect interrogation protocol as to the prosecutor's aptitude, "10 billion won was presented to the police officer at the time of 10 billion won, and 10 billion won was presented to the suspect at the beginning of December 1, 1990 and 10 billion won, and if 10 billion won was not dispatched to the suspect at the time of 10 billion won, the prosecutor's answer to the question that 90 billion won was not presented to the suspect, and the suspect's answer to the suspect's 19."

In full view of the above statements, the timing of offering the above bribe cannot be excluded from the possibility of transfer on November 27, 1990.

In addition, according to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office' Office No. 195's statement of the result of execution of a search and seizure warrant prepared on November 10, 1995, the cashier's checks issued on November 28, 1990 from the Seoul Trust Bank's business division No. 2 to the bank No. 2 on the same day (such as Eastern Bank's substitute point, Han-il Bank's substitute point, etc.), the cashier's checks issued by the third bank No. 2 on the same day can be deposited into the third bank (commercial bank's substitute point, commercial bank's pressure suspension point, etc.) and the third bank's cashier's checks issued by the third bank No. 4 on the same day can be excluded from the issuance of the above cashier's checks to the third bank No. 4 on the same day, and the above cashier's checks issued by the third bank No. 4 on the same day can be recognized as being deposited into the account of the third bank No. 90's business account No. 20 on the same day. 97 statement.

Ultimately, even after full examination of the above evidence, the money of the Han Steel Steel Co., Ltd. withdrawn on November 28, 1990 after undergoing the so-called money laundering process, and it is difficult to conclude that part of the money was delivered to the Noh Tae-ri during the period from December 5, 1990 following the date to December 5, 190, and entered the above account of Noh Tae-ri on December 5, 1990, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant Tae-ri offered 10 billion won to Noh Tae-ri was a bribe after November 28, 1990.

If there is any doubt as to whether the statute of limitations has expired or not, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the statute of limitations has not expired, and in this case, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the statute of limitations has expired for the crime of offering of bribe in accordance with the legal principle that the defendant's interests should be the defendant's interests. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for the crime of offering of bribe should be deemed to have expired without further deliberation as to the bribe of the above amount which has been paid by the above fixed amount. Thus, a acquittal should be pronounced in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the above facts charged guilty shall be difficult to comply with as it is, and since the appeal against the above facts charged by the defendant is justified, the above part of the judgment below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided again

C. As to the defendants' other arguments

(1) As to the scope of duty or duty relationship

Defendant Kim U-woo, the highest number of party members, and the highest number of party members claimed that since the President has a general command and supervision authority that oversees the overall administration, it cannot be deemed that the designation of the specific and individual party members of the central government project carried out by each Ministry or central government, the designation of local industrial complex is included in the scope of the duties of the President, and that there is no room for the President to exercise specific influence on the duties of the President during the above days, such days are not related to the duties of the President, and they cannot be punished for bribery on the ground that they provided money to the President in relation to the above days.

Doctrine,

The facts of the crime of the court below are as stated in the judgment below, since the President has the authority to appoint and dismiss public officials, to direct, supervise, or exercise influence directly or through the head of the central administrative agency (the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc.), since he has the authority to direct, supervise, or suspend the order or disposition of the head of central administrative agency, etc.

(2) As to a quid pro quo relation

Defendant Kim Yong-woo, the highest number of seats, Jinho, Lee Jin-ho, Lee Jin, Lee Jin-ho, Lee Jin, Lee Jin-ho, and Lee Jin, Defendant Kim Jong-ho, the lowest number of seats, and Lee Jin-ho, and the amount of money which Defendant Lee Jong-ho recommended to be granted to Lee Jin-ho, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin-ho, and Lee Jae-ho to be given to business operators, etc. are not a bribe, since they were given and received as political funds, election funds, or gold without a quid pro quo relationship with the duties of the President. Thus, the fact that the decision and execution of economic policies, etc. related to corporate management, etc., and that there was a quid pro quo relationship with his duties is too unfair since it is excessively recognized that a quid pro quo relationship is too comprehensive.

Doctrine,

First, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be recognized that each of the amounts of this case was received in relation to the duties of the President, such as the original adjudication, and the duties of the Nowon-do, under the awareness of the entrepreneurs, who can exercise direct or indirect influence over the activities of the company. Thus, the argument denying the relation between the receipt of each of the amounts of this case and the duties of the President is without merit.

