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

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Escopics, Scopics

Law Firm B, Attorney C

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gohap349, 993 (Consolidation) Decided March 14, 2005

July 15, 2005

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

361 days of detention before pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

184,165,565 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of a statement of grounds of appeal filed by a defense counsel after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal) shall be considered as supplement.

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged as set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the judgment was erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(A) Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below

1) Relevant Table 1 / [Attachment 1] Concerning Duties and the Acts of the Defendant

Defendant shall be subject to attached Table 1 in the Act on the Commission Deposit and the Conduct of Defendant

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant received a request related to his/her duties as a result of the receipt of a request related to his/her duties. ① there was no fact that the defendant managed, kept, or asked that he/she was in charge of his/her duties, and ② there was no fact that the head of the Jeju District Court informed D about the presidential relative-related trends, etc., or asked E-party, etc. to request that he/she was in charge of his/her duties; ② The investigation of the FF corporation is merely directed the head of the Jeju District Government to contact and investigate the fact that he/she received money in connection with the sports lottery tickets; ③ it was not ordered by D upon request from non-D to investigate the H and I; ③ it was conducted as part of the normal business process upon receiving the suspicion of the crime; ④ it was conducted as part of the investigation of the doctor belonging to the J Hospital; ④ it was conducted by D upon his/her request, and there was no fact that he/she conducted an investigation into the K corporation (hereinafter referred to as "K") as a result of D's request.

2) Parts relating to [Attachment 2] Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Brains Act

D. In the case of No. 1, the defendant is purely entitled to give any gift or gift; or

In the case of No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5, the defendant received the aid in an economic difficult situation, and in the case of No. 8 million won in order to repay the debt owed by the financial institution, and in the case of No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5, the defendant borrowed an additional amount of KRW 70 million in the cost of directors due to the shortage of the director's expenses, and KRW 20 million in the case of subsequent repayment of the debt, each of the above money and the financial benefits are not received by the defendant as a case of solicitation from D in connection with his duties.

3) [Attachment 2] The part on the Nos. 3 of the Brain Acceptance and Delivery Details Act

A) The Defendant’s shares of N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) from D

The phrase “10,000 won per share,” which the price was expressed to theO, was 20,000 won, was 50,000 won or more per share, and the remaining 50,000 won was additionally purchased, and the Defendant and the O agreed with the O to take it as a countermeasure for old age while jointly managing the shares. If you want to purchase N from D, “the transfer of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from D was promptly called to theO, but it was called to theO, but it was not by telephone, but later remitted to the N’s funds. Accordingly, the profits equivalent to N shares or shares were purchased at a legitimate amount, not received in return for any solicitation.

B)A domestic service, the defendant grants no charge N Shares or equivalent profits to N Shares or Shares.

Even if the defendant was received, it is not accepted as a case of solicitation from D in connection with his duties, but it is thought that he will receive it as a purely, gift or economic difficulty.

(B) Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below

1) The amount that the Defendant received from a policeman P on April 2001 is 3 million won, and the Defendant is 3 million won.

Indonesia and R Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “R”) were only issued a corporation card from Q introduced P, and did not know whether it was issued from P.

2) The Defendant, due to ① hostile mergers and acquisitions (M&A) power from P, is an aggregate.

If the facts of the application for investigation are true, it should be examined whether it is possible to conduct an investigation, and ② He heard the statement that P was assaulted by P, and asked the person in charge of the investigation to process P in a fair manner. As such, the defendant does not receive money and valuables in return for receiving a solicitation in relation to his duties.

(C) Paragraph (3) of the decision of the court below

1) The Defendant: (a) 500,000 won between the first and the last day of April 2001 between T to the first day of April 201

There was no delivery of KRW 5 million through three times.

2) The Defendant affirms T the identity of the person near the part of the presidential denial; and

There is no question about whether the government has a plan for casino business permission upon the request of the government to confirm whether it is a plan for the casino business permission. However, in other words, 'T' has been replaced by fraud, 'T' has given advice to the effect that 'T' is replaced by fraud, 'T' and 10 million won received from T was introduced to the person who will assist in exporting sing machines produced by T. And even if the defendant received money under the same name as stated in this part of the facts charged, the matters related to the government casino permission plan are not included in the scope of the defendant's duties because the defendant did not manage, keep, or take charge of such duties. Thus, the defendant does not receive money and valuables in return for the request in relation to his duties.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The court below held that the defendant's rebates of drugs under investigation from D to U of the National Police Agency

On March 201, 200 won for the police officer under the pretext of informing the doctor of the J Hospital of whether the case is fair or not. On April 1, 2001, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the receipt of money and valuables equivalent to KRW 1.20 million in total in the public official’s duties after receiving KRW 30 million and KRW 40 million for the police officer (hereinafter “V”) 30 million and KRW 50 million for the same year. However, in light of the fact that D’s statement is reversed or inconsistent with before and after its first investigation, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts that it was evident that the Defendant had no record of the facts at the time of its initial investigation and had no record of the facts. In light of the fact that D’s statement, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the credibility and credibility of the statement, which is obviously false and inconsistent with D’s first statement, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts that D’s statement is inconsistent with D’s objective evidence.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

(1) Legal principles

Bribery is fair in the performance of duties, trust in society, and non-performance of duties.

The legal interest of acceptance of bribe is protected, and there is no need to make a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received because it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act related to duties, and it is sufficient that money and valuables were received in connection with their duties, and there is no need to establish an individual job act and a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do1442, May 28, 2004; 99Do4940, Jan. 21, 2000). Furthermore, the scope of bribery does not include not include not only a duty prescribed in statutes, nor a duty related thereto, nor a duty related thereto, nor a public official who receives money and valuables, nor a duty related thereto, but also includes a private duty relation between a public official and a public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do380, Jun. 13, 2003>.

(2) Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below

(A) The judgment of the court below

1) Determination on the assertion of facts

A) Facts related to business relationship

(1) The facts listed in [Attached Table 1] Nos. 1 of the content of solicitation and the Defendant’s Act.

The defendant has no W Team in the prosecution, and the defendant has a relative in custody of W Team.

In light of the following facts: (a) there was a need to obtain information about the President's surrounding areas; (b) there was a need to obtain information about the fact that the files were stored in the office in U; and (c) there was a statement that the files were stored in the office in the latter part of 2001; (b) there was a statement that the said files were stored in the office in the latter part of 2001; (c) (d) there was a lack of treatment as much as they have contributed to E at the time of the presidential election; (b) D, which was still in the office after the presidential election, needs to obtain information about the relationship between the Defendant and D; (c) the Defendant's prosecutor's office (7%) (3537 pages of the investigation records of the case; and (d) the statement at the first trial date of the lower court at D; and (d) there was a request that the Defendant deemed D well by viewing such information to X at the time of the lower court's first trial date; and (d) there was a need to acknowledge D's relevant information about the above facts that the Defendant's statement.

(2) Although the facts set forth in [Attachment 1] Nos. 2 of the Content of Request and the Defendant’s Act are not explicitly expressed to the Defendant at the original trial, it is considered that there is any problem.

In light of the fact that there is a statement (the 11th trial record of the original trial) to the effect that "the defendant made a statement to the effect that it is true that there is a statement, Y, Z, AA, etc. AB who was investigated as an employee of the above Corporation at the time of investigation is consistent with each other. According to their statements, the above fact can be acknowledged in light of the fact that the defendant ordered the above Corporation to visit and visit the above Corporation in relation to the selection of sports-for-all voting right holders, and at the time of the above investigation, A et al. requested data from AB at the time of the above investigation, and the fact that A et al. demanded data from the Jeju-do Office in relation to sports-for-all lottery business (the 7th investigation record, 3591-3594 pages).

(3) The facts stated in [Attachment I] three times in the order of solicitation and the defendant's act.

D 'AC' upon request of the accused through G in connection with the case in which the AC was guilty.

In light of the fact that a statement was made to the effect that it was "(6th 6th 2676th 6th 6th 6th 2004 Gohap349)", and that AD made a statement to the effect that it was "the defendant was informed of the instant case and received an investigation instruction", it can be recognized as above.

(4) The facts described in [Attached Table 1] 4 Nos. 4 of the content of solicitation and the defendant's act

The progress of the investigation of this case, i.e., the initial K is included in the agency subject to investigation.

However, even if the first investigation report was completed and the first investigation report was included in the agency subject to investigation at the direction of the defendant, and the first investigation report was filed with respect to the other company, and the search and seizure warrant was issued with a legitimate method, such as requesting the search and seizure warrant, even if there was no evidence of internal investigation with respect to the other company, and the search and seizure warrant was issued with respect to the other company, and even if the other company is not a pharmaceutical company, it was included in the investigation subject, and there was only the intention of accepting more than five million won at the time of the first investigation, the above fact may be acknowledged in light of the fact that the second investigation was conducted by the doctor belonging to the J Hospital who received more than one million won as a result of the second investigation.

(5) The facts described in [Attached Table 1] 5] Nos. 5 of the content of solicitation and the defendant's act

M An investigation by the Defendant upon receiving the direction from the Defendant to be the subject of mixed L.

After that, in light of the fact that 'D' from the defendant 's speech or talking about 'D' has been heard and interviewed by 'D', and ' his act is made by the request of a deceased person (2004 Ma3232 et al., 329 and 3297 et al., the investigation records of the case, 2004 Ma349 et al.), the above facts can be acknowledged.

(B) [Attachment 1] Factual relations Nos. 3 of the Brain 1

D The source in which the person has consistently made a statement that the person has consistently paid the stock price.

If D stated that the defendant purchased 10,00 shares in the name of a person who is memoryd as an executive of a broadcasting station by the defendant (204 high-priced 349 investigation records of the case) but D stated that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office on the 12th day of the original trial is due to mistake, and that other statements at the prosecutor's office and the original court are consistent, it is reasonable to view that the above statements at the prosecutor's office are made by mistake as stated in D's statement at the original court, in light of the fact that the defendant's statement at the above 200 million won was made to the above 200 million won for payment of shares (the account at the 2000 million won for the above 100 million won for the purpose of collecting shares) from D's family members and D's account (the account at the 2000 million won for the 12th day of the original trial but the defendant's statement at the 240 billion won for payment of shares was not received from D's account.

2) Determination on whether a bribe is a bribe

A) As seen above, the defendant received Bribe from D [Attachment 2]

The defendant and his defense counsel claimed that the amount of money listed in 2, 4, and 5 above was borrowed money, but D did not have the intent to lend money at an investigative agency, and in fact, it was intended to change the amount of money to the defendant's match (7, 3653, 3655 pages of investigation records of 204Da349 case). The court below stated that the defendant's statement was made for the same purpose(D's "type". The defendant had a strong influence as U.S. chief executive officer of the National Police Agency at the time, and it cannot be understood that the above money was not paid to the defendant or the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money were not paid to the defendant's money and the defendant's money and the defendant's money were not paid.

B) Rather, even though the Defendant and D are the same as the same-sex family head, the Defendant and D are to the extent that they are compatible.

Even if there was a circumstance that the defendant and D maintained a close relationship, it seems that the status of the investigator and the person to be polled or rapidly friendly with each other; D has made a statement from time to time when the defendant was delivered; D has no choice but to expect the government of the nation at the original trial; D has to go against the following political rights; and until now, the defendant has made a statement that he/she would be able to be able to obtain any assistance from the status of the director of the National Police Agency chief of the defendant's U.S. in terms of the fact that the defendant's act of receiving money and valuables from the defendant's investigative agency or his/her employees in accordance with his/her own name is relatively less reliable in terms of the fact that the defendant received money and valuables from the defendant's public official under his/her own name or his/her own name, and thus, D has no choice but to accept money and valuables from his/her own investigative agencies during a relatively less reliable period of time.

(B) Judgment of the court below

1) We examine the following circumstances as well as the reasons properