beta
Text
Defendant
B Imprisonment for three years, for four years, for Defendant C, for three years, for Defendant D, and for one year, for Defendant A.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
In light of the Defendants’ assertion and the process of the hearing, “2016 Gohap 98, 2016 Gohap 125,” part of the facts charged was corrected according to the facts obtained through the examination of evidence without due process to amend the indictment, to the extent that there is no likelihood that the said Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights may be substantially disadvantaged.
[criminal history] Defendant C was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 50 million at the Seoul Central District Court on May 16, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 16, 2014. Defendant B was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence for the crime of acquiring a third party bribe at the Seoul Central District Court on May 16, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 2, 2013.
[2] Defendant C was in office as the head of the victim's O-building improvement project association (hereinafter "victim's association") with the office No. 102 and 201 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul N-gu from February 16, 2009 to May 2013, and was in office as the head of the cooperative in charge of the affairs related to the building project of Seongbuk-gu P-gu Seoul P apartment construction project (hereinafter "the project of this case") and the affairs of the victim's association. Defendant B, as the site manager of the project of this case, was in charge of various civil complaints related to the victim's association and the representative director of Q (hereinafter "P") which are the victim's association and the corporation in charge of removal and relocation, etc., and Defendant D was in charge of the construction of the project of this case while serving as QU, and Defendant A was in charge of the deputy head of the project of this case while performing the project of this case.
A victim union shall have the State with respect to the construction cost incurred in the project of this case that the victim union is a project proprietor at the national bank account (S) in the name of the victim union around August 31, 2011.