Second, as long as the money received in this case was not purely collected or managed in accordance with certain procedures prescribed by the Political Fund Act, it constitutes a bribe even if it was actually used for expenses for political activities from the beginning. In order to avoid a bribe as political funds or government funds that do not follow the procedures prescribed by the Political Fund Act, it should be difficult for a person sending the money to his own political ideology, knowledge, ideology, trust, and argument to be entrusted with the fund, and there should be no relations of full work. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, even if it is not explicitly indicated in the presidential officer’s duties, it should be deemed that the money was partially transferred or received from the company to another company in relation to his duties, as seen earlier, even if it was not clearly expressed in the presidential officer’s duties and duties, it should be deemed that the money was partially transferred or received from each of the above methods of giving or receiving political funds, and that it was an indivisible one of the methods of giving or receiving the money to the company, which would have been an indivisible one of the above methods of giving or receiving the money.

Therefore, since the money received in this case shall be considered as a bribe, and since the duties of the President are very broad, it shall not be deemed as a comprehensive recognition of a quid pro quo relationship with each of the specific duties of the President, the fact that the payment was not disclosed in relation to any of the specific duties of the President.

In addition, it is clear that it is not collected or managed in accordance with certain procedures prescribed by the Act on the Prohibition of Donations Collection of Money and Valuables, which was given to the Nohman under the pretext of gold at the end of the year, and it is recognized as having a relation of payment with the duties of the President. Therefore, it is also a bribe.

As a result, each of the funds of this case is a bribe with a quid pro quo relationship with the President's duties, so the argument disputing this is without merit.

(3) As to the recognition of bribe

Defendant Kim Jong-woo, Choi Woo, Jin-jin claimed that the crime of offering a bribe was not established on the grounds that he did not recognize that he was a quid pro quo of a presidential act, because he did not recognize that he was a quid pro quo of a quid pro quo of a political fund or a quid pro quo while he paid the instant money to No.

Doctrine,

As the court below properly decided, the amount of each money that the above defendants provided to the Nog Tae-ri was large, and all the above defendants paid money to the opportunity to hold a private meeting, and most of the above defendants paid money to laundry and dealt with accounts by changed rules. The above defendants stated to the prosecutor's office that the above defendants paid money to the above defendants for active and specific interest or at least disadvantage in relation to the President's duties. Thus, in full view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the above defendants did not have the awareness of the bribe at the time of giving the above money, and the above argument is without merit.

(4) As to the purport of the grant of 10 billion won by Defendant Kim Woo around May 191, 191

Defendant Kim Jong-woo, who was granted by him to Nowon-do two times at around May 191, 191, only granted 10 billion won as election funds in front of a metropolitan council election on June 1991, and for a long time, not the case of receipt of construction works for Jin-gu's Jin-gu which was awarded on August 31, 1990, but for a long time, there is no credibility in the statement of statement as to the monthly nuclear power plant 3 and No. 4 construction of the scheduled ordering order and the statement of statement as to No. 540, Feb. 2, 1992.

Doctrine,

According to the statement in this court of defendant Kim Jong-woo's partial statement in this court, the protocol of examination of the suspect about the defendant Kim Jong-soo's maximum number of the prosecutors, the first protocol of examination of the defendant Lee Jong-woo's interrogation, the first protocol of statement about Lee Jong-woo's Lee, the first protocol of statement about the statement about the old and each statement about the old, the prosecutor's office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's assistant Kim Jong-sik's investigation report (the first three and four promotion plan)'s assistant plan), there is no choice but to disregard the right to the above construction in the order of the construction work of the Ji-An-An-An-An-An-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

(5) As to the assertion that Defendant Kim Woo is only the victim of the crime of conflict of interest

Defendant Kim Jin-J, who had been denied political funds to the President who had had absolute power at the time, was forced to receive a serious danger and injury, and the above money was spreaded to this possibility, and Defendant Kim Jin claimed that the crime of bribery is only the victim of the crime of public conflict, and therefore, the crime of offering a bribe does not constitute the crime of offering a bribe.

Doctrine,

As the court below properly decided, it cannot be said that a labor union in the presidential post received money by threatening Defendant Kim Jong-woo only as a will of conflict without the intention of performing its duties. Further, Defendant Kim Jong-woo also determined and executed economic policies related to corporate management and provided money with the intention of demanding treatment groups so that it does not receive any favorable treatment or disadvantage compared to other competitors in financial, taxation, etc., so the provision of each of the above money by Defendant Kim Jong-woo cannot be deemed as an act caused by damage to the crime of public conflict. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(6) As to the defendant Kim U-woo's assertion that there was no possibility of expectation of lawful act

Defendant Kim Yong-woo asserts that Defendant Kim Jong-woo cannot be punished as a crime of offering a bribe because it was difficult to refuse to provide the above money alone for the President who has been customaryized from the past, as the chairperson of the treatment group, and therefore, it cannot expect the legitimate act of not providing the money to Defendant Kim Jong-woo.

Doctrine,

In the past, even if there was a precedent that the president provided the money to the President, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate practice permitted under the social norms, and rather, as recognized above, Defendant Kim Jong-J expected that the above money was provided to the President and the President was actively or passive in relation to the operation of the group, the above offer of the above money cannot be deemed as a case where there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

(7) As to the payment of the amount of money that Defendant Kim Woo paid to Kim Jong-soo

The delivery of the money to Defendant Kim Yong-sik was already made in the military power production business, in which the time of delivery was the time when the payment was made. However, since only the conclusion of an individual contract or the performance of a contract remains, there was almost no room for the President to exercise influence, the time when Kim Jong-sik was confirmed to immediately retire, and it was decided to accept the recommendation from the chairman of the treatment group, the chairman of the treatment group, the secretary of the non-indicted 1, and the assistant of the public official who immediately retired from his office. The delivery was delivered without the request or the request from the chairman of the treatment group, and even after the receipt of the money for Kim Jong-sik, the third contract for Kim Jong-sik did not harm the company even after the receipt of the money for a specific pending issue. In full view of all the above circumstances, the above money cannot be deemed to be an illegal act of Kim Jong-sik, and thus, the above money cannot be deemed to be an act of offering a bribe to the President, and thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to be an act of offering a bribe.

Doctrine,

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be recognized that the funds that Defendant Kim Jong-J provided to Defendant Kim Jong-J are closely related to the duties of the President Kim Jong-J, the chief secretary of the diplomatic affairs and security related to the military power projects, and he thought that he would help a public official who retired from office without any specific solicitation, and even after the delivery of the funds, he cannot deny the duty relationship solely on the ground that he did not have any prior action against the corporation. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

(8) As to the Defendant’s most unspecified argument on the facts charged

Defendant Choi Won-won asserts that: (a) and (b) of the facts of the crime of 1.c. (a) and (b) at the time of the original adjudication, ① there is no timely indication as to how the above guarantee and the duties of the President are related to the performance of the Libya Construction Industry in the domestic bank guarantee for the implementation of the Libya Construction; and (b) how the president actually participated in the above guarantee; and (c) there is no indication as to whether the Dongi Group issued the Economic Planning Board, the Minister of Finance, and Economy, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, or the Minister of Construction and Transportation, etc. with a view to making it more favorable or at least unfavorable to the competitor in the economic policy decision of the President, finance, tax administration, etc.; and (c) how it is related to the duties of the President, and how it was involved in the affairs of the ASEAN Construction Industry Co., Ltd.; and there is no indication as to how it was involved by the President in the above internal affairs.

Doctrine,

① In full view of the statement in this court, the first interrogation protocol, the first interrogation protocol, the first interrogation protocol, and the first interrogation report prepared by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on the defendant’s last seat in this court, and the investigation report prepared by the Prosecutor’s Office of Prosecutors’ Office Kim Jong-sung (hereinafter “90 Li-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-U-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-.

② Since the instant indictment stated in detail that “The President’s broad-scale duties that may affect the business activities of the companies shall be decided on the economic policy, etc. related to the combination of enterprises and shall be taken in good faith to prevent any disadvantages or disadvantages at least than other competitors in the management of finance, taxation, etc.” after having indicated various specific matters, it cannot be said that the instant indictment was not relevant to his duties.

③ As seen in the following criminal facts, the Asan Military Bases Corporation ordered the order to the Ministry of National Defense. Since the President may direct or exercise influence over the order of the said Corporation, the order of the said Corporation is within the scope of the President’s duties.

In addition, the crime of bribery is established when receiving money and valuables in relation to the duties without relation to whether the act of bribery is committed or not, since the crime of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the reliance on the trust of the society. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts charged are not specified on the ground that there is no timely statement about how the worker is actually involved in the defendant's best seat.

Therefore, the above argument that the duties are not specified in each of the above facts charged is without merit.

(9) Although Defendant Choi Chang-man asserts that there is no evidence among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged against Defendant Choi Chang-man, the above assertion is without merit, since all of the evidence submitted to prove the facts charged against Defendant Choi Chang-soo can be admitted.

(10) Defendant Lee Jong-soo asserted that the money that Defendant Lee Jong-woo paid to Defendant Lee Jong-woo was the first time of a national school, and it was not a bribe because he did not correspond to the expenses for security personnel because he was the first time of a national school. However, according to the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below, it is one of the duties of the Chief of the Presidential Security Office and it is recognized that Defendant Lee Jong-woo was the first time of a presidential interview and that the last time of the presidential interview was the fact that the above money was given to Defendant Lee Jong-woo in return for the good time of a presidential interview. Therefore

(11) As to the Defendant’s assertion that a judgment dismissing public prosecution due to an unspecified number of facts charged should be pronounced

In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), Defendant No. 1 stated the duty relationship only to the effect that “in most cases, it is prior to and at least less favorable than other competitive enterprises,” without indicating the specific duties of know-how related to the amount received in this case, Defendant No. 1 stated the duty relationship. Therefore, Defendant No. 1 stated that the duty relationship, which is the constituent element of the crime of bribery, is specified, should not be deemed to be subject to the determination of dismissal of public prosecution.

Doctrine,

After specifically indicating various kinds of duties related to the duties under the laws and regulations of the President that may affect the activities of the companies engaged in the various businesses in the indictment of this case, it is deemed that the receipt and payment of the money was made in relation to the duties of the President and the duties of the President, by stating that "the duties related to the management of the company, such as financing, taxation, etc., should be treated more favorably or at least disadvantageous than other competitors in performing the duties." It is not indicated that the receipt and payment of money was made in relation to the duties of the President. It does not indicate that the receipt and payment of money was made in relation to the duties of the President. However, although the receipt and payment of money for each of the above duties are not clearly related to any of the duties of the President, the relevance between the bribe and the duties is stated in the statement that the duties belongs to all or part of the various duties of the consignee, and there is no problem in the failure to clarify that the duties are related to the duties. Accordingly, it is not clearly stated that there is no specific basis to regard the duty relationship within the specific scope of the duty.

(12) As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no perception of bribe

The defendant Lee Jae-woo, only arranged for an interview with an employer and an entrepreneur, but did not know the purpose of the interview, whether to receive money, the name of receiving money and the amount of the interview, did not receive any instruction on the situation of the measure after the interview, and even if he knew of the fact that he received money from an entrepreneur or received money from an entrepreneur, he did not know the fact that he received money from an entrepreneur, and even if he knew of the fact that he received money from an entrepreneur, he did not know that he did not know that he was a bribe provided as a governing fund and did not know that he was a bribe, he did not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting bribery, and therefore, he asserts that he cannot be punished

Doctrine,

For the same reason as the court below properly decided, it is reasonable to view that the defendant Lee Jong-woo was aware that there was a significant possibility of receiving a large amount of money at the time of a single face-to-face wall with Noh Tae and a business owner, and that the money he received directly from a business owner, or that the money he received from a business owner is a bribe. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(13) As to the assertion that there was no solicitation to offer a bribe or any interview arrangement, on the part of the Defendant

On December 198, 198, the defendant Lee Jae-woo argued that the highest member of the defendant Lee Jong-chul had no contact with the Kim Jong-won, Lee Dong-won, and Kim Jong-chul at each time at the time of the original adjudication, and that there was no solicitation to offer a bribe, and that there was no conference with the old Council and Norhe. However, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the statement of the third statement of the prosecutor about the old Council and Norhe had been made at the third time of the public prosecutor's preparation, as at the time of the original adjudication, the defendant Lee Jae-woo-woo recommended the offer of a bribe by first contact the defendant Lee Jong-won, Kim Jong-won, Lee Jong-won, Lee Jong-sung, and Kim Jong-chul, who was the chief of the presidential security office at his own discretion or after his request, and therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(14) As to the Defendant Lee Tae-woo's assertion that the place of receiving and receiving the money as a principal offender is different from the actual one

Defendant Lee Jae-woo, even though it was caused by the interview arrangement by the Defendant Lee Jae-woo’s meeting to give money to Nowon-woo at the time of 2. D. (1) (g) at the time of the original adjudication through the oral meeting, the place of grant is not within the Cheong-woo’s meeting but within the Cheong-woo’s meeting. However, as long as the identity of the above act is recognized, the difference in the place does not affect the establishment of the crime, so the above assertion is without merit.

(15) As to the Defendant Lee Tae-woo's assertion that the name of receiving money is different from that of the principal offender

On December 1989, 190, 190, 100, 100, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,000,00,00.

Doctrine,

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the purport of each of the above funds provided by the above entrepreneurs can be recognized as identical to the time of original adjudication, so the above argument is without merit.

(16) As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no receipt of savings case fees

Defendant Lee Dong-woo did not receive 30 million won in the mid-term order of September 1992 from the head of the Dong-gu, the head of the Dong-dong, and he received money from the Ansan-gu, but it did not constitute a savings-related unfair act because it was received not a savings case fee but an employee meeting expenses. However, considering the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below and the statement of the prosecutor's transfer statement as to the number of transfer records, the fact that Defendant Lee Dong-woo-woo received savings case expenses from the Ansan-gu mother at each time at the time of the original judgment can be acknowledged, and the above argument is without merit.

(17) As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no acceptance of bribery or good offices

The part that Defendant Freeboard received KRW 100,000,000 from Kim Jong-won on December 12, 1989 as a case of giving an opportunity to request a bribe of 100,000 won, is less than KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won as a case of providing an opportunity to request a construction work for the naval base in the early August 1991, and it is not a bribe of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won from the President Han-won as a case of the presidential interview arrangement around December 191.

(18) As to the defendant's assertion that there was no aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribery

Defendant Jin-jin asserts that he did not actively encourage Kim Yong-san and Park Gamology to provide money to the President, and that he merely harms his reputation at the request of the mineer's delivery, which is not a crime of acquiring third-party brain (the crime of delivering brain) or a crime of aiding and abetting bribery as to whether he is an accomplice of offering or not.

Doctrine,

According to evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's wale, who is superior to the defendant's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's wale's w.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

(19) As to the assertion of this Article that there was no aiding and abetting the acceptance of bribery

The defendant Lee Jae-won asserted that the defendant was merely the accomplice of the offering of a bribe in the way of delivering the bribe to the President by simply arranging it with the state of trust, moving, white and whiteing, and that it cannot be viewed as a crime of aiding and abetting the offering of a bribe by the President, as it is only the accomplice of the offering of a bribe.

Doctrine,

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant's assistance in the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the bribe and assistance in the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the bribe can be acknowledged by inducing the defendant to contact the defendant with the defendant in a long-term condition, movement, and whiteer in accordance with this instruction and to provide the money to the President. The relation between aiding and abetting the offering of the offering of the offering of the bribe and assistance in the offering of the offering of the bribe is identical

D. Ex officio determination

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below are different on the following grounds: (a) and (c) of 1.1-2 (a) and (c) of the facts constituting a crime and the judgment of the court below on the original 1.0 (1) (B) of the defendant Kim W, and the judgment on the original 1.0 (1) of the facts constituting a crime and the judgment on the original 1.0 (b) of the facts constituting a crime of this case at the time of the judgment on the original 1.0 (1) of the facts constituting a crime of this case and the judgment on the original 2.0 (3) of the facts constituting a crime of this case at the time of the judgment on the original 1.0 (b) and (c) of the defendant Kim W, and the judgment on the original 3.0

Therefore, without having to decide on the assertion of unfair sentencing in Defendant Kim Woo, the lowest, Lee Jong-jin, and Geum-jin, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant Kim Woo, the lowest, Lee Jong-jin, and Geum-jin among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the decision shall be rendered again after the pleading.

E. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant Defendant Jin-ho and Ein-help

In light of his contribution through corporate management, etc., Defendant Lee J-jin argued that the sentencing of each court below is too heavy in light of his long-term public service experience, etc., so in light of the fact that each court below's sentencing is too heavy, Defendant Lee J-ho, Defendant J-ho, and Lee Jae-ho were first offenders and the mistake of this case is divided, etc., the judgment of the court below on other points is too heavy, and therefore, the above argument is justified without any further determination on other points.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's truth-finding and Lee Jae-won is reversed, and it is judged again after pleading

2. Ultimately, the part of the judgment of the court below against all the Defendants is reversed and it is decided as follows through the pleading.

[Attachment]

The defendants' criminal facts to be judged by the court are the same as the original inquiry except for partial changes or correction as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The purpose of offering of a bribe to Defendant Kim Jong-woo at the time of the original adjudication, 1. B. (1) of paragraph (1);

In order to determine economic policies, etc. related to the management of enterprises and to obtain preferential treatment in the operation of finance, taxation, etc., the purpose of the "to request the Treatment Group to preferentially participate in national projects, such as nuclear power plants, construction works to be implemented in the future, construction works of thermal power plants, etc."

“To determine economic policies, etc. related to business management and to operate finance, taxation, etc., the purpose of changing the treatment group to “to prevent preferential treatment or at least disadvantage, and to preferentially participate in national projects such as nuclear power plant construction works to be implemented in the future;

The purpose of offering of a bribe in the defendant Kim Jong-woo at the time of the original adjudication, 1. B. (1) of subparagraph (c);

In determining economic policies, etc. related to corporate management and operating finance, taxation, etc., the purpose of "the purpose is to request the Treatment Group to be given preferential treatment, and in particular, to exercise its influence to preferentially participate in national policy projects, such as the monthly nuclear power plant 3 and 4 nuclear power plant construction to be implemented in the future, and the construction works of thermal power plants."

“Determination of economic policies, etc. related to the management of a company and the operation of finance, taxation, etc. to the effect that the Treatment Group should not be given preferential treatment or at least disadvantage, and, in particular, to the effect that it is requesting to exercise its influence to preferentially participate in national projects, such as monthly nuclear power plant 3 and 4 that will be implemented in the future;

1.(1) The purpose of offering of a bribe at the highest meeting of the Defendant under subsection (b) of this section at the time of the original trial;

The purpose of "the purpose of the case of the internal decision-making of the orders for the construction work of the Asan Navy Base Construction Work"

The purpose of "a change to the purport of making decisions on economic policies, etc. related to the internal decision of orders for the construction works of the ABS Navy, and the management of finance, taxation, etc. to the effect that the Dong Group should be treated with preferential treatment or at least at least disadvantage in the operation of the business;

(d) at the time of the original adjudication; 2. (1) at the time of the original adjudication, the acceptance of and assistance to the defendant on his behalf;

In the same manner, the term "in good offices to hold an interview with an old-age and old-age meeting"

The change to “accomparing an interview with the Nog Tae-man and the Gu Council in the same way by means of the same means through the last resort of Non-indicted 1, who is the chief of the post-former Security Office of the Defendant Lee Jae-woo

2.(d)(3)(a), (b), and (c) at the time of the original adjudication: (a) eliminates each of the following from the original adjudication: “In the purport of the acceptance of a bribe which is received from the Defendant’s free will, inter alia, by exercising influence to allow the purchase of part of the housing site development zone;

2. (d)(5) at the time of the first trial of the first instance, correct the time of solicitation for the provision of money and valuables to the Kim Jong-man of the second instance, “Seman of July 1990,” and “Seman of July 1990,” respectively;

2. (d) of this subsection (6) of this section, among the purport of acceptance of a bribe from this section, for which the person who was the principal offender for the bribery assistance of the defendant Lee Jae-woon;

The case in which the President of the Republic of Korea exercises influence over the civil engineering works of the 3 and 4 chemical power plant, "the case in which it is possible for the large forest industry corporation to receive orders"

The President of the Republic of Korea shall correct the civil engineering works for the chemical power plant as "the case where it is possible for the Large Forest Industry Corporation to receive orders by exercising his/her influence";

2. (d) at the time of the original adjudication: (9) correct the time of solicitation for offering money and valuables to the Kim Jong-dong of the defendant Lee Jong-woo; and (e) correct the term “ around February 192” as “ around January 1, 1992”;

3. (2) The facts constituting the offense of Defendant Jin-jin;

“In the middle of July 191, 191, the Korean Petroleum Development Corporation received a request from Nonindicted Co., Ltd. from the president of the Korea Petroleum Development Corporation to deliver money collected by various companies that received from Nonindicted Co., Ltd., in the new hotel coffee shop located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to know-how to the effect that not only the personnel and operation of the Korea Petroleum Development Corporation, but also the personnel management of the Korea Petroleum Development Corporation and its operation, and thereby aiding and abetting the act of accepting bribery to know-how by delivering it to know-how at around that time.”

“On July 191, 191, at the new hotel coffee shop located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Korea Petroleum Development Corporation’s president (hereinafter “Korea Petroleum Development Corporation”) changed the money and valuables provided to the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the offering of the funds to the

The evidence to be presented by this Court shall:

(1) The evidence of the facts of the crime in the defendant Kim Woo, some of the defendant Kim Woo's statements in this court, the entry of the Prosecutor's Office of Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the investigation report of the prosecutor's chief Kim Woo of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (the first interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's protocol, the first interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol of the interrogation of the interrogation protocol of the interrogation protocol of the highest party

(2) In addition to the evidence of the facts of the crime committed by the Defendant Choi Jong-man, each investigation report prepared by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the Prosecutor's Office Kim Jong-tae (as to the payment guarantee of Libya in the 90 East Asian Construction, and the Asan Mann

(3) The evidence of the facts of the crime committed by the defendant Lee Jae-woo, each investigation report prepared by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office by the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office (90 East Asia's payment guarantee relation to the ribya Construction, and the 3-time protocol of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the High Prosecutor's Office of the

In addition, since it is the same as the time of the original adjudication, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 133(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Concurrent crimes:

The crime in the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime in the original trial (hereinafter simply stated in the judgment)] is a violation of the Building Act for which the judgment of the first head becomes final, and the crime in subparagraph 1(b)(1)(A) and the crime in the judgment of the first head is a violation of the Urban Redevelopment Act for which the judgment of the first head becomes final and the crime in subparagraph 1(b)(1)(b) and (c) of the judgment of the first head, and each

For each crime listed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 of the Criminal Act [as to each crime listed in subparagraph 1.b. (1) (b) and (c) of Article 1.b. (2) of the Court Decision 1.b. (1) of the Court Decision 1.1.b. (b) of the Court Decision 200

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considerations to be Considered in the Grounds for Imposition of Sentence in Future)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 133(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Concurrent crimes:

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime committed on the market shall be committed in violation of the Urban Planning Act, for which the judgment of first head of the crime shall become final, and each crime of

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crimes in subparagraph (c) (1) (b) of Article 1 of the Judgment with the largest penalty)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considerations to be Considered in the Grounds for Imposition of Sentence in Future)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 133(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considerations to be Considered in the Grounds for Imposition of Sentence in Future)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [Selection of each limited term of imprisonment for each act described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes]

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act [Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1)2 of the Criminal Act [Article 2(1)(e) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 29(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2(2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [Article 2.(b)(1) of the City/Do 2.2]

Article 9(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding each act described in Article 2.C.)

Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (as to each act described in Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, selection of each limited term

1. Mitigation of accessories;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to each crime described in subparagraph (d) of Article 2 of the Criminal Act at the time of sale)

1. Mitigation of self-denunciation;

Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act [for each crime described in subparagraphs (a) through (d) of Article 2.2(a) at the time of sales]

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes for Crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes for Crimes as provided for in Article 2. A. (1) (A) of the Judgment with the largest punishment]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act [In relation to each of the crimes listed in Section 2. A. (b) and the crimes listed in Section 2.b. (2) of the Judgment]

Articles 13 and 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (in relation to each crime described in Article 2. b. (1) of the Market)

Article 10 (3) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in relation to the crime

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act [Article 3(1)(a) and (3)(b) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes]

Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act [Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act [To the acts mentioned in subparagraph 3(a)(2) at the market, to imprisonment];]

1. Mitigation of accessories;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act [for each crime described in paragraphs (1) and (3) and (2) of Article 3.3-A. (3) at the time of sale]

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes for the crimes specified in Article 3. A. (1) of the Judgment with the largest punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the first crime and the absence of an economic benefit)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considerations to be Considered in the Grounds for Imposition of Sentence in Future)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, 129(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Mitigation of accessories;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes for Crimes as stated in paragraph (b) of Article 50 of the Criminal Act)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3)

1. As to Defendant Kim Jong-soo

(1) The need for money in the formation of countries and politics is inevitable. The flow of such money itself cannot prevent or block. The problem is to maintain the passage and quantity of the flow at an appropriate route and level. In a democratic country, it seeks to resolve this problem by disclosing its flow and quantity to the public.

Ultimately, disclosing the flow and quantity of money used in the administration and politics of the State and controlling it by law is an order of human reason that is found in the best political form, and thus, it is the ideal of human beings. Unlike the king era, disclosing the budget of the State in many democratic countries is aimed at achieving this above and above. In addition, disclosing the so-called political funds to the meaning of money used for the acquisition and maintenance of political rights in some literary countries refers to the fact that it is another step for the realization of this above.

In Korea, it is not necessary to explain the budget of national administration to be disclosed and audited by law, and in the case of political funds, disclosure and control are provided in the Political Funds Act, the Act on the Prohibition of Donations Collection, the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts.

The problem is the flow of money outside the normal flow prescribed by this Act. If the water flows out of the ground level, the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the land level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the land level of the water level of the water level of the land level of the water level of the land level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the underground level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level of the water level.

This is because, as the underground passage is opened and money is not owned by the companies, it is not only because they are not responsible for them, but also that they are trying to maximize their safety and interests. However, it is unreasonable to require the companies that consider the interest and safety of the companies as the top priority to open the open underground passage, instead, to open the open underground passage and make efforts to open and expand the surface route and to wait until it reaches that point. It is not controlled by the law, but it is difficult for the political-oriented countries that control the will of power to open the separate passage of the underground established by the power to the benefit-making sector, so the width and opportunity of their choice that they can actually have cannot be narrow and narrow.

In society where the existence of a company is recognized, corporate profit-making trends are guaranteed, and state-owned production is required for companies, it is not fair to consider the accidents of companies that give priority to the interests and safety of companies and entrepreneurs as the primary subject of criticism. The primary responsibility should not be the primary subject of criticism. The powers that make it impossible for them to not pay money in such a way, and the persons who are engaged in this should be the confluences.

(2) In addition, considering the fact that Defendant Kim Jong-woo was divided into the instant mistake, etc., and there are circumstances in the past.

2. As to the Defendant’s last seat

Considering the fact that the above 1. paragraph (1) above was made, the fact that the last part of the defendant's seat was pening the mistake in this case, and that there was a normal situation in the past.

3. As to Defendant Jin-ho

Considering the fact that the above 1. paragraph (1) above was made, Defendant Jin-jin was the first offender and the mistake in this case was divided, etc., taking into account the fact that there were circumstances in the past.

4. As to the defendant Lee Jong-woo

In light of the fact that there is a significant degree of charge of the crime and that there is a large number of times the defendant's refusal to accept or accept the bribe and the amount of the bribe, etc., it is difficult to exempt the defendant from punishment on the face of the crime.

5. As to Defendant Geum-jin

Defendant Jin-jin is the first offender, and the circumstances such as the fact that he did not have obtained economic benefits due to the crime of this case, and that the mistake of this case is divided shall be considered.

6. As to the defendant Lee Jae-chul

Defendant Lee Won-won actively participated in the bribery of the President over both the Republic of 5 and the Republic of 6, and is “a person who has actively inferred the power holder that prevents him from paying any money due to underground failure” as stated in Article 1. 1. 1., and cannot be held liable to comply with the same as designing and guiding the non-congested underground failure. Therefore, it is difficult to exempt him from punishment.

The summary of the facts charged of the crime of interference with business against Defendant Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-k

“(1) Defendant Geum-ho and Park Jong-ho, in collusion, are required to use the real name financial transaction under the real name on August 12, 1993 to realize the economic justice and promote the sound development of the national economy by implementing the financial transaction normalization through the normalization of the financial transaction. The financial institution is obligated to convert the name into the real name within two months to the transaction partner of the existing non-real-real-name financial assets. The financial institution confirms that it is the real trader at the time of conversion of the real name of the non-real-name financial assets, and notifies the National Tax Service of the fact that it would be used as taxation data with the knowledge that it would be used as taxation data for the high-amount real-name financial assets, and it is proper that Defendant Geum-ho will use the non-real-name deposit passbook (total balance 60.6 billion won in total) under the name of the third party managed by Defendant Jong-ho on September 12, 1993 to the above real name deposit account in the above passbook, and to respond to the above real name conversion to each person's name and trust.

On September 11, 1993, in the business division of the head office of Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Jongno-gu, the head office of the Jongno-gu Office, and Non-Indicted Party Director in charge of finance of Hancheon-gu, Co., Ltd., a director in charge of financial affairs, presented a non-real-name company monetary trust passbook (Account 1 omitted) and a copy of the certificate of business registration and the power of attorney for real-name conversion used at the time of opening the above bank's real name transfer to the above bank, and had the above bank apply for real-name conversion as if the actual trader of the above provisional deposit money is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the actual transaction of the above bank, and had the above bank enter the real name conversion into each of the above financial transactions under the same method from September 9 to September 9, 1993 to notify the National Tax Service of the real name conversion Data (Ⅰ).

(2) The defendant Lee Jin-hun and Lee Jin-hun conspired, and knew that the above financial real name was carried out, the defendant Lee Jin-hun et al. knew of the fact that the above financial real name system was carried out, the defendant Lee Jin-hun et al. failed to accept the plaintiff Lee Jin-hoon's motion to convert his name to the non-real name name deposit passbook (total balance of deposit deposit 36.28 billion won) in the name of the third party under his management of Lee Jin-hun on October 193 and to use the funds deposited in the above passbook for a long-term interest rate, and then he tried to convert his name into the corporation treatment or Kim Jin-soo by asserting that the actual trader of each of the above deposits was in treatment or Kim Jong-chul

On October 11, 1993, at the Seodaemun-gu 170-dong 1, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, 1993, Park Jae-won, an employee of the Financial Board for the transfer of the real name of the above bank, presented to the personnel in charge of the transfer of the bank's real name a non-real-name corporate money trust passbook (Account No. 2 omitted) and a copy of the certificate of business registration and the power of attorney for the conversion of real name, etc. used at the time of opening the bank's deposit account, and had the above bank apply for the conversion of real name as if the actual trader of the above virtual deposit account is a stock company. The actual trader of the above bank applied for the conversion of real name by obtaining confirmation that he is a stock company treatment from the above bank and at the same date, the actual trader of the above deposit account was entered into the electronic data of the above bank's real name transfer from three financial institutions to the same effect that he is a stock company treatment or Kim Jong-dong, thereby notifying each of the above facts of the conversion of real name and the above facts.

The summary of the facts charged of the offering of a bribe to Defendant 1 is as follows: “The number of Defendant 1, who is the chairperson of the Korea Youth Group, has been issued a bribe in connection with the duties of old-age by delivering 10 billion won to the effect that the Korea Youth Group would be able to get a special allotment of part of the housing site development area in the form of a private contract at the time immediately after November 28, 1990, and that the Korea Youth Group would be able to get a special allotment of it in the form of a free contract.” The facts charged above shall be deemed to have expired as in the judgment on the grounds of appeal, etc. as seen in the above, and thus, the statute of limitations for the above facts charged shall be deemed to have been completed.

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

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) However, as seen in the following criminal facts, the time when the defendant Lee Jong-woo recommended the offering of a bribe to Kim Jong-man and Kim Jong-tae to correct it.

2) However, the purport of acceptance of bribe between the old and the old and the corresponding application is corrected as seen in the criminal column following the crime.