Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-hun

Attorneys Kim Tae-young et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

The fifty-two days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 2.

12,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged against Defendant 1 on May 8, 2002 that were accepted after the acceptance of the bribe on May 8, 2002, and that of the offering of the bribe against Defendant 2 on May 8, 2002 are not guilty.

Defendant 1 served as the chief of Jinju Prison Security Division from January 10, 2001 to June 30, 2002; on January 25, 2007, he was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging official documents at the Changwon District Court on January 25, 2007; on February 2, 2007; on May 26, 1992, Defendant 2 was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; on December 5, 1997, Defendant 1 was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court on December 3, 2004;

1. Defendant 1

A. A. Around December 15, 2001, the head of the Jinju Prison Security Office located in Jinju-si, Jinju-si, the head of Jinju-si, designated Defendant 2 as a temporary cleaning book from Defendant 2 to December 12, 2001, the head of the Jinju-si, the head of the Jinju-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, has excellent records of administration so that he can benefit in applying for parole and applying for a review of custody. The head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, the head of the Sin-si, who received the special meeting without the permission of the head of the prison.

B. At the same place as the above A of May 2002, at the same time as the above A of May 2002, Defendant 2 raised the work grade so that the performance record can be achieved, as described in the above A of this paragraph, the convenience of prison life is offered, and the convenience of prison life is offered after the vehicle is offered, and the convenience of prison life is offered after the vehicle is offered, under the pretext of Non-Indicted 7, at the non-Indicted 7 on May 26, 2002, the sum of KRW 2,000,000, including KRW 1,000,000 through Non-Indicted 8 at the Seosan City on the following day, and the public official received the bribe in relation to his duties;

C. On June 2002, 200, after receiving KRW 4,000,00 as a reward, a public official received KRW 4,00,00 as a reward, and received a bribe in the course of performing his duties after receiving a solicitation from Defendant 2 to provide convenience of prison life as described in the above paragraph (a), and to request the cancellation of designation of a organized violence offender with the name of requesting the convenience of prison life even after the vehicle to provide convenience of prison life, and without obtaining permission from the head of the correctional institution, he received KRW 4,00,000 as a special meeting and received it from the public official.

D. Around June 29, 2002, at the head of the Jinju Prison Security Office, Defendant 2 received KRW 5,000,000 as a honorarium for receiving various convenience as above from Defendant 2 in relation to his duties, and the public official received a bribe in relation to his duties;

2. Defendant 2

A. From April 17, 2001 to August 6, 2002, by serving in the Jinju Prison, having the record of criminal administration excellent through the promotion of work rating, etc., and using it as materials favorable to the application for parole and the application for review of custody, and having the head of the Jinju Prison security division, who became aware of through the Taekwondo Games, offer a bribe to the defendant 1 in order to provide various convenience in prison life;

(1) On September 201, 2001, the chief of the Jinju Prison security room of Jinjunman made Defendant 1 an excellent criminal record so as to be favorable to the application for parole and the application for a review of custody, and made Defendant 1 impliedly take in and use of illegal goods, such as telephone and tobacco, etc. while living in prison at any time, and asked the head of the security room, etc. to the effect that various conveniences in prison life may be offered at the security room, etc. without obtaining the permission of the head of the correctional institution from the head of the security room. On September 2001, the officer issued 3,00,000 won to Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 12 as a honorarium to the public official’s duties.

(2) Around December 15, 2001, the head of the Jinju Correctional Security Office designated Defendant 1 as a temporary cleaning unit, etc. Around December 15, 2001, the head of the Jinju Correctional Security Office provides a bribe in relation to public official’s duties by offering 1,00,000 won as an honorarium for consideration for meeting with Nonindicted 12 without the permission of the head of the correctional institution when soliciting the convenience of prison life as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) to provide convenience in prison life as described in the foregoing paragraph (1).

(3) As described in paragraph (1) above, the convenience of aquatic life shall be offered as follows: (a) the date of temporary cleaning of the bidding report shall be retroactive to the date of the temporary cleaning of the bidding report so that the convenience of aquatic life may be offered even after the vehicle, and (b) the work grade shall be elevated on May 26, 2002; (c) the sum of KRW 2,000,000,000, including KRW 1,000,000 through Nonindicted 8, at the Seosan City of the following day, through Nonindicted 8, shall be delivered to Defendant 1, and a bribe shall be given in relation to the public official’s duties, by giving them a bribe to the public official;

(4) On June 2002, Defendant 1 offered a bribe to Defendant 1 in relation to his duties by offering convenience of prison life as described in the above Paragraph (1) at the Jinju Prison’s defense counsel and meeting room, and soliciting Defendant 1 to cancel the designation of organized violent crimes together with the name of requesting the convenience of prison life even after the vehicle to improve the convenience of prison life, and allowing Nonindicted 6, 14 to meet with Defendant 1 without obtaining the permission of the head of prison.

(5) around June 29, 2002, the head of Jinju Correctional Security Division transferred from the Jinju Correctional Security Division to Defendant 1, who had been the director of Busan Detention Center, received various conveniences as above in life under custody, and granted a bribe in connection with public official's duties by delivering KRW 5,000,000 as a separate deposit, as well as a bribe.

B. The victim Nonindicted 3 (the age of 29) was aware of the fact that the victim Nonindicted 3 (the age of 29) was not in compliance with the promise to force the “Non-Indicted 3 pandeing event” in Japan, with the awareness of the fact that the victim was not in compliance with the promise to force the “Non-Indicted 3 pandeing event,” the victim threatened the victim to have him hold

(1) At around 21:40 on April 13, 2006, the defendant called "B, defendant 2," and called "B," the victim called "B, defendant 2," the victim called "B, defendant 2, the victim called the victim's phone at the victim's phone at the victim's phone at the victim's seat located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul." The victim demanded that the victim take the defendant's name by sending the victim's phone to "B, defendant 2," and that the victim should not take panty-rating performances even after visibility in Japan, and that the victim should not take panty-rating performances in Japan, and that "the victim's house address (name omitted) 402, the victim's house - 402, and the victim does not have the right to do so from the inside of Korea, and if the victim did not have the victim's body and body, the victim did not have any duty to do so in Japan."

(2) On April 14, 2006, at the Central Youth Crime Prevention Education Center Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 120-8, the victim calls again to the victim and calls again to "B, Defendant 2," demanding the victim to talk with the victim by telephone, and there is a fluence in the victim's statement to fluencing the victim's name? By doing so, the victim's fluencing will to file a complaint with Nonindicted 3, and how flucing the victim's flussium would bring about the victim's life and flusium to fluencing the victim's flusium in Japan? It is necessary to have the victim fluencing the victim's flusium to flusium the victim's flusium in order to bring about the victim's flusium to flusium and to flusium the victim's flusium in Japan.

【No. 1 and No. 2-A of the facts stated in the judgment, excluding the facts before and after the market】

1. The first trial records (written statements by Defendants 1 and 2), the second trial records (written statements by Defendants 2 and 2);

1. The third trial records (each statement made by a witness, Nonindicted 1, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33), the fourth trial records (each statement made by a witness, Nonindicted 34, and 35), the fifth trial records (the statement made by a witness, Nonindicted 36);

1. The fourth trial record (round 2002, Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 8’s partial statement made by Nonindicted 14) and the fifth trial record ( around 2002, Nonindicted 6 found that there was an interview between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 in the Jinju prison) and Nonindicted 5 trial record (round 2002, Nonindicted 6 found it as west, and part of Nonindicted 8’s statement made by the witness who was operating the west funeral hall at the time of the operation)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect (each part of the statement) dated September 18, 2006 against Defendant 1 and December 13, 2006 against Defendant 1

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation (written statements) dated September 17, 2002 against Defendant 2, September 24, 2002, September 27, 2002, September 30, 2002, September 30, 2002, each prosecutor's protocol of suspect interrogation as of October 1, 2002, September 13, 2002, and September 14, 2002 against Defendant 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 1, 36, 29, 30, 35, 31, 34, 32, 37, 2, 33, and 38

1. Each prosecutor's protocol (each part of the prosecutor's statement) dated September 15, 2006 against Nonindicted 11 on September 11, 2002, on Non-Indicted 11 on November 7, 2006 on Non-Indicted 11, on Non-Indicted 6 on Non-Indicted 6, on October 206, and on Non-Indicted 14 on Non-Indicted 14.

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 28, 1, 29, 37, 39 (as of September 12, 2002), Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 2’s written statement

1. Defendant 2’s case of rescinding organized violence in Nonindicted 29’s preparation

1. Each protocol of seizure and list of seizure dated August 23, 2002 and August 29, 2002;

1. Each investigation report (Nos. 10, 32, 34, 206 No. 16239, No. 10, 11, 31, and 35, No. 16232, the evidence list No. 2006, No. 16232);

1. As to Defendant 1 among Defendant 2’s non-competence

1. A copy of the modified report of the same movement, a copy of the examination proposal of special promotion of Defendant 2, No. 2000, a copy of the examination report of the same movement, and a copy of the work report, including the matters examined by Defendant 2;

1. (Copy) A copy of the withdrawal slip of the written mutual savings bank, a copy of the official note reply of the written mutual savings bank, Defendant 1’s deposit slips and copies of checks on June 24, 2002, and a copy of Nonindicted 23’s endorsement checks issued at the national bank’s delivery point;

【No. 2-b. of the facts stated in the judgment, excluding the facts before and after the market】

1. Each protocol of the first and second trials (each part of the statements by Defendant 2, each of which was written by Nonindicted 3, who had a talk about a public performance held in Japanese panty panty by telephoneing over this frame);

1. The sixth trial records (each part of the witness’s statements made by Nonindicted 3, 24, and 40), and the seventh trial records (each part of the witness’s statements made by Nonindicted 5, 41, and 4)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 26, 5, and 27 (written statements of each prosecutor's office) and the third prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 25 (written statements of each prosecutor's office)

1. The first and third prosecutorial statements against Nonindicted 3, each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 24 and 40, each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 4, and the prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 4 (part of the prosecutorial protocol)

1. Each investigation report (No. 3,20 No. 206 No. 16595)

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Statement made by Defendant 2 in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each criminal record against the Defendants

1. Investigation report (No. 68 No. 2006-type 16232) (Evidence List No. 58);

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

A. Each point of the accepted bribery after Defendant 1’s illegal disposal: Article 131(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

B. Each point of the acceptance of bribe by Defendant 1: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Code (Appointment of imprisonment with prison labor);

C. Each point of offering of a bribe by Defendant 2: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 131(2) of the Criminal Act (or, respectively, choice of imprisonment)

(d) Each point of coercion by Defendant 2: Articles 324-5 and 324, respectively;

2. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant 2: Article 35 (Criminal Records of Violation of Punishment of Violences, etc. Act)

3. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (Mutually between the crimes of aiding and abetting Alteration of Official Documents, etc., first head of the judgment on which each crime and judgment has become final)

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Defendant 1: Punishment and Punishment of the most severe on June 14, 2002) of the Criminal Act; the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes resulting from the crime of illegal ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto ex officio death; Defendant 2: Punishment and Punishment of the most severe on April 14, 2006.

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Defendant 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

6. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant 1’s assertion: The designation of Defendant 2’s temporary cleaning book and the promotion of the work grade had been in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations; Defendant 2’s implied consent to use illegal goods, such as tobacco and telephone, or Defendant 2’s interview without obtaining permission from the warden of the prison; as shown in the facts charged, each statement made by the correctional officers, such as Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 1, and each statement made by Defendant 2, in the investigative agency of the correctional officers, and the records prepared by Defendant 2, are inadmissible or credibility; the facts charged are not proven, and in particular, the part that Defendant 1 received KRW 10 million from May 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002 as stated in paragraph (3) of the facts charged against Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 6, etc. cannot be said to have been specified in the facts charged.

(1) The admissibility and credibility of Defendant 2’s statement

(A) Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that he offered a bribe to Defendant 1 as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the judgment at the time of interrogation of each prosecutor’s office as of September 17, 2002, September 24, 2002, and October 1, 2002. However, in this court, the statement was made by the prosecutor’s reply in an imminent situation where the wife who was under the influence of the disease was detained, and thus, each of the above statements is inadmissible as a non-voluntary statement.

(B) Even if the above interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 against the defendant 2 was admissible as evidence, the defendant 2 stated that he was not given a bribe to the defendant 1 on November 2006 when the investigation of this case was resumed, and that he was first investigated by the prosecution on November 8, 2006, and that he reversed the statement again on November 2, 2006 and provided 4 million won under the name of meeting expenses and 5 million won to the defendant 1 for a certain confession. On the 3rd investigation, the above part of the confession statement is reversed several times, such as denying the fact that the defendant 2 made a false statement for an undetained investigation, and denying the fact that the defendant 1 was given a bribe to the defendant 1, and there is no consistency in the suspect examination protocol of the defendant 200,000 won under the name of meeting expenses and giving 4 million won to the defendant 1.

(2) The credibility of the statements made by officers in the Jinju prison, including Nonindicted 1, etc.

Each statement in the investigative agency of the Jinju prison officers, including Nonindicted 1, etc., is detained by Nonindicted 42, who was the head of the Jinju prison at the time of September 2002. While Defendant 1 escaped, Nonindicted 11, who was a prisoner, made a statement about the misconduct of the correctional officer, was investigated by the prosecutor, and was investigated by the prosecutor, it is not reliable as a statement made to transfer responsibility for the misconduct to Defendant 1 or a statement based on the prosecution.

(3) The credibility of a record

In light of the fact that the non-indicted 42's non-indicted 42's non-indicted 42's acceptance of bribe recorded in the non-indicted 2's summary, or the defendant 2's statement that the non-indicted 2's false statement was made in order to create a film or novel after release, its credibility is nonexistent.

(4) unspecified facts charged

Article 3 of the facts charged against Defendant 1 is that Defendant 1 receives KRW 10 million from Defendant 2 through 11, including Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. However, the above 11 person does not specify who is specific, and there is no indication for whom it was raised and delivered through anyone. Thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed as specified.

B. Defendant 2’s assertion

(1) The assertion on the part of the offering of a bribe: Defendant 1, who was the chief of the security division during the admission of the Jinju Prison, did not provide money or goods, or made a solicitation as stated in its reasoning, and Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 1’s partial statements and records that seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are inadmissible, or are not admissible, and there is no proof of the

(A) The admissibility and credibility of a confession statement made in an investigative agency in 2002

1) It is true that Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that he made a confession in part of the suspect interrogation at each prosecutor's office as of September 17, 2002, September 24, 2002, September 27, 2002, September 27, 2002, September 30, 2002, and October 1, 2002, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that he made a confession in part of the suspect interrogation at the prosecutor's office. However, this is a false statement by pressure investigation by the prosecutor in a situation where it is imminent that he was summoned to the prosecutor and might not be detained, and thus, it is inadmissible as it has no voluntariness.

2) On November 8, 2006, Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 2 provided each of Defendant 1 with KRW 4 million in early June 2002 and KRW 5 million in June 29, 2002 to Defendant 2 even during the second interrogation of the prosecution. However, Defendant 2 made a false statement to the effect that it would be possible to recognize some of the charges in order to undergo an unconvicted investigation. Accordingly, Defendant 2 made a false statement to the effect that Defendant 2 received money from Nonindicted 43, a prisoner who was not in the Jinju prison as of June 2002, who was not in the Jinju prison, and received money from Nonindicted 43 as of June 2002.

(B) The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement

1) When Nonindicted 1 stated that Nonindicted 11 was under investigation and gave KRW 5 million to Nonindicted 1 while Nonindicted 11 was given, Nonindicted 1 made a false statement with the investigation prosecutor in order to avoid punishment, and thus, it cannot be trusted that such statement is in fact.

2) In particular, with respect to the facts constituting the crime of Section 2-A (4) of the judgment, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that he was investigated on September 11, 2002, and Defendant 1 received two bags with the amount of KRW 2 million to KRW 3 million in cash. When he was investigated on November 7, 2006, he stated that when he was investigated on November 7, 2006, he would not exceed KRW 1 million per bag. In other words, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement on this part, such as that the envelope was written on two, not only one, but also one, shall not be credibility.

(C) The credibility of a record

The record is prepared by Defendant 2 with a false representation in order to create a film or novel after release, and there is no credibility.

(2) The assertion on attempted coercion: Nonindicted 3’s statement that Nonindicted 3 did not comply with the promise of pandeing performance, and was made by Nonindicted 3 to confirm this, and did not have any intention to threaten Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3 did not make any actual intimidation. Since Nonindicted 3 had a duty to carry out pandeing performance under a contract, the crime of coercion is not established, and even if there was no such obligation, Defendant 2 believed that Nonindicted 3 had a duty to carry out pandeing performance, and thus there was no intention to commit the crime of coercion.

(A) Whether to threaten Nonindicted 3

1) He heard that Nonindicted 3 did not comply with the promise despite Nonindicted 3 decided to hold a public performance in panty in Japan and received a high visibility under the pretext of down payment from the Baz to the extent he became aware of through the religious events, and that Nonindicted 4, 5, and 25, etc., who are the parties concerned, confirmed the facts, and did not intend to intimidation Nonindicted 3, who was the parties concerned, for the purpose of confirming the reason not to hold a public performance in panty, and there was no intention of intimidation.

2) Currency on April 13, 2002

A) The phone call to Nonindicted 3 and called “B, Defendant 2” did not have the intention of intimidation as to disclosing who is a person, and there was no intention of intimidation, such as “the sea (or the sea)”.

B) After the non-indicted 3’s phone was cut off and the second phone was sent to Defendant 2, the non-indicted 24, who made direct conversations with Defendant 2, made a statement to the effect that the first prosecutor’s office, “the right to be the sea” or “the right to be the sea” was not clear. However, in the court, the non-indicted 24’s statement to the effect that the non-indicted 24, who made a statement to the same effect as “the right to be the sea”, was not written. From an objective point of view, the non-indicted 24, who received the phone in the vicinity of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Cheonggu Cheongdong Hospital where the surrounding area was mixed, could have made a mistake of Defendant 2’s speech. Thus, the non-indicted 24’s statement that transported “the right to be the sea”, was not credibility.

C) Furthermore, even though Nonindicted 3 and 40 made a statement to the same effect at the prosecution, their statements are merely a mere fact that Nonindicted 24 moved the horses from Nonindicted 24, and thus, Nonindicted 3 and 40’s respective statements at the prosecution cannot be trusted.

3) Currency on April 14, 2002

A) The phrase “B, Defendant 2,” is the same reason as the telephone on April 13, 2002, and the phrase “B, Defendant 2,” if Nonindicted 3 did not hold a pandeing performance, it does not mean that Defendant 2 would directly commit such an act by either filing a complaint or having an interview with the press.

B) Non-indicted 41, 44, and 4, who were in the office at the time of posting the phone call, knew in advance that the contents of the phone call are recorded by Non-indicted 3, because Non-indicted 41, 44, and 4, who had been in the office at the time of posting the phone call, did not make intimidation to Non-indicted 3 in such a situation, and Non-indicted 3 did not make intimidation, and Non-indicted 3 did not in itself say that Non-indicted 3 would have made a public performance for panpanty. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was intimidation to compel Non-indicted 3 to perform an act without any obligation.

(B) Whether Nonindicted 3 is obligated to hold a public performance pandeing

On September 23, 2005, Non-Indicted 3, a director of a hotel in the east of the east of the same year, entered into a verbal agreement with Non-Indicted 5, a director of the company to which he belongs at the time, and Non-Indicted 4, a director of the company in Japan, to hold a public performance three-time pantying in Japan. On the following day, Non-Indicted 4 visited Non-Indicted 3 to “morine” of the performance in the first time to give the right to the public performance, and Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 5, and 25 (the representative director of the Spanter International Roster of the Co., Ltd.) on the condition that Non-Indicted 3 hold a public performance of panpantying, and Non-Indicted 3 perform a public performance of more than 100 million won in total. Thus, even if Defendant 2 caused Non-Indicted 3 to do so, the crime of coercion is not established.

(C) Whether the crime of coercion was committed

Defendant 2 told that Nonindicted 3 did not hold a public performance even if he promised to be panty-oriented performance by Nonindicted 3 from Namaz’s Namaz, and did not hold a public performance. In the process of confirming the background thereof, Nonindicted 4 made the same remarks as that of Nonindicted 4 in the process of confirming the fact, and on March 2006, Nonindicted 4 presented a written confirmation prepared by Nonindicted 25, the representative director of the entertainment planning company, Nonindicted 3 affiliated with Nonindicted 3, but did not believe that Nonindicted 3 was liable to perform a public performance of Japanese panty-oriented performance by Nonindicted 3, on the ground that he stated in such written confirmation that Nonindicted 4 had an exclusive right. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the crime of coercion.

2. Determination on the acceptance or delivery of a bribe

Defendant 1’s assertion and Defendant 2’s assertion on the crime of bribery are to be judged in a lump sum, but the whole of the facts constituting the crime in this part is to be in question, and the Defendants’ discretion and credibility of confessions at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation in 2002, which are evidence disputing the admissibility or credibility of the confessions at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation in 202, and the credibility of the evidence prepared by Defendant 2 is to be individually determined for each

(a)general review;

(1) Voluntary confession of Defendant 2-2 at the time of the prosecution investigation in 2002

(A) In a case where Defendant 2 acknowledged both the formal authenticity and the substantial authenticity that the contents of the protocol are as stated in the prosecutor's protocol prepared in the court room, but the defendant asserts that the protocol is a false confession by denying the voluntariness, the defendant does not have to prove any reasonable and specific facts to suspect the voluntariness, and the prosecutor must prove his/her doubts (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3931, Oct. 8, 2002, etc.). However, the court should determine the protocol with free trial evidence by taking into account all the circumstances such as the form and contents of the protocol, the defendant's academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence level, etc. among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the specific case (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2890, Dec. 22, 199; 2003Do705, May 30, 2003).

(B) Determination

In this case, Defendant 2, as of the first and second trial days, acknowledged the substantial authenticity of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor at the time of 2002. Not only denies the fact of offering money or goods to correctional officers, including Defendant 1, but also criminal investigation into the relevant witness before making such confessions, but also stated to the effect that punishment should be imposed even if Defendant 1 did not make his own statement, even if he did so, it is obvious that he would refuse to make the relevant person's statement and thus refuse to make the suspect's statement. Defendant 2 voluntarily made a statement that the prosecutor did not force the investigation or statement on the second trial date; Defendant 2 also stated that the confessions were detailed and specific; Defendant 2 did not appear to have been proven in light of the facts and circumstances revealed by the prosecutor's testimony at the time; Defendant 2 did not appear to have been compelled to have been summoned in the prosecutor's office prior to being summoned in the form of a false confession or suspect examination protocol by taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant 2 was found to have no prior to being summoned in the prosecutor's office.

(2) The credibility of Defendant 2’s confessions at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation in 2002

(A) The mere reason why the confession of the defendant in the prosecution is different from the testimony in the court room does not necessarily mean that the credibility of the confession is doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, it shall be determined whether there is a situation to have reasonable doubt about the confession of the defendant, considering the existence of the content of the confession itself objectively rational, the motive and reason for the confession, and the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, which are either contrary to or contradictory to the confession (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4112 Decided October 26, 2001, etc.).

(B) Facts admitted by the aforementioned evidence

1) On July 1, 2002, Nonindicted 35, who was reappointed to the chief of the Jinju Prison Security Division on July 1, 2002, was investigated from July 30, 2002, and submitted a copy of the network of Defendant 2’s preparation to the branch of the Jinju Prison Security Office of the Jinju Prison, to the branch of the Jinju Prison Security Division of the Jinju Prison, and thereafter, the prosecution was initiated at that time.

2) The prosecution's interrogation of Defendant 2 started on September 12, 2002, after investigating the witness of Nonindicted 45, 11, etc. of the Defendant 2, who had been in the custody of his prison as a prison officer at the time of the interrogation of the Defendant 2, at the time of the interrogation of the suspect, who had been in the custody of his prison officer, with Defendant 2, in the Jinju Prison.

3) From September 12, 2002 to September 16, 2002, Defendant 2 rejected Defendant 1’s statement regarding the provision of money and valuables to Defendant 1 until being investigated at the prosecutor’s room, and made a confession from the time when he was examined on September 17, 2002. Defendant 2 consistently stated that Defendant 1 provided money and valuables to Defendant 1 until the time when he was examined on September 12, 2002.

4) On September 14, 2002, Defendant 2 stated that “The cash and checks discovered that Nonindicted 11 had been hidden are all the honored, and refused to make a statement on the circumstances of possession while holding money in the prison.” Defendant 2 stated in the prosecutor’s examination that “I want not to hear the original network from relevant persons because I want to refuse to make a statement even if I denies, I would like to be exempt from punishment for evidence already revealed. However, I would like to refuse to make a statement because I would like to make a statement because I would not be able to infer that I would cause another person to refuse to interfere with the initial statement even if I would not refuse to do so because I would like to make a statement.”

5) On September 17, 2002, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that “it is reasonable to see that he or she repented his or her wrong behavior in South and North Korea.” Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that the married wife Nonindicted 46, who visited the prosecutor’s room, asked the prosecutor to cooperate in the investigation with the draft of snow, and that Defendant 2’s wife suffering from crypted with the mind.”

6) Defendant 2 rejected Defendant 2’s examination that Defendant 1 made a confession as to the fact of offering money to Defendant 1, but did not make a confession as a whole against the prosecutor’s entire examination, but did not offer money to Defendant 1 as a consideration for special meetings. Defendant 2 made a statement on the prosecutor’s examination that “the money paid to Defendant 1” was distinguished from “child-gu’s money,” and that the money Defendant 1 had been used as a room was denied. Defendant 1 promised to prepare KRW 10 million prior to the date of education on May 2002, the prosecutor’s examination that “it was not necessary to grant KRW 2 million prior to the date of education,” and that “the part that was returned to Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 1 was not known to Defendant 1 as the fact that there was no reason to inform Defendant 1 of the denial of all of the facts.”

7) As to the prosecutor’s examination based on the statement of a witness related to the entry in the Roster, Defendant 2 made a concrete statement as to the circumstances leading up to the provision of money and valuables, the details leading up to the provision of such money and valuables, the method of keeping them, and the method of delivery of money and valuables, including Nonindicted 45, 11, and 1, prior to the confession statement, or the part not shown in the Roster. In particular, Defendant 1 made a detailed statement as to the facts suspected of being suspected of being alleged, such as the provision of Defendant 1’s vehicle purchase cost at KRW 10 million, a meeting cost, KRW 4 million, a title of KRW 5 million, a title of KRW 5 million, and a title of KRW 5 million.

(C) Determination

Even before Defendant 2 made a confession statement, Defendant 2 did not deny the fact of offering money and valuables, but did not deny the mere fact of offering money and valuables, but did not interfere with the correction order such as bringing-in of tobacco, etc. and using telephone calls, and refused to make a statement on the part related to providing money and valuables. In addition to the statement written by Defendant 2, the investigation of relevant witnesses was considerably conducted prior to the suspect interrogation, and the circumstances of offering money and valuables have been revealed to the effect that the circumstances of offering money and valuables have been revealed to a certain extent, and later, the party concerned was refusing to refuse to make a statement. In full view of the fact that Nonindicted 45, 11, and 1, etc. were considerably under investigation into witnesses at the time of making a confession, it was sufficient to deny the motive of offering money and valuables to the prosecutor’s prior to the suspect interrogation, and that most of the statements made by the prosecutor and the witness were still presented to the prosecutor’s prior to the confession, not by the prosecutor’s prior to the confession, in full view of the following circumstances and methods of the prosecutor’s statement as to the confession.

(3) The credibility of Defendant 2’s non-performance record

Of the non-competing records prepared by Defendant 2, the right to be transferred side by Defendant 2 was purchased from around 2001 when Defendant 2 moved to Jinju prison, and the right to be transferred to the above is purchased from around 1997 at the time when Defendant 2 was under the process of the Cheongju prison, and was written from around that time. Defendant 2 had been continuously recorded in the non-competing life for a long time, Defendant 2 and related persons’ behavior in the non-competing life are mostly consistent with objective data; Defendant 2, upon being examined by the prosecution in 2002, claimed that the non-competing statement was false even if Defendant 2 refused to make a statement on the part of the money and valuables provided as stated in the non-competing book; and Defendant 2 also cannot be viewed as having basically satisfied the credibility of the non-competing statement related to the criminal facts as seen below.

(4) However, even if the credibility of Defendant 2’s confessions or the statement of the non-records in the investigative agency is acknowledged, it cannot be said that only such confessions have absolute value of evidence, and there is no circumstance to give reasonable doubt as to the confessions or the statement of the non-records due to the inconsistency or inconsistency with the circumstantial evidence other than the confessions or the statement of the non-nets among the circumstantial evidence other than the confessions or the statement of the non-nets for each act of delivering and receiving each of the bribes, or there is no circumstance to give reasonable doubt as to the confessions or the statement of the non-nets. On the contrary, even if the parts not mentioned in the confessions or the statement of the non-nets are not mentioned, it should be separately determined for each of the facts charged.

B. Individual review of each charges

(1) The judgment on the offering of bribe around September 2001 and the offering of bribe and the offering of bribe on December 15, 2001 (Articles 1-A and 2-A (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court below)

(A) Evidence conforming to the facts of the crime

1) Defendant 2-2’s statement of confession in 2002

① On July 2001, Non-Indicted 12 asked Non-Indicted 47 to contact Non-Indicted 12 in Seoul as a legal training institute and prepare three million won. Non-Indicted 12 delivered KRW 3 million to Defendant 1 during the education period of Defendant 1 on September 2, 2001 to Defendant 1, while meeting with Non-Indicted 47 on September 12, 2001, Non-Indicted 12 asked Non-Indicted 47 to contact Non-Indicted 12 in Seoul as a legal training institute. Non-Indicted 12 sent KRW 3 million to Defendant 1 during the education period of Defendant 1, Non-Indicted 1’s March 201. The expression “child” written on Non-Indicted 1’s Non-Indicted 1’s Non-Indicted 1’s Non-Indicted 1’s Non-Indicted 1.

② At the request of arbitor Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 12 delivered the price of one million won necessary for special meetings to Nonindicted 12. Nonindicted 12 received an envelope containing a special meeting of KRW 1 million (a white letter bag containing one million won in cash), and delivered it to Defendant 1 in the chief of the security room, and considered that Nonindicted 12 was a practice of up to one million won in return for special meetings.

(ii) the entry of a record;

(1) September 18, 2001: “Delivery of 3 million won to son-gu of South and North Korea”

② On December 13, 2001: Nonindicted 48, 49, 47 telephone calls, “1 million won and 500,000 won and 500,000 won”, and “Nonindicted 50,000 won and 500,00 won and 50,00 won in Seoul and friendly and 12 in Gwangju”

③ On December 14, 2001: Nonindicted 47 currencies, “Stoves with Nonindicted 12 times on Saturdays,” “Stoves with friendship and money borrowed in custody,” and “n to a fluoring to a fluority of the borrowing of money in custody.”

④ On December 15, 2001: Non-Indicted 12, Young-gu, Non-Indicted 12, Non-Indicted 10,000 special meetings, “one million won-gu, 200,000 regular money, and KRW 50,000,000.”

3) A copy of the official document dispatched to the public official who is attached to the investigation report on September 9, 2002: Nonindicted 42 of the Jinju Correctional Institution warden ordering Defendant 1 to be dispatched to the Legal Training Institute for six days from September 10, 201 to September 15, 2001.

(B) Determination

Nonindicted 12, as a part of Defendant 2’s appeal, is a person who was an assistant member of the pansection, organized by Defendant 2, as a part of Defendant 2’s order (it is difficult to believe that the above prosecutor’s statement was made in light of the relationship between Defendant 2 and his or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or she was involved in a bribe). ① There is no reason to make a false statement that Nonindicted 2 or her or her or her or her or her or her or her or her she or she or she was involved in a bribe in a crime committed by the Defendant 1, ② The date and time of the education trip of the actual Defendant 1 and the her or her her her or her her her or her her her her her or her her she was aware.

(2) Judgment on the acceptance of bribe and the grant of bribe on May 2002 [Article 1-2(1)(b) and 2-1(3)]

(A) Evidence conforming to the facts of the crime

1) Defendant 2-2’s statement of confession in 2002

① Defendant 1’s children listen to the statements that the vehicle became lost due to traffic accidents, and prepared KRW 10 million in terms of helping Defendant 1, who was well aware of himself/herself, to purchase the vehicle due to such difficulties.

② Prior to Defendant 1’s education, Defendant 1 stated, as if educational expenses were needed, it would not be 2 million won as educational expenses, and agreed to prepare KRW 10 million as an installment.

③ From May 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002, Defendant 1 provided a job with Defendant 1 every day during the period from May 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002, and Defendant 1 provided a 10 million won amount to Defendant 1 by allowing Defendant 1 to provide money at the same place.

④ Through Nonindicted 6, one or two persons per day were met, and at any time, the fact that he created KRW 10 million at the time was confirmed to Nonindicted 6. The person who delivered money to Defendant 1 is 10 persons, including Nonindicted 7, 8, 18, and 10, and the person who delivered money to Defendant 1 is 10 persons, and the person is responsible for such persons cannot be identified.

⑤ Although Nonindicted 52 entered the Round on May 30, 2002 as “Magwon (Nonindicted 52)”, Nonindicted 52 did not provide money to Defendant 1 at the restaurant of a water source or inside and outside, although he did not provide money.

④ The reason why Non-Indicted 7 did not state the part of the other person’s money other than Non-Indicted 7’s KRW 1 million and KRW 2 million paid by Non-Indicted 8 is that the other person, other than the above two persons, did not state the fact, and Non-Indicted 7 stated it as a person who is well aware of, and Non-Indicted 8’s case was 2 million won, and Non-Indicted 8’s case was 2 million won, but Defendant 1 stated it later to confirm that he was only 1 million won.

7) When Defendant 1 who returned to the education took part in the chief of the security room, the term “to receive money of KRW 10 million, and to use it well” was written.

(ii) the entry of a record;

(1) On May 12, 2002: The term “child-friendly traffic accident”

② On May 26, 2002: “10:0 a.m. for education and training institutes of the family-gu: “10 a.m. for the education of the education institute”; “1 million a.m. for the family-gu non-indicted 7 interview

③ May 27, 2002: “Masansan-gu Non-Indicted 8, franchisium, hotel accommodation, Myanmar, and two million won.”

④ On May 28, 2002: “Seong-gu Nonindicted 15, 16, and 17 interviews”

⑤ May 29, 2002: “Non-Indicted 53 interviews and friendly conflict telephone (as approximately two hours)”

(6) May 30, 2002: “Magwon-gu Suwon (Non-Indicted 52)”

3) Defendant 1’s statement: Around May 26, 2002, when Nonindicted Party 54 was involved in a traffic accident, Nonindicted Party 6 scraped his own name to another II car under his name. From May 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002, Nonindicted Party 6 found a defect or remains at least once during the period of education at the Legal Training and Training Institute, and there was no fact that Nonindicted Party 6 was her only once with other people, but there was no fact that it was only with other people.

4) Nonindicted 1’s statement

① A written statement dated September 6, 2002: on May 2002, 202, Defendant 1 made 2 million won available for education to Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 called Defendant 2 by phone call at several places. On May 20, 2002, Defendant 1 appeared to transfer the envelope to Defendant 1. The amount is certain but is thought to be KRW 50,00,000 or KRW 1 million, and at the same place, money and valuables were transferred to Defendant 2 or more times before education.

② The prosecutor’s statement dated September 11, 2002: upon Defendant 1’s request, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to contact Nonindicted 2 and prepare an envelope after the public telephone. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to transfer the envelope to Defendant 1 on three occasions. The amount is not certain, but three bags are considered to have been KRW 2 million and Defendant 2 gave up KRW 2 million. On May 2002, Defendant 200, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 2 and the one who delivered money to Defendant 1 during the education period, and provided Defendant 1’s phone to Nonindicted 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 1, Defendant 1....

③ On March 30, 2007: around May 2002, Defendant 2 told Defendant 2 to the effect that “Defendant 1 would not prepare a level of KRW 2 million in the expense before the education was completed,” and Defendant 1’s next value was “to prepare.” At that time, most of Defendant 2’s calls were wiretappingd.

5) Prosecutorial statement on September 11, 2002: Defendant 2 made a statement to the prosecution on September 11, 2002: (a) regardless of whether Defendant 1 gave much money to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 made a call to outside persons on the cell phone and public telephone, and (b) Defendant 2 made a call to the outside persons on a mobile phone and public telephone, with the following contents: (c) “The director of the division of Defendant 1 makes a meal call with the Seoul, and KRW 1 million in money,” and (d) “The number of accounts is one million in money to deposit and 1 million won in money.”

6) A copy of the official document dispatched to the public official who was attached to the investigation report on September 9, 2002: Nonindicted 42 of the Jinju prison warden ordering Defendant 1 to be dispatched to the Legal Training Institute for six days from May 27, 2002 to June 1, 2002.

7) Particulars of the currency attached to the investigation report of September 19, 2002

① The chief of the security division’s cell phone (number omitted): Non-Indicted 6 (number 1 omitted) and one time on May 27, 2002, Non-Indicted 15 (number 2 omitted) and two times on May 28, 2002, Non-Indicted 6, 8 (number 3 omitted) and one time on May 28, 2002, respectively.

② The prison public telephone (05-745-4364): Nonindicted 6 and two occasions on May 22, 2002; Nonindicted 13 and one time on May 23, 2002; Nonindicted 6 and three times on May 23, 2002; Nonindicted 13 and five times on May 24, 2002; Nonindicted 6 and three times on May 24, 2002; Nonindicted 13 and two times on May 25, 2002; Nonindicted 6 and three times on May 27, 2002; Nonindicted 8 and three times on May 28, 2002; Nonindicted 6 and one time on May 28, 2002; Nonindicted 3 and one time on May 26, 2002; Nonindicted 8 and one time on May 28, 201; Nonindicted 200 and one time on May 28, 2002; and one time on security transfer.

③ Nonindicted Party 6’s cell phone (1 omitted: Nonindicted Party 13 and 4, May 26, 202; Nonindicted Party 8 and 2, May 26, 200; Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 4, May 27, 200; Nonindicted Party 8 and 2, May 28, 2007; Nonindicted Party 8 and 2, May 28, 2007; Nonindicted Party 1 and 3, May 29, 2007; Nonindicted Party 1 and 4: Defendant 2, May 29, 2007; and Nonindicted Party 1 and 3: Nonindicted Party 2, May 29, 2007, respectively.

8) On December 8, 2006, attached to the investigation report of Non-Indicted Bank 23, a copy of the withdrawal slip of Korea Mutual Savings Bank, a Co., Ltd., a copy of the official reply slip of Korea Mutual Savings Bank, Defendant 1 on June 24, 2002, a copy of the endorsement check of Non-Indicted Bank 23 on May 27, 2002: KRW 60 million (10,000 won cashier’s checks, KRW 70,100 won cashier’s checks, KRW 50,000 won, KRW 30,000 won, KRW 30,000 won, KRW 100,000 won, KRW 50,000 won, KRW 200,000 won, KRW 306,00 won, KRW 979,976,00 won, etc., KRW 306,976,000,00 won, etc., of the above deposit cashier’s checks.

(B) Each statement made by Nonindicted 6, 8, 23, 15, 13, and 7

1) Nonindicted 6: After the release on March 2002, there was no little call with Defendant 2 and there was a fact that Defendant 1, who she was a correctional officer, had talked with Defendant 2 several times. On May 26, 2002, there was only a fact that Defendant 1 was an interview with the meals at a nearby restaurant at the law training center, which is permissible in order to contact Defendant 1, who was her during his day of his day, and there was only a fact that Defendant 1 was an interview with Defendant 1 at one time at the law training center, which is permissible in order to contact him with meals, and that Nonindicted 8 met Nonindicted 2-3 months after the release under the order of Nonindicted 8’s reading and reading the books of “Tru” written by Nonindicted 8.

2) Non-Indicted 8: Defendant 1 was a person who is entirely aware of, and Non-Indicted 6, who was found in Seosan around 2002, gave 300,000 or KRW 400,000,000, and around that time, he operated Seosan funeral hall in Seosan.

3) Nonindicted 23: After Nonindicted 6’s release, Nonindicted 23 had a set of phone calls several times, and had a set of box. Defendant 1, the husband, found his house before having come to Busan, and 10,000 won cashier’s checks issued to Nonindicted 55 with a set of 10,000 won cash, and 10,000 won cashier’s checks were sent to Nonindicted 55. Nonindicted 55 changed the check to 10,00 won in cash and used it, and prepared a deposit slip in her husband’s name with the knowledge that the sender and the recipient were the same person.

4) Non-Indicted 15: Defendant 2 knew that he was tried as an accomplice in relation to the Incheon New Zealand hotel case in around 1986, and either a person or Defendant 1 was aware of the fact, and at the time of the trial in around 1986, there was no direct contact with Defendant 2, such as talking with Defendant 2 or making a telephone call. In the Jinju prison, Defendant 2 was called from a nameless person who was the same as Defendant 2 in the Jinju prison, and Non-Indicted 6 was called on two occasions after he was released from Nonindicted 6, even though he was well aware of it, and he was found on two occasions after he was released from Defendant 2.

5) Non-Indicted 13: Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that he had been sentenced to imprisonment and was living together for more than 30 years, and Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that he had been interviewed in the Jinju prison, but he was at all aware of the fact.

6) Nonindicted 7: In the 1970s, Defendant 2 was known at the time of running the lodging business in Gwangju, but there was no separate contact, and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 6 did not know at all.

(C) Determination

1) The credibility of Defendant 2’s confession and non-party 2’s statement: (a) around May 2002, it is recognized that there was a fact that son scraped his name so that son was involved in a traffic accident; (b) on May 12, 2002, Defendant 2 stated “child accident” as “child accident”; and (c) on May 2, 2002, Defendant 2 made a statement that she provided money to Defendant 1 on the basis of the following: (a) the developments and timing during which she provided money to Defendant 1 under the following conditions; (b) the time of Defendant 1’s education trip conforms accurately with the confession and Non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-indicted 1’s statement to Defendant 2 and Non-indicted 31’s statement to Defendant 30 times from May 22, 2002 to 30 times; and (b) the fact that Defendant 2 made a confession from the above public telephone call to Defendant 1’s statement to Defendant 2 and 1’s statement to Defendant 31.

2) The credibility of each of the statements made by Nonindicted 1 and 11

A) The statement of Nonindicted Party 1: The Defendants asserted that Nonindicted Party 1, at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s request for Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 was detained and that Nonindicted Party 2 gave money to the prison officers, such as giving KRW 5 million to Nonindicted Party 1. However, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that Nonindicted Party 2 was not in the presence of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 was not in the presence of Nonindicted Party 1, but in the presence of Nonindicted Party 2, it was difficult to find that Nonindicted Party 1 was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to use Nonindicted Party 2 to make a false statement on September 6, 202, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 1, who was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 1 was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 1, who was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 1 was in the presence of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement.

B) Non-Indicted 11’s statement: (a) unlike the aforementioned statement in the court, Non-Indicted 11 made a false statement unfavorable to Defendant 2, who was known as the scambling of "non-Indicted 10", the maximum violent organization of the Republic of Korea, when the tobacco, money, etc. was discovered; (b) thus, Defendant 2 made a false statement different from the fact that Defendant 2 was about to be covered at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation in 2002; (c) however, considering the developments leading up to the prosecutor’s investigation or the contents of the investigation on the witness, it appears to be clear that the prosecutor’s investigation purpose was not to investigate Non-Indicted 11, but to investigate Non-Indicted 2’s suspicion of offering of a bribe and disorder in the correction order, it is difficult to view that Non-Indicted 11 made a voluntary statement unfavorable to Defendant 2, who was known as the scambling of “non-Indicted 1,” and it is also difficult to accept the amount of Non-Indicted 11’s statement with the content of a false statement.

3) As to Non-Indicted 2’s statement, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 5’s statement, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 5’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3 were non-Indicted 6’s statement. Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 2 were non-Indicted 8’s statement, and Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3 were non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 6’s statement that Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 2 were non-Indicted 8’s statement that they were non-Indicted 6’s statement that they were non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 7’s statement that they were non-Indicted 6’s statement that they were non-Indicted 2 and 6’s statement.

4) Whether the facts charged are specified: The purpose of the indictment is to limit the object of the trial to the court and to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime in the indictment. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, if it is inevitable to indicate the general facts in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified. In particular, since the general facts charged do not specify the whole act constituting part of the crime, it is considerably limited to the time and period of the crime, method of the crime, the number of crimes committed by the victim or the other party, the number of crimes, or the amount of damages caused by the crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the facts charged constitute an unlawful crime, including the case of Defendant 2000Do1660.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, when compiling each of the above evidences is reviewed, it is deemed that there is sufficient proof of guilt to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt on the part of Defendant 2, among the 2 million won that Defendant 2 paid through Nonindicted 7 on May 26, 2002 and the next 2 million won that Defendant 2 confirmed the receipt from Defendant 1, among the 2 million won that Defendant 2 paid through Nonindicted 8 on May 26, 2002.

However, among the 2 million won paid through Nonindicted 8, Defendant 2 gave the rest of KRW 1 million to Defendant 2,000, and Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 was only KRW 1 million and was recorded in the register in order to make a subsequent confirmation. Since it was not mentioned at all, the possibility of delivery cannot be ruled out. Defendant 2 also gave 10 million to Defendant 1 a total sum of KRW 10 million by communicating several post-lines and allowing 10 million each to make a money to be used by Defendant 1. In light of the above, it is difficult to conclude that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether this part was delivered to Defendant 1.

Furthermore, with respect to the remainder of KRW 7 million other than the above KRW 3 million, each of the above evidence alone cannot be identified as to who is specifically apportioned, whenever and how much money was delivered, and there was no objective data to support the investigation by a named sender, and there was no other objective data to support the investigation. Thus, the remainder of the above part cannot be said to be insufficient to prove the proof of a crime.

(3) Judgment on the acceptance of bribe and the grant of bribe (Articles 1-3(3) and 2-1(4)) to police officers at the early June 2002

(A) Evidence conforming to the facts of the crime

1) Defendant 2-2’s statement of confession in 2002

① On June 1, 2002, the chief of the Jinju Prison Security Division at the Jinju Prison Security Division at the first time and around June 2002, the evaluation of the chief of the security division of the Jinju Prison. As such, in mind that it is necessary to sum up the number of employees and the encouragement of employees, Defendant 1 gave KRW 4 million to Defendant 1.

② In response to Nonindicted 6’s phone calls to Nonindicted 6 and calls to Nonindicted 6 that “If there is any person who is in need of food service, he would have an interview with 4 million won and put 4 million won into the meeting.” On the following day, Nonindicted 6 sent 4 million won to Defendant 1 as the chief of the security room in the cycle of Nonindicted 14 and 4 million won, and Nonindicted 6 sent 4 million won to Defendant 1.

③ 회식 후 직원들을 통해 피고인 1이 회식비를 내지 않고 계장들이 회식비를 갹출하였다는 말을 듣고 피고인 1에게 따졌더니 피고인 1이 ‘1차 오리고기 값 150만 원은 자신이 샀고, 2차에서 계장들이 카드로 술값을 계산하는 바람에 돈을 쓰지 않았고, 나중에 계장들에게 돈을 돌려주는 것이 이상하여 그냥 있었다’라고 변명하였다.

2) Nonindicted 1’s statement

① The written statement dated September 6, 2002 prepared by Nonindicted Party 1: Defendant 1 provided 5 million won at the opening of the education, and Defendant 2 provided 6 with phone calls from Nonindicted Party 6; on June 5, 2002, Nonindicted Party 6 provided personnel to the chief of the security division at the attorney meeting room with Nonindicted Party 14 and the attorney meeting room. In this case, the chief of the security division showed that he had a coffee, while having a coffee, the chief of the security division put the envelope into the back part, and that amount is considered to exceed two million won to three million won.

② On September 11, 2002, the prosecutor’s statement made by Defendant 1: (a) after the education was conducted, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 to have his public opinion about the security and guidance room affixed to Defendant 2; (b) Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to have a water-fished place; (c) made a conversation; (d) Defendant 2 asked the head of the security division to prepare KRW 5 million at the guidance room; and (e) Nonindicted 6 instructed Nonindicted 6 to request a special meeting to call Nonindicted 14 to substitute for five million won; and (e) Defendant 1 appeared to have been aware of the fact that 200,000 won or more was left in the bar room; and (e) Defendant 2 appears to have been aware of the fact that 200,000 won or more was left in the back of the bar room.

③ The prosecutor’s statement made on November 7, 2006: Defendant 2 showed that he received two bags from Nonindicted 6 along with Nonindicted 6, under the name of a meeting, Defendant 1 was not more than one million won per envelope.

④ On March 30, 2007, Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 would take a ceremony of the chief of the security division and the guidance room at around June 2002. However, the amount of Nonindicted 6 would not be KRW 5 million. At that time, Nonindicted 6 took a person who was Nonindicted 14 and met Defendant 2 at the attorney-at-law meeting room, and she brought a drinking water, and Defendant 1 received one envelope and added it to Australia.

3) Nonindicted 29’s statement

① Around June 5, 2002, Jinju-si, Seocho-si, an early 2002, the head of the 56 fraternity, who participated in the second alcohol level, paid the security and mooring room and Defendant 1 to the studio room next to the Dong-si, Jin-si, the two-lanes, and Defendant 1 her drinking again to the studio room next to the Dong-si, Jin-si, the head of the 56 fraternity, at the time of the second alcohol level.

② After that, Nonindicted 57, one of the participants in the meeting, told Nonindicted 57 to collect the drinking value in 230,000 won, and paid KRW 2,30,000 to the meeting cost.

③ Around June 2002, Defendant 2 had an interview with Defendant 2 and had an interview with Defendant 2. Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 demanded the meeting cost of KRW 8 million and did not pay money that Defendant 2 demanded.

4) Statement by Non-Indicted 33: around June 2002, Defendant 1 and the chief of the safety and guidance room had a common sense, and after the ceremony, Defendant 2 stated that “Defendant 2 paid money to Defendant 1 for the meal expenses, but Defendant 1 did not use it for the meal expenses, so the chief of the guidance room collected the meal expenses, and two people claimed it.”

5) Statement by Nonindicted 14: At the end of a few months after Nonindicted 6 was released, Nonindicted 6 visited the Jinju Prison with Nonindicted 6; however, he did not directly interview Defendant 2; at the time, Nonindicted 6 entered the chief of the security room and interview Defendant 2.

(B) Determination

1) 피고인 2의 자백의 신빙성 : 앞서 본 교도관들의 진술을 모아보면, 2002. 6. 5.경 보안과 계장들과 피고인 1의 회식이 있었고, 당시 2차 술값을 보안과 계장들이 갹출하여 낸 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인 2가 2002년 검찰에서 이 부분에 관하여 진술을 하면서 회식비 명목으로 피고인 1에게 돈을 주었다고만 진술한 것이 아니라, 회식비 갹출 문제를 따지면서 피고인 1에게 들은 구체적인 변명 내용까지 진술하고 있을 뿐 아니라, 그 즈음 공소외 14가 특별접견을 온 사실도 그 진술에 부합하므로( 공소외 14는 피고인 2를 면회한 사실은 인정하면서도 돈을 준 사실은 부인하는 취지로 진술하나, 평소 피고인 2와 친분이 없고 공소외 6과만 친분이 있던 공소외 14가 달리 피고인 2를 면회 올 이유가 없다) 이 부분에 관한 피고인 2의 진술은 신빙성이 인정된다. 한편, 피고인들은 피고인 2가 2006. 11. 검찰 제2회 피의자신문에서는 당시 진주교도소에 있지도 않았던 공소외 43으로부터 400만 원을 빌렸다고 진술하였음을 들어, 피고인 2의 진술의 신빙성 전부를 다투지만, 위 2006. 11.의 검찰 제2회 피의자신문에서의 진술은 피고인 2가 변명하는 바와 같은 경위로 나중에 발뺌을 하기 위해 일부 사실을 명백히 사실과 다르게 진술한 것에 불과하다고 보이므로 위 진술은 믿기 어렵고, 그것이 피고인 2의 2002년 검찰 진술의 신빙성을 감쇄시키는 자료가 된다고는 보이지 않는다.

2) The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement: The Defendants made a different statement in an envelope with the amount incurred by Non-Indicted 1 whenever they made a statement; Defendant 2 made a statement to Defendant 1 when he was examined by the prosecution; Defendant 2 delivered two bags with the money; and Defendant 2 changed his statement to one before the court; but Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that it is not consistent with the following: (i) the fact of offering money and valuables on the spot was not recorded in the non-indicted 1’s statement before the confession; (ii) although there is a difference in the amount, Non-Indicted 1’s statement and Non-Indicted 1’s statement to Defendant 2 that it was difficult for the prosecutor to consistently respond to the amount of the non-Indicted 1’s statement to the effect that it was difficult for the Non-Indicted 4 to have the Non-Indicted 1’s statement since it was difficult for the prosecutor to have the Non-Indicted 1’s statement to be made in the manner that it was consistent with each of the non-Indicted 1’s statements before the prosecution’s statement.

3) Sub-determinations: If so, the facts constituting the crime of this part of the judgment can be found guilty without any reasonable doubt in light of the above evidence.

(5) The judgment on the acceptance of bribe and the grant (Articles 1-4(d) and 2-1(5) at the time of sale) around June 29, 2002

(A) Evidence conforming to the facts of the crime

1) Defendant 2-2’s statement of confession in 2002

① At around 1:00 on June 29, 200, around 11:00, the head of the Jinju Prison Security Office stated Defendant 1, who was mixed with cash, to use KRW 5,00,000 as a pre-paid household, and was placed in an envelope by mixing cashier’s checks and cash, and was not memory for a long time.

② Since the maximum limit of the patient’s custody amount is 3 million won, the money received from those who have held a special meeting to be used in an urgent manner was concealed in the rear side (8Hah 14). In general, 5 million won was close to 10 million won if there are many cases, and the money which he/she has concealed was collected from the Defendant 1.

2) Nonindicted 1’s statement

① On September 11, 2002, the prosecutor’s statement at the prosecution: Defendant 2 told that he will prepare five million won in advance, and it is known that he collected money from those who have held a special meeting on June 29, 2002 and delivered it to Defendant 1 on June 29, 2002, and Defendant 2 told that he would drink Defendant 1 through those who want to drink on June 29, 2002.

③ On March 30, 2007, Defendant 2 told Defendant 2 that he did not directly talk about the pre-sale, but rather, Defendant 1 did not agree with Defendant 1. However, it was understood that Defendant 2’s remarks did not go to the extent that Defendant 2’s remarks did not go to Defendant 1 more than KRW 5 million, while Defendant 2 returned to Defendant 1 that he had paid the pre-sale amount to Defendant 1.

3) Nonindicted 11’s prosecutor’s statement

① After Non-Indicted 58, who had served as Defendant 2’s selling prior to April 2002, was released from prison, Defendant 2 requested the tobacco management by requesting the management of tobacco, but Defendant 2 was also required to manage the tobacco from that time, following the following fact: (a) Nonindicted 58, who had served as Defendant 2’s selling, was released from prison; (b) the management of the tobacco was changed by requesting the management of the tobacco; and (c) the head of the three front corridor on the nine-dimensional upper floor was removed, and said Nonindicted

② At around 10:00 on June 200, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to provide money to KRW 5,00,000,000 each prior to his transfer, and Defendant 2 gave to Defendant 2 the amount of KRW 2,00,000 (one million in cash, one million cashier’s checks), which Defendant 2 held, and Defendant 2 sent to the chief of the security room, KRW 3,00,00 (one million cashier’s checks of KRW 1,00,00) that Defendant 2 had, and then, Defendant 2 went to the chief of the security room.

(B) Determination

On June 29, 2002, the non-indicted 1's statement is stated only as the "child-gu drinking house and one million won" but it cannot be immediately rejected the credibility of each of the above statements just because the statement is a statement on the part not recorded in the non-indicted 1's book, and the contents of the above non-indicted 1's statement are not contrary to the facts of the crime in itself. ② The non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 2 made the above non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 2's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement was unsatisfy, is consistent with the contents of the above non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 2's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 2's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement was made with the non-indicted 1's statement that the non-indicted 2's statement that the above non-indicted 1's statement was made.

3. Determination on the part on Defendant 2’s attempted coercion (hereinafter “Defendant”)

A. The elements of coercion

(1) The crime of coercion is established by preventing another person from exercising his/her right or having another person perform an act which is not obligated by assault or intimidation. Here, the obligation of “non-obligatory work” refers to the legal obligation arising from the law, contract, etc., and does not include the mere moral obligation.

(2) If Nonindicted 3’s intention not to be punished against the Defendant in the court after the withdrawal of the complaint against the Defendant before the prosecution of this case is made, and it is not acknowledged that Nonindicted 3 had an obligation to hold a public performance in panty, even if there was intimidation against Nonindicted 3, the Defendant shall not be punished. Thus, after examining whether Nonindicted 3 had an obligation to hold a public performance in panpanty in Japan, it should be examined whether the Defendant threatened Nonindicted 3 to hold a public performance in Japan, even though not having an obligation to do so.

B. Whether Non-Indicted 3 is obligated to hold a public performance pandeing

(1) Basic facts acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence

(A) around 2001, Non-Indicted 3 entered into an exclusive agreement for five years with Lone Star Mar. 2, 2001 (the name of the company was changed from None Star Entertainment, and the company was acquired from None Star International Co., Ltd. on August 22, 2004). Around August 2005 or September 2, 2005, Non-Indicted 3 re-entered the exclusive agreement with None Star International Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the above two companies were merged around December 2005.

(B) On September 2005, Non-Indicted 3 went to the "Mona" operated by Syman, Co., Ltd., the affiliated company, Non-Indicted 25 and Non-Indicted 5, along with Non-Indicted 4's director non-Indicted 4's introduction on September 24, 2005. At that place, Non-Indicted 3 received two visibility such as one clock, Non-Indicted 25 and Non-Indicted 4 from each clock, and Non-Indicted 3 received one clock, and Non-Indicted 4 from Nyman to Eyman.

(C) Around March 10, 2006, Nonindicted 25 prepared a written confirmation to Nonindicted 4 that “ Nonindicted 3 shall hold a three panty-out performance in Japan from March 2006 to May 2007, and the performance shall be confirmed to be exclusively hosted by EienNfran Co., Ltd.” and issued it to Nonindicted 4.

(D) On March 2006 or around April 2006, the Defendant talked about Nonindicted 26, 26, and 5, the father of Nonindicted 3, who was at the time Nonindicted 3’s care at the Ganyang-si Hospital, in relation to the events of panty-style performances by Nonindicted 3.

(E) On April 12, 2006, Nonindicted 3 notified that the exclusive contract would be terminated by the International Law Firm Spanman Co., Ltd.

(F) On April 13, 2006, the Defendant called Nonindicted 3 on April 13, 2006, but again called Nonindicted 3 on behalf of Nonindicted 3 and called Nonindicted 24 on behalf of Nonindicted 3. On the following day, Nonindicted 4 called Nonindicted 3 and called Nonindicted 3. In this case, Nonindicted 4 was in the same office as the Defendant who called.

(2) A statement relating to the public performance

(A) Non-Indicted 3: Non-Indicted 3: (a) did not have any talk about pantyping before visiting “Manain” and (b) did not enter into a contract or agreed on any content with Non-Indicted 4, Namaz or affiliated company in relation to the performance of Japanese pantyping with Non-Indicted 4, Namaz or its affiliated company by providing that Non-Indicted 4, who is his own ship, shall be placed in the visual room operated by his well-known person, and shall be placed in the visual room operated by his own ship, and if he affixs his photograph, he shall be placed in the visual room operated by his own ship.

(B) Non-Indicted 25: on September 24, 2005, Non-Indicted 5 stated that “When Non-Indicted 4, who is a friendly son, operates the visual room, the person visited Non-Indicted 3 panty, he left the visual room with Non-Indicted 3, 5, and 4 as a gift, and affixed a photograph to the visual room with Non-Indicted 3, 5, and 4, and the visitors received several visuals, and the visitors did not listen to all the talks about the pandeing performance before the visual visit, and on March 24, 2006, Non-Indicted 4 wanted to promote Non-Indicted 3 pandeing performance on the condition of Non-Indicted 2 billion won in Japan and three pandeing performances with the company of Hahodo in Japan.

(C) Nonindicted 5

1) Prosecutorial statement on July 14, 2006: around September 14, 2005, when the defendant went to Japan, he met Nonindicted 4, a prior to his opening. Nonindicted 3’s panty will be viewed as a private gift, and Nonindicted 3's phone number should not be known to Nonindicted 4 prior to his opening, and the defendant should not be known to Nonindicted 4 in relation to Nonindicted 4's panty because he did not meet the time to see the private person, and the private person should also be seen as having been able to see the private person.

2) Legal statement: Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4, together with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3, reached an oral agreement at the hotel prior to the visibility with the content that Nonindicted 3 would hold a pandecing performance, and then Nonindicted 3 would be able to see that “I have a pandecing performance and that I would have a pandecing performance.” At the end of the Defendant, Nonindicted 3 would be able to see that I would have a pandeing performance, and that I would like to see why I would have a pandecing performance, and that I would like to see that Non-Indicted 3 would have a pandecing performance, and that Non-Indicted 3 would have a pandecing event.

(D) On September 23, 2005, the non-indicted 4 was discussed with Non-indicted 3 and non-indicted 5 on the condition that the public performance of panioning will be promoted three times on the condition that the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 3 will do so on the condition that the non-indicted 3 will have known that the non-indicted 3 would have her face or one face in the visual room operated by the panioning body in Japan, and that the non-indicted 3 would have taken her view of "the panioning stage would have taken her view as a gift." After that, the non-indicted 3 did not directly talk with the non-indicted 5, 26 and the non-indicted 3 agreed on the issue of the public performance of panioning with the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 26 on February 206.

(마) 공소외 26 : 공소외 5의 소개로 공소외 4를 만났으며, 공소외 5, 4와 팬미팅 공연을 추진하기로 협의한 사실이 있고, 2006. 4.에 동경 도쿄돔에서 공소외 3의 팬미팅을 개최하려다가 여건이 맞지 않아 무산된 적이 있는데 그 이후 공소외 4가 다시 팬미팅을 추진해보자고 하여 3회에 20억 원을 받는 조건으로 추진하기로 하였고, 공소외 4가 팬미팅 추진과 관련하여 확인서를 써 달라고 하여 공소외 25가 확인서를 써주었으며, 2006. 3. 또는 4.경 안양에 있는 병원에서 공소외 27, 5와 함께 피고인을 만난 자리에서 피고인에게 팬미팅이 무산된 경위를 설명하고, ‘돈을 받은 것도 공소외 4 사장이 관련된 사람이 받은 것이고, 우리 회사에서 돈을 받은 것이 없다’, ‘시계를 팬미팅 조건으로 받은 것이 아니다’ 등 그때까지의 경위를 설명하니 피고인이 팬미팅을 할 수 있게 해달라고 요구하였고, 공소외 5, 25, 자신이 공소외 4와 접촉하면서 ‘시계는 사인해 주는 대가로 준 것인데 왜 팬미팅하고 연관시키느냐’고 따지니까 공소외 4가 시계는 팬미팅과는 무관한 것이라고 하였다.

(F) Non-Indicted 27: Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 26 explained that Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 26 “The Defendant had known that Non-Indicted 3 would have received visibility in Japan and had received a public performance in Japan,” and that he would have tried to talk several times with the Defendant on April 2006, and that Non-Indicted 26 and Non-Indicted 5 would talk with Non-Indicted 4.

(G) Almaz Namaz, along with Non-Indicted 4 on September 23, 2005, he sawd Non-Indicted 3, 25, and 5 as the beginning with Non-Indicted 4 on the same day. Non-Indicted 4 agreed that Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 3 will hold a panty-out on the condition of KRW 2 billion on the next day and agreed that Non-Indicted 3 will be able to prepare the panty-out system on the "Manaz." On the following day, Non-Indicted 3, 25, 5, and 4 had been found at the panpan-out stage, and Non-Indicted 3 will not hold a panty-out stage on the part of Non-Indicted 4 on the end of December 2005, but it did not request Non-Indicted 3 to hold a panty-out stage on the part of Non-Indicted 16.

(3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., Nonindicted Co. 3’s statement, Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 3’s representative director, Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 4 were aware that Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 3 did not have any prior agreement on the public performance for Nonindicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 6’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 6’s non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 6’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 3’s non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 6’s non-indicted Co. 2’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 2’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted.

Furthermore, according to Non-Indicted 5, 26, and 27’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant did not receive the Defendant’s pandeing performance, not for the pandeing performance, but for the pandeing performance with Non-Indicted 4, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant would have been pandeing performance promoted by Non-Indicted 4,” it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was aware that there was no specific contract regarding Non-Indicted 3’s pandeing performance, and that there was a spandeing perception to the extent that the contract would not have yet been concluded.

B. Whether the defendant threatened the defendant

(1) The fact that coercion was attempted on April 13, 2006

(A) Each prosecutor’s statement by Nonindicted 3, 24, and 40

1) At around 21:00 on April 13, 2006, Nonindicted 3: (a) decided that the phone from Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 40 and Nonindicted 24 when she was traveling along with Nonindicted 40 and Nonindicted 24, and then, (b) decided that certain persons would change the chairperson, and (c) her phone was cut off, and (d) her phone was frighted and her phone was called “B, Defendant 24,” and (d) the Defendant changed Nonindicted 3 to “a video tape that was located in Japan,” and (d) said, Nonindicted 24 was “I cannot see that the Defendant was “I cannot do so,” and the Defendant was “I am off, I am fine, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off to the sea.”

2) At around 10:00 on April 13, 2006, Nonindicted 24: (a) the Defendant received the Defendant’s phone instead of Nonindicted 3, and (b) the Defendant called “B and Defendant 2,” and (c) the Defendant called “B and Defendant 2,” and (d) it appears that Nonindicted 3 was “I wanted to have a public performance even after being viewed in Japan,” and there was a question as to whether or not there is a video tape.” (b) Nonindicted 3’s house meets Non-Indicted 402, and (c) said, it was said that “I would have the sea from the day to the day to the day to the day to the day of the public performance.”

3) While Nonindicted 40 was carrying Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 3 called “e.g.,” Nonindicted 3’s phone call, and called “Defendant 2C,” Nonindicted 24 again, and Nonindicted 24 called “Defendant 2C.” Nonindicted 24 directly told Nonindicted 24 to read “the video tape ?” and “it is possible for South and North to do so.” After the phone was cut off, Nonindicted 24 called “Nonindicted 3’s video tape, and Nonindicted 3 ought to come to come to go to go to the sea from the inside date.”

(B) Each legal statement of Nonindicted 3, 24, and 40

1) Nonindicted 3: Nonindicted 24 stated that “The company had decided to hold a public performance in Japan by making panty pande as a way to do so, and that there was a talk that Nonindicted 3’s talked about Nonindicted 3’s panty test, and that Nonindicted 3’s talked about where it was “?” Nonindicted 3’s speech, and whether it is “the sea” or “blick,” is not directly talked, but rather, memory.

2) Non-Indicted 24: The Defendant expressed his awareness that “Non-Indicted 3 knows that he will not hold a public performance in Japan even though he was in sight of Japan,” and the Defendant talked about the corruption related to the work in Japan in Japan, and Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 40 expressed that he would not be able to do so, and the Defendant talked about whether he would be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be

3) Nonindicted 40: Although Nonindicted 24 did not accurately memory the Defendant’s telephone, it was the same as Nonindicted 3 and 40 who talked about whether it is “the sea” or “the wind” after the Defendant’s telephone was cut.

(C) Determination

In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 3 stated that the Defendant had consistently talked with Nonindicted Party 24 at the prosecution and the court that “the wind will be the sea,” or that Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 24 stated that the Defendant would not accurately memory “the sea,” but the above two persons stated that the Defendant would not have been subject to public performance at the prosecutor’s office at the point of time when Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 3’s address and that there was an “the sea,” and that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been subject to public performance, such as Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 3’s telephone, and that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been subject to public performance, such as Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 24’s oral statement, and that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been subject to public performance at the time when she would not have been able to know that he would have been subject to public performance on the part of Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 3’s address.”

(2) The point of coerciond on April 14, 2006

(A) Currency content: As shown in the hearing of cell phone recordings attached to an investigation report, it is evident that the Defendant used the same words as described in Article 2-b (2) of the Criminal facts indicated in the judgment of Nonindicted 3.

(B) Determination

In light of the overall context, it appears to the effect that Nonindicted 3 would spread a good talk about Nonindicted 3 through the press or the Internet when Nonindicted 3 did not hold a public performance, and that it would be sufficient for the Defendant to examine whether it constitutes a public performance of Nonindicted 3 in light of the following: (a) the phrase, “I would have to go through a telephone even if I would have known his name; and (b) how I would do so; and (c) the phrase, “I would see how I would see what kind of harm it would be done to Nonindicted 3 if I would not go through the Defendant’s request in a public performance; and (d) the Defendant’s statement, in light of the telephone day before the call was made to Nonindicted 3 and the circumstances leading up to Nonindicted 3’s intimidation; and (e) the Defendant’s statement, etc. as to Nonindicted 3’s statement on the phone call was made to Nonindicted 3, 206.

C. Sub-committee

If so, Nonindicted 3 did not have a legal obligation to hold a pande-out performance in Japan, and the charge that Nonindicted 3, despite being aware of such circumstances, threatened Nonindicted 3, thereby allowing Nonindicted 3 to hold a pande-out performance without any obligation, is sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

1. On May 8, 2002, the acceptance of the bribe against Defendant 1, and the offer of the bribe against Defendant 2 on May 8, 2002

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1: (a) around May 8, 2002, at the head of the Jinju-si Security Office of Jinju-si, Ginju-si, Ginju-si, the head of Jinju-si, to promote the quality of water supply from Defendant 2 to April 26, 2002; (b) made the convenience of prison life as above; (c) made the convenience of prison life at the time of the next demand for the convenience of prison life; and (d) made a special meeting with Nonindicted 13 without the permission of the head of the prison; (c) received KRW 1 million under the pretext of the honorarium, and received a bribe after the public official committed an unlawful act in the course of his duties; and (d) Defendant 2 delivered KRW 1 million to Defendant 1 as above.

B. Determination

(1) As the evidence presented as shown in this part of the facts charged, the statement of Nonindicted 1 and 2 and the statement of Nonindicted 13 on May 9, 2002, which recorded the fact that Nonindicted 13 had made a special meeting with Defendant 2, are recorded as evidence, we examine whether the facts charged can be found guilty according to each of the above evidences.

(2) Each statement made by Nonindicted 1 and 2

(A) Nonindicted 1’s statement

① On September 6, 2002, Non-Indicted 1’s written statement: on May 7, 2002, Non-Indicted 2, who did not work for the watchkeeping and did not work for the chief of the security department, received KRW 1 million from the person who was on the face of Non-Indicted 2, and on the following day, Defendant 2 provided the money to Defendant 2 before entering the security department, and Defendant 2 provided the money to the chief of the security department, and Defendant 2 provided the money to the chief of the security department.

② On September 11, 2002, the prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 33, which was the chief of the security guidance room on May 8, 2002, stated that Nonindicted 2 was presumed to have received an envelope from an interviewr and concealed Nonindicted 2. However, it is clear that Nonindicted 2 led Nonindicted 2 to the escape room of the staff and received KRW 1 million from the interviewr on May 8, 2002, and Defendant 2 sent the said money to Defendant 2 before the attorney’s interview room. Defendant 2 was placed in the main machine and entered the head of the security room for up to 2 hours. In that sense, it is clear that Defendant 1 did not have any sign made in the main machine, and thus, Defendant 2 paid the money to Defendant 1.

③ On March 30, 2007: Around May 2002, Non-Indicted 2, who had worked as the exclusive team on his behalf, was subject to the interview, and he was sent the clothes and one million won of the bags to Defendant 2, but he was sent the said envelope to Defendant 2. Defendant 2, who received it, sent the clothes to the chief of the security room, and went to the chief of the security room. At this time, it was impossible to confirm whether he was able to get back the envelope, but it was impossible to confirm whether he was able to get back the envelope, but it was due to the fact that Defendant 2 delivered the said envelope to Defendant 1.

(B) Nonindicted 2’s statement: around 14:00 on May 7, 2002, when Nonindicted 1 worked as a person in exclusive charge of Defendant 2, Nonindicted 13 discovered that Nonindicted 13 provided Defendant 2 with an envelope and clothes in which KRW 1,00,000 won was paid to the visitors, and the said money was stored in the escape room of the staff, and the said money was held in custody by Nonindicted 1 of the next day, and there was no fact that other correctional officers, such as Nonindicted 33, etc., were employed at the time when he deducted the envelope of money.

(3) On September 6, 2002, Non-Indicted 1 stated that Defendant 2 transferred the envelope he left to Defendant 1. However, on September 11, 2002, Non-Indicted 1 stated that “I think I would have made it impossible before Non-Indicted 2 entered the security room, and I would have given money to Defendant 1 because I would not have made it impossible to do so,” and it appears that Non-Indicted 1 would not have directly observed the receipt of a bribe from Defendant 2, and that there was no reason to acknowledge that Non-Indicted 1 would have received money from Non-Indicted 2 as a whole because Non-Indicted 1 did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that Non-Indicted 2 had offered money to Defendant 2 for the same time as Non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s statement.

2. The acceptance of bribe to Defendant 1 and the offering of bribe to Defendant 2 between May 26, 2002 and June 1, 2002

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 received KRW 10 million in total from May 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002, from the director of the security room of Jinju-si, Ginju-si, Ginju-si, to promote the level of work so that the performance can be excellent, and as above, he offered convenience of prison life, and thereafter offered convenience of prison life to Defendant 1. The defendant 2 delivered KRW 10 million in total to Defendant 1 through 11, such as Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10,000 in Suwon-si, Ginju-si, Jinju-si, Ginju-si, the District Court: (a) on May 2002, 202; and (b) on the basis of the reward, he received KRW 10 million in total from May 26, 2002 to June 202.

B. Determination

As seen in Article 2-2 (b) (2) of the judgment on the above Defendants’ assertion, the part other than that “Defendant 2 delivered to Defendant 1 a sum of KRW 1 million through Nonindicted 7 and KRW 2 million through Nonindicted 8, and Defendant 1 received and delivered it by Defendant 1,” which is found guilty, is insufficient evidence to prove it. As such, Defendant 2 delivered KRW 8 million to Defendant 1 among the above facts charged, and the facts charged as to the receipt and payment of it by Defendant 1 constitute a case without proof of a crime, and thus, not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found that Defendant 2 was guilty of the offering of a bribe of KRW 2 million, which is part of the comprehensive crime, and of the above KRW 2 million by Defendant 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, it shall not be sentenced separately in the text

Defendant 1 had no criminal record other than punishment due to alteration of official documents during which the act was conducted. However, considering the fact that Defendant 2 received a bribe from a person in charge of controlling and supervising a correctional officer, who is not another person, and provided convenience to a prison officer on the ground of a minor person, Defendant 1’s act committed so far as the correction order of a Jinju prison was considerably disturbed, and it appears that the correctional officer’s fraud was significantly deteriorated, such as Defendant 1’s request for a prison officer’s probation or grievance handling, and even if it was inevitable to permit a prison officer to take advantage of his official position, Defendant 2 was also subject to punishment for a certain period of time, and Defendant 1 was also subject to punishment for a limited period of time, and Defendant 2 was also subject to prosecution for a limited period of time, and thus, Defendant 1 was also subject to a prison officer’s punishment for committing an unlawful act, such as committing a violation of the law, even if the prison officer’s act was conducted for a limited period of time.

Judges Lee Dong-young (Presiding Judge)