207Gohap677(a) Delivery of third-party brain

207Gohap721 (Consolidation)

(c) Preparation of false official documents;

(d) Exercising false official documents;

1. A. ○○

2. A. Kim ○-○

3. (b) Domin. ○

4. B. Domination ○

5. Da. d. ○○

6. Da. d. ○○

nan

Law Firm Song (For the purpose of defendant Song ○)

Law Firm (For defendant Kim Jong-○)

Law Firm (For the purpose of Defendant Park Jong-ok)

Law Firm (For the purpose of Defendant 200)

Attorney Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)

Attorney Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)

June 5, 2008

Defendant ○○ shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,00,00, and KRW 00 by a fine of KRW 5,000, and KRW 00, respectively.

In the event that the above fine is not paid by the Defendants, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

With respect to 92 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment, 15 days shall be included in the period of detention in the old prison with respect to ○○○○, a person who is subject to the above fine.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant ○○○, Kim○, Park ○, and Park ○○, respectively, acquitted by the Defendant.

Facts of crime

The defendant ○○○○ had worked for the local industrial facility level 6 from the ○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 31, 2005 to June 207, and the defendant ○○○○○○○○ had worked for the local industrial facility level 7 of the same viewing department from October 31, 2005 to December 31, 2006. The defendants conspired with the defendants on the completion inspection of the construction of the sewage treatment facilities of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s construction of the sewage treatment facilities of the same 30 to 40% of the construction of the sewage treatment facilities, and the construction of the sewage treatment facilities of the same 20 to 30 to 40% of the construction of the sewage treatment facilities of the same ○○○○○○○’s construction completion inspection on the same 2nd of the construction completion inspection.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant Lee ○;

1. Third prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused ○○;

1. Testimony of the original ○○○;

1. Statement by the prosecution on the original ○○;

1. Acceptance of a report on completion of sewage treatment facilities;

1. A report on completion of treatment facilities of sewage;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on installation of sewage treatment facilities;

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

Article 227 of each Criminal Code (Taking Effect of Preparation of False Official Document), Articles 229 and 227 of each Criminal Code (Taking Effect of Exercising False Official Document), and Selection of each fine.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Uttering Duals with Duals with Duals heavier Crimes)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The actual owner of the ○○○ building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) with the 5th above the 1st underground floor located in IT in Song-do, and the defendant Kim ○○ operated the wedding hall (hereinafter referred to as the “the wedding hall in this case”) with the trade name of ○○ by leasing the 4th and 5th floor among the above buildings, and operating the wedding hall (hereinafter referred to as the “○○”). The defendant Park ○ was the head of the fire headquarters in Gyeonggi-do, the president of the instant wedding hall, and the defendant Park ○ is the operator of the ○○ Industrial Complex.

A. The case holding that: (a) Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW KRW 22,00 and KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the grounds of having been granted the above money from Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the grounds of offering money to Defendant 25.

B. The case holding that: (a) Defendants: (b) conspired to obtain permission to change the use of the building of this case illegally, and (c) received money and valuables from Defendant Song○○, Kim○○, to receive money and valuables under the pretext of street and precedent expenses; (b) Defendant Park Jong-○, who is a local public official and relative with Defendant Park Jong-ok, to give them to the relevant public official; (c) on December 23, 2005, Defendant Park Jong-○, who received money and valuables from Defendant Kim○, for the purpose of giving a bribe 22,00,000,000 as a public official, for the purpose of giving a bribe to public official; (b) around January 10, 2006, Defendant Park Jong-○ received money and valuables from public official for the purpose of offering it under the pretext of permission to change the use; and (c) around January 10, 2006, Defendant Park Jong-○, who received money and valuables for the purpose of offering it under the pretext of offering a bribe to public official.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of delivery of money and valuables to a third party and the crime of bribery to a third party under the Criminal Act, there should be awareness of the fact that the money and valuables are to be delivered to a public official "a bribe to be delivered to a public official". In the event of dispute as to whether there was such awareness, it should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the details and timing of delivery of the money and valuables, contents of solicitation to a public official, specificness of a public official who is the other party to the solicitation, relationship between the person who delivered the money and the public official who received the money and valuables, relationship between the person who received the money and the public official, and the final place of use of the money and valuables. However, on the sole basis of recognizing the possibility that all or part of the money and valuables may be delivered to a public official, it cannot be said that there was awareness of the fact that the money and valuables are "a bribe to be delivered to a public official". Unlike the case where a public official received "a bribe to be delivered to a public official" in connection with the affairs handled by a public official.

