A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Acquisition of third-party brain;

(c) Delivery of third-party brain;

d. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (mergers)

1. A.o 0 (0000 - 000000), free of office

c. D. 0 0 0 (0000 - 00000) and representative of a construction company;

3. (b) 0 0 (0000 - 000000)

Prosecutor 00

Attorney 0 in charge of the 0 General Law Office, a defense counsel 0 0

(for Defendant 00)

Attorney 00 (for defendant 00)

Law Firm 00 Attorneys Park 00 (for defendant 00)

July 18, 2006

Defendant 0 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, by imprisonment for three years, and by imprisonment for three years, and by imprisonment for ten years for one year and six months.

The 160 days of detention days before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against 00 days, and the 16 days shall be included in the above sentence against 00 days.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 00 shall be suspended. From Defendant 000 to KRW 170,00,000, and from KRW 00 to KRW 320,00,000 shall be collected respectively.

To order Defendant 0 0 to provide community service for 80 hours.

Criminal History Office

Defendant 0 was elected at the market on June 4, 1998, and was in office as zero market from around July 1, 200 to around June 13, 2002, and was in office as zero market from around March 26, 2004. On July 8, 2003, the Busan District Court sentenced 5 years to imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) at the Busan District Court on March 26, 2004, and the sentence became final and conclusive. Defendant 0 was a person who actually operates 00 total construction, 00 construction and 00 stock companies, and Defendant 0 was in office from around April 1, 200 to June 12, 200, Defendant 0 was in office as the following one who had been in office as the head of the Si on July 4, 200 and had been in office as the head of the Si on March 4, 2008.

1. Defendant 0 0

A. From May 16, 200 to 00, the office of 00 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "office of 00 U.S.") with the location of 00 U.S. (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S."), upon request from 0000 to 000 U.S. operating the machinery and equipment company, and upon request from 000 U.S. operating the machinery and equipment company, the office of 00 U.S. to arrange for receiving government-funded construction works, such as "construction of resource recovery facilities at 00 U.S. at 00s." (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S."), and around 16, 2000 foreign exchange bank passbooks with the above Defendant's accounting officer's KRW 3 million (00 -00 -000 - 1 million with the above public official's total number of 1 million U.S. - 2000 - 1 million won with the above Defendant's money and valuables.

B. From the election office of Defendant 00 on May 1, 2002, in preparation for a reelection in the Southern-dong 00 to Defendant 00 election campaignmen, the above 00 election campaignmen, the above 000 election campaignmen, in relation to the reward for the provision of convenience received from the above 000 and the relation to the authorization and permission, etc., the defendant attempted to allow the defendant and the defendant to receive an order from the public official's intermediary for the provision of convenience at the above 000s and the ordered 00 times in the future, and requested 00 for the convenience related to the person's and permission, and granted 20 million won to the above 00 under the pretext of solicitation, from that time to July 20 of the same year, and delivered 200 million won to the third party for the purpose of a bribe in relation to the public official's duties by providing 200 million won in total as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. Defendant 00 received KRW 200 million in total five times with knowledge of the fact that the amount to be given as a bribe in connection with official duties from 000 at the same time and at the same place as 1-B, as above, Defendant 00 received KRW 200 million in total.

3. Defendant 00 0 received 20 million won from the above 000 at the same time and at the same place as 1-B, from the above 000, as 1-B, from that time and from that time, he received 20 million won as 1-B as above.

Haman received 170,000,000 won in total four times, such as the list of crimes (3) in the attached list of crimes, and received money and valuables in relation to public officials' duties.

Summary of Evidence

【No. 1-A of the Judgment】

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of 00,00 witnesses:

1. Each statement of 00 witnesses in the second and third protocol of trial;

1. Each written statement by the prosecution against 000 (one to three times), 00,000,000;

1. A written statement of 00 ;

1. Report on the confirmation of the account details by the account holders employed by a person under internal investigation, and on the attachment of the account books with the Busan Correctional Institution of 00 persons under internal investigation;

[Nos. 1-B, 2-3]

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of 00,00 witnesses:

1. In the second trial records, each part of the witness 00, 00, and 00; and

1. Partial statement of 00 witnesses in the third protocol of trial;

1. A copy of the protocol of examination of the suspect (four times, five times, six times), and protocol of examination of the prosecution with respect to 000 (including five times, five times, five times, six times, and five times, five times,00,000 large items);

1. A copy of the statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution with respect to 000 (one to three times), and 00;

1. A copy of the written statement 00;

1. A copy of a report accompanied by documents related to the facility for recovery and installation of resources, a copy of a report on verification of personal information by those who use at least 000 persons in cash, a copy of a report attached to the current status of the establishment of a facility for recovery of resources at a time of 00 hours, a copy of a report attached to the current status of the establishment of a facility for recovery of resources at a time of 00 hours, a copy of a report attached to the records of meetings at a market at a time of 0000

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant laws and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant 00: As a whole, Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Optional to limited imprisonment)

B. Defendant 00: As a whole, Article 3(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of acceptance of mediation materials and the choice of imprisonment) and Article 133(2) and (1) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the third party bribe)

Delivery, Selection of Imprisonment)

C. Defendant 00: Comprehensively Articles 133(2) and (1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 00: the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act / [the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)]

Defendant 00: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of the punishment prescribed in the crime of delivery of third-party brains with heavier quality)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 00: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 00,000: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 00: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considerations in favor of the Defendant among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant 00: Article 134 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 00: Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the delivery of KRW 150,000 to the police officer from May 2002 to the police officer of the Republic of Korea, and KRW 30,000 to the police officer of the Republic of Korea from July 200 of the same year was made as a bribe to the public official concerned in relation to the solicitation in accordance with the purport of receiving money and valuables, and thus, the collection shall not be made)

1. Social service order;

Defendant 00: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Judgment on Defendant 00 and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. As to whether money was received under the pretext of good offices (1) a summary of the argument

It was true that the Defendant received KRW 00 million from KRW 00,00,000 to KRW 00 through KRW 000,00, not to have received the request to the effect that he would transfer to 00,000 election funds, but not to have received the order order for construction work for KRW 00. (2) The Defendant did not want to offer 00 to 00 in the election campaign at KRW 00,000, “I wish to deliver one minute to 00 00,000 to the chief of the 00th election campaign who want to close the election fund at KRW 0,00,000, but did not want to receive the money from 00,000 “I want to receive the money from 0,000,000,000 from 0,000.”

The statement is made (two times the prosecutor's statement) and 00 - 00 - the statement in this court also wanting to enter into the business in full scale from 0000 to 00, and the election fund is transferred to the election campaign at 0000 - so it is also consistent with this part of the defendant.

However, 00 00 consistently came to know of the defendant through the introduction of 00 billion won at the prosecution and this court. After that, around April 2002, the defendant and several times made a solicitation to arrange for the government-funded construction works ordered by 00 cc for the recovery of resources at 00 cc on April 2002. At first, 1 - 200 billion won was thought to be delivered to the defendant for the first time, but around December 2002, the defendant sent 400 million won to the account known to the defendant for the further demand of money. At around 00 billion won, the defendant could continue to have a 00-day market where the defendant had been sentenced to a 000-day market, and the defendant would have been able to receive a 00-day market where 000-day public works could have been ordered by 000 cc for the future.

In addition, 00 stated that the prosecutor's office made efforts to give orders to the Defendant at that time while 00 made a statement that the Defendant was trying to give orders to the Defendant at that time, such as 00 city resource recovery facility construction outlines, 2002 - 0000 city public notice of tender by the Corporation at that time, and submitted the above documents, and the Defendant also stated that 00 city public notice 00 city public notice and 2002 - 000 city public notice were delivered to 000 city public notice through 00 city public notice (3 times in this court, it is denied in this court, and 00 city public notice) in light of the empirical rule’s request that 00 city public notice was delivered to the Defendant and that 00 city public notice of tender by the Corporation at that time was delivered to 00 city public notice, and that 00 city public notice of tender by the Corporation was delivered to 000 city public notice.

Therefore, in full view of the above facts, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received money under the pretext of receiving orders from 000 to 00 city government-funded construction work, and contrary to this, the defendant's statement and part of 00 court statements are not believed.

B. As to whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 00 billion from KRW 000,000, the gist of the claim (1)

1. A remittance of KRW 00 billion from KRW 00 to KRW 00,000, and the remaining KRW 200 million to KRW 00,000,000, and the remaining KRW 200 million to KRW 00,00,000, and a total of KRW 300,000,000 were to be directly borrowed to KRW 00,00,000, and there is no room to establish the crime of acceptance of good offices.

We examine the credibility of the defendant's statement from 00 to 300 million won.

The defendant, in his written statement (one time), stated that he sent 00 billion won to 00 billion won, and that he borrowed 1 billion won to 00 billion won, and that he borrowed 2 billion won after her request to 00 billion won, and then later borrowed 100 billion won to 00,000 won and later borrowed 10 billion won to 00,000 won. The defendant stated that she borrowed 1 billion won to 00,000 won after her election, and that she borrowed 100,000 won to 0,000 won after her request to do so, she borrowed 2 billion won, and that she borrowed 1 billion won to 00,000,000 won, and that she borrowed 1 billion won after her request to her oral statement to her prosecutor that she would use she would use her money more than 1 billion won.

In addition, although he told that he would not borrow KRW 300 million from the defendant, he did not know that he would not use the money to the defendant, considering the following: (a) although he told that he would not talk about the money in Korea, he would directly 00 presidents of 00; (b) he would not call about the money in Korea; and (c) 00 prosecutor's and court statements of 000 prosecutor's office, court statements of 00 with the purport that she would borrow money from the defendant to 0000, and that she would not call about her money from the defendant; (d) there was no special relationship between the defendant and 000 at the time, and (e) it was not consistent with the empirical rule that he did not prepare a loan certificate while lending it to the defendant at the time, and that it was not set at the rate of due date and time does not fit to the empirical rule, it is difficult to believe that the above defendant's statements and the receipts bound in the investigation records of 2005 type 000.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit, and as seen earlier, the defendant's whole 500 million won received from 00 billion won shall be established as a crime of mediation acceptance.

C. Summary of the defendant's assertion that the time and amount of the defendant delivered a bribe to 000

The Defendant, from May 17, 2002 to around the 31st day of the same month, delivered 200 million won as a bribe four times each at a request of 00 million won between May 17, 2002, and delivered 20 million won around May 10, 2002.

(2) Determination

According to the prosecutor's office and this court, the defendant consistently delivered 000 electoral campaign to 000 scams on the preceding 00 cams, and 00 scams on the 000 cams on the 000 cams on the 000 cams on the 000 cams on the 00 cams, and the defendant did not have contacted 000 cams on the 4 occasions at the 00 cams on the 200 cams on the 20 to 21:0 cams on the 00 camscams on the 00 camscams at the 00 camscams.

However, 00, the defendant's attached 0 0 was set up as 000 to 00 to 00 to 1995 as the chairperson of the election countermeasure, and 00 to 00 to 00 to , and the defendant himself also has 33 cases of 0 to 0 to 33 cases of 0 to 2004 and 27 billion won of contract amount (13 cases of direct contract, 6.9 billion won of contract amount) from 1998 to 2004, and 000 to 6.7.24

After detention, from July 25, 2002 to September 17, 2005, 00 was closed seven times from July 25, 2002, and 0 was a 00 election stand in 1998 and 2002, but it was exercising overall control over the election planning, etc. without official position. Even according to the defendant's statement, 00 first 00 was a 2001 annual election day in 2001, considering that contact with only 00 million won, who is only a 00 million witness, without any prior assistant principal, was believed to have delivered a large amount of money at the time of demand by 000.

Meanwhile, 00 consistently stated that the defendant did not have any contact with the defendant in advance, and that he did not immediately contact 000 persons with the defendant 00 persons, and that he received the above money from the defendant. As to the date and time when he received the money from the defendant, it is impossible to keep a large amount of cash due to complicated election office during the election period, and that he received a large amount of cash amount of 50 million won at one week, and that he first brought money to the defendant was around May 10, 2002 and around May 16, 200, the first day of the election period was calculated retroactively from May 31, 2002, which is the first day of May 31, 2002 (legal testimony). Since 000 days after the defendant first made a statement to the prosecutor, the defendant's statement was made at 00 times and 500 days after he made a statement to the prosecutor's office.

D. Conclusion

Thus, the criminal facts of the defendant are all found guilty.

2. Judgment on Defendant 00 and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. As to whether or not a bribe was delivered without knowledge, the summary of the claim (1)

00,000,000 won, first, had different contents, but 000, which was contacted by the defendant, became aware of the fact that 50,000 won was the money, and 5,000 won had been brought three times, but the character of the money was not known.

(2) Determination

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated 00 billion won that “the market price is 00,000,000 won,” and stated that he immediately contacted 000,000, and that it does not comply with the empirical rule that the Defendant did not make any special reference while putting large cash into a paper room and delivering it to a paper room. In light of the Defendant’s status and career, the relationship between 00 and 000, the method of delivery of 00,000 won, the Defendant’s cash received from 000 was known that the Defendant was a bribe for 00,000,000,000 won. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. As to whether the status of an independent recipient is recognized, the summary of the argument (1)

0 00, a bribe delivery, intended to deliver 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, and the Defendant did not intend to deliver a bribe to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, merely requested the Defendant who was in the planning office of the election office to deliver the bribe to 0 0 0 0 0 , and the Defendant does not have an independent recipient

(2) Determination

A third party in the crime of acquiring a third party acceptance means a person who has received a bribe to a public official with the knowledge of the fact that it is a bribe to a public official, and the person has received a bribe as a deceased person or proxy or

It shall be deemed that all cases except in cases where the public official received the same as the case in which the public official received it, and in light of the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that the bribe was a bribe and was delivered to 000 and was at the place of confirming the amount after delivery to 000, it cannot be deemed that the above assertion is a mere private person. Therefore, the above assertion is groundless.

C. As to whether the attorney’s fee was borrowed (1) summary of the assertion

From July 2002, 200 to KRW 30,000 were received from KRW 00,00 from KRW 00,00,000 to KRW 0,00,000, while it is necessary for 00 to borrow KRW 60,00,000 to 0,000, and the contact was made to 00,000, and later, 00,000,000 won was delivered to 00, and thus, it cannot be said that a bribe was received.

(2) Determination

In full view of the fact that the defendant received a bribe of KRW 170,000 from 0,00 and delivered it to 000,000 on four occasions prior to the past two months, the above money constitutes a bribe, and the defendant also seems to have known of the circumstances, and thus, the above assertion is groundless.

D. Conclusion

The criminal facts of the judgment against the defendant are all found guilty.

3. Judgment on Defendant 00 and his defense counsel's assertion

A. As to whether the defendant has received delivery of KRW 170 million from KRW 000,000 (1)

There is no fact that the Defendant received a bribe or any money from Defendant 00 on May 2002.

(2) Determination

The defendant asserts that there is no money and valuables delivered from 0000 to 0000 to 000 as election funds consistently in the prosecutor's office and this court consistent with this court. There is no money and valuables delivered from 000 to 000 only once, and there is no kind of 00 to 00, and there is no kind of 00 to 00,000, and there is no kind of 00 to 00,000, and there is no kind of 00 to 00,000, and 00 to 0,000 are in a position to administer election funds, and thus, there is a possibility that the defendant might have personally used money and valuables received from 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

00,000 won, which was 00,000 won or more, to the effect that 00,000 won was delivered to the defendant, was 00,000 won or more, and that 00,000 won was 10,000 won or more before and after this court, the defendant's testimony was 00,000 won or more, and that 00,000 won was 10,000 won or more to the defendant's office, and that 00,000 won was 10,000,000 won, and 0,000 won was 1,00,000,000 won, and 0,000 won was 1,00,000 won, and 0,00 won was 1,00,000 won, more than 0,000 won, and 00,00 won, more than 0,00 won.

On the other hand, the defendant's defense counsel argues that 00 up to 200 had increased property such as purchasing apartment buildings even though there was no particular import around 2002. However, even if the above assertion is true, it is insufficient to prove that 00 has personally useful 170 million won received from 000,000, and thus, it is not examined further.

According to the above review, 00 - 0 of the defendant's statement

As stated in the ruling, it can be recognized that 170 million won has been delivered as a bribe.

B. As to whether there was an illegal solicitation regarding orders for the installation of resource recovery facilities at 00: (1) a summary of the allegation

The defendant did not receive 00 00 solicitation through 00, and the National Resources Recovery Facility Corporation was transparent in the involvement of the Public Procurement Service, etc. and there was no unlawful intervention by the defendant. The 00 industry operated by 000 is located in Ulsan, so it is not entitled to receive government-funded construction works at 00,000, and in fact, it is not possible to receive government-funded construction works at 00,000,000, and there is no fact that government-funded construction works at 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Since a bribe is sufficient to receive a bribe in connection with his duties and it is not necessary to have an individual job performance and a quid pro quo relationship, so long as money and valuables have been given in relation to the duties as the 00 market for the defendant, whether 00 made a solicitation to the defendant about 000, and whether there was an illegal act in response to such solicitation does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

C. Conclusion

The criminal facts of the judgment against the defendant are all found guilty.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 00, among the facts charged in this case against the Defendant 00, 00 in the middle of July 2002, 200, 00- 00 in the parking lot for the apartment located in the Defendant’s residence located in the 00-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 00 to 00 during that period from 000 to 00, 00 in relation to the reward for the provision of convenience received from the Defendant, and 00 in relation to the provision of convenience to 00 in the future 00-ro-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and 00 in relation to the receipt of money and valuables from the public official’s duties under the same title.

In this regard, the Defendant did not consistently receive 00 money or valuables from the prosecution office and this court. At that time, the Defendant sought 000 attorneys' office located in the front of the Busan District Court. However, the Defendant denied the charges on the ground that it was merely 00 days after asking 00,000 won to the attorney's office on the ground that “I want to look at 00,000 won and 00,000 won and 00 won and 00 was asked to the attorney's office and later asked 00, and later asked 00, and later asked 00, and later asked 00.”

The evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged is 000 prosecutor's office and this court's statement, and the credibility of 00 is examined. 00 first, 00 stated that ① from the written statement (three written statements) written in writing, 00 to 30 million won has been delivered to the private placement agency at the attorney's expense, and ② When the prosecutor examines the suspect (four times) at the prosecutor's office, the defendant was given a bribe on July 2002.

죄로 수사를 받으면서 변호사를 선임할 돈이 없어 쩔쩔매고 있었는데 0 0 0이 피고인의 집 앞에서 보자고 하더니 종이가방에 현금 3, 000만 원을 넣어 왔고 0 0 0은 이를 전달받아 피고인의 아파트 안에서 피고인에게 전달하였고 피고인은 돈을 확인한 후 그 돈을 가지고 부산에 있는 변호사사무실을 향해 떠났다고 진술하였으며, ③ 0 0 0의 피의자신문 ( 4회, 대질 ) 에서는 피고인의 지시로 0 0 0에게 전화하여 부탁하자 0 00이 6, 000만 원을 현금으로 구해서 가져왔고 피고인의 동생인 0 0 0과 함께 0 0 0을 만나 그 돈을 넘겨받아 000의 차에 옮겨 실은 다음 피고인 집 앞 주차장에서 피고인을 만나 검정색 계통 가방에 넣어 피고인의 차에 실었고 피고인은 돈을 확인 후 부산 변호사사무실로 떠났으며, 0 0 0이 3, 000만 원은 다른 사람에게서 빌린 것이라고 한다고 피고인에게 말하였더니 돌려주라고 지시하여 2 - 3일 후 3, 000만 원을 0 00에게 돌려주었다고 진술하였고, ④ 이 법정에서 증언할 때에는 돈을 받은 장소가 문화예술회관 주차장인지 피고인 집 앞 주차장인지 정확하게 기억나지 않지만 0 0 0로부터 돈을 받아 좀 떨어진 곳에 승용차를 타고 대기하고 있던 000의 차를 타고 피고인에게 갔다고 진술하고 ( 제2회 공판기일 ), 0 0 0에게서 돈을 받을 때 주변에 차가 있었는데 차 안에 누가 있었는지 확인은 하지 않았으며 피고인의 아파트 주차장에서 피고인에게 돈을 전달하면서 3, 000만 원은 0 0 0이 다른 사람에게서 빌린 돈이어서 빨리 갚아야 된다고 하였다는 말을 전하였고, 피고인이 변호사에게 가서 검찰에 출두 안하고 잘 처리되도록 하려고 갔는데 일이 잘 성사가 안되어 그 다음 날 3, 000만 원을 되돌려 주라고 하여 그 다음 월요일에 0 0 0에게 돌려주었다고 진술하였다 ( 제3회 공판기일 ) .

00 - Each of the above statements 00 - difference between 00 and 000 won of the defendant or the place where the money was delivered to the defendant, and the contents of the statements are different in key parts, such as whether the defendant's house is the parking lot, and the contents of the statements are repeated. In addition, it is inconsistent with the statement of 000 and 000 won that the defendant received money from 000,000 won, and it is difficult to recognize that the above statement was delivered to 000,000 won to 00,000,000 won prior to the above 300,000,000 won, and there is no doubt that the above statement was delivered to 00,000 won or more to the prosecutor's office (the above 00,000 won was delivered to 30,000,000 won prior to the above 200,000,000 won.

Rather, 00 won was collected from the prosecution and this court on July 20, 2002 at the 0th o'clock and the 00th o'clock and the 00th o'clock and the 00th o'clock and delivered 60 million won to the 0th o's own money, and 2-30 million won were returned to the 0th 0th o's own money and 000 won were returned to the 0th o's own money and 00th o's o'clock were returned to the 0th o's own money and 00th o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o'.

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of a crime violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) which is related to the crime,

Grounds for sentencing

1. Although Defendant 00 00 was in a position of overall control over the correction of 00 - who is a person in a position of overall control over the correction of 00 - and has a duty to perform his duties in a more clean and fair manner, taking advantage of his status as a constructor 00 to 170 million won through 0000, the crime’s nature is very heavy since taking advantage of his status and taking advantage of his status as a public official and the local autonomy system’s trust. In addition, the Defendant is trying to deny the crime of this case from the investigative agency to this court, as well as 000, who was engaged in the election leader and chief secretary for the Defendant, is trying to take advantage of this, and thus, the circumstances after the crime are not good.

However, on July 8, 2003, the Busan District Court sentenced five years to imprisonment for a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) at the Busan District Court and decided to reduce the punishment by taking into account the fact that the crime of this case was concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive on March 26, 2004, and could have been punished concurrently

2. Defendant 0 0

The Defendant was an initial criminal without a criminal record, and was committed by 00 upon the request of 00, resulting in the commission and acceptance of the instant case, and returned KRW 300 million to 00 on November 22, 2005, which was after the commencement of the investigation of the instant case.

However, even if the defendant first received 000 copies of the first demand for a large amount of 00 won, the defendant received a monetary amount of 500 million won under the pretext of the mediation of government-funded construction work, on the ground of personal friendship with 000, and delivered 200 million won among them as a bribe, the crime of this case must be strictly punished as an act of enhancing the public confidence in the integrity of public officials, and even if the defendant is found guilty of all the facts charged by relevant evidence, it is inevitable for the defendant to be sentenced to a sentence of punishment on the ground that it is inevitable for the defendant to be sentenced to a punishment on the ground that he denies the suspicion, even if it is found guilty by the relevant evidence.

3. The crime of this case committed by Defendant 00 00, which was sent to the market at the time of 000 election, and participated in the acceptance of a bribe at the time of 000 election, and actively demanded 000 , who was in the position of the chief of the office at the time of 00 - and received 30,000 won or more, to give a bribe for 00 00 - does not constitute a crime of this case.

However, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the fact that he/she participated in the acceptance of bribe from an investigative agency to this court, and assisted himself/herself to clarify the truth of the case, and the part in which he/she participated in the acceptance of bribe is insignificant, and there is no criminal record, the execution of punishment shall be suspended at least once.

Judges of the presiding judge 000

Judges 000

00

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.