B. According to the following facts: (a) ○○○○○○○, Kim○, a witness Kim○, a high ○○○, a statement at this statutory and investigative agency; (b) ○○○○○○○, a completion inspection report; and (c) ○○○○○, a construction completion inspection report of the instant building, where the use of the instant building was changed from a warehouse after 2006 to a neighborhood living facility; (c) ○○, a construction of the instant building, which is an essential condition for the purpose of use alteration within 2005, subcontracted the construction of the instant building to the ○○○○○○○○, a construction of the instant building to complete a completion inspection of the construction of the instant building; (d) however, the said construction could not be completed within 205 years upon the request of the public official who was well aware of the public official, and (e) the construction of the instant sewage treatment facility was not completed at the time of the completion inspection to the relevant public official by the ○○○○, an administrative ○○○, and another construction of the instant building.

C. On the other hand, there is a statement at the prosecutorial office 2, 3, and 44 times of interrogation of a criminal suspect, and the statement at the prosecutorial office of the criminal defendant Song-○, that the defendant Kim ○, and Kim ○, delivered a sum of 47,00,000 won to the defendant Park ○, and the defendant Kim ○, for the purpose of committing a bribe, and that the defendant Park ○, and Park ○, delivered a sum of 47,00,000 won to the defendant Kim ○ for the same purpose at the time, place specified in the facts charged, and delivered a sum of 47,00,00 won to the defendant Park ○, for the purpose of delivering it to the public official through the defendant Park ○, and Park ○, and that the defendant Kim ○, who delivered the above money to the defendant Park ○, for the purpose of delivering it to the public official according to the direction of the defendant Song○, and there is a statement at this court and this court.

However, each of the above evidence is difficult to accept as it is in full view of the following circumstances.

First of all, we examine Defendant ○○’s statement. ① Defendant ○○○○○’s statement is one of the four and five stories of the instant building that was operated by Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ after the use of the instant building, and there was dispute over the settlement of construction cost of the instant building between Defendant ○○, ○○○, and Kim○, a construction business operator of the instant building, and the ownership of the instant right to operate the instant road. ② Investigation into the unlawful change of use of the instant building was initiated by Defendant ○○○’s voluntary information; ③ whether Defendant ○○○ delivered the said money to Defendant ○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, a public official, for the purpose of delivering the money to Defendant ○○○○○○, who was aware of the fact that it was an unlawful delivery of the money to Defendant 6’s public official under the pretext of delivering it to Defendant ○○○, or that it was an unlawful delivery of money to Defendant 6’s public official.

Next, in relation to the above statement of the defendant Song-○, ① delivered 47,00,00,000 won to Kim○-○ without collecting information on the name and position of the public official to whom the money was to be delivered, and the amount of bribe amount, ③ the amount of money can not be determined as the intention of the defendant Song-○○○, by negotiating with the public official who has the authority over the completion of sewage treatment facilities, or by allowing the public official who has the authority over the completion of sewage treatment facilities to negotiate with the public official in advance, or by allowing the public official who has the authority over the completion of sewage treatment facilities to negotiate with the public official who has the authority to do so.

23. Upon receipt of KRW 22,00,000 at the time of receipt of KRW 22,00,000, it was stated that the Defendant Park ○○ prepared 20,000,000 at the time of receipt of KRW 22,00,00, but the Defendant Park ○○ prepared an additional amount of KRW 2,00,00,000 at the phone from the Defendant Park ○○○ and the Defendant Park ○○○, who was given KRW 10,00,00 from the said person, delivered the said money to the relevant public official. In full view of the fact that there is no evidence supporting that the Defendant Park ○’s statement at the prosecution of Song○, including whether he would give the said money as a bribe, was in charge of the relevant specific method of use, including whether he would give it as a bribe, was given to the judgment of Defendant Park○ or Defendant Park○○, and Defendant Park ○ et al., was merely acceptable to grant it to a public official for solicitation of all or part of the said money.

In addition, the witness Kim ○, high ○, high ○○, high ○○, Kim○, ○○, and Lee ○○’s legal and investigative agencies.

The sole statement, the completion inspection report of the wastewater treatment facilities, and other evidence duly adopted and investigated is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant sent 47,00,000 won to the defendant Gab○○○○ through the defendant Gb○○○○ through the defendant Gb○○○ in order to exercise influence over public officials in relation to the permission for the completion of the wastewater treatment facilities, etc., so far as possible, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant sent the above amount of KRW 47,00,00 to the defendant Gab○○○, the defendant Gab○, and the defendant Gab○○ and the defendant Gab○○, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Ultimately, there is no doubt that Defendant Park ○, Kim ○, and Park ○ has paid a certain amount of money to the effect that Defendant Park ○○ and Park ○○ made a permit for the completion of the construction of the instant building within 2005 by soliciting public officials in charge to use the connection, etc., and made a permit for the completion of the construction of the instant building within 2005 to use it appropriately as compensation or expenses for activities that would enable the alteration of the purpose of use of the instant building. However, if the circumstances are the same, it cannot be deemed that Defendant Park ○, and Park ○, who received money from the person who provided the money and valuables, constituted the crime of delivery of third-party bribery and the crime of bribery to a third party against the person who received the money and valuables.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the above facts charged against Defendant 1, ○○, Kim○, Park ○, and Park ○ constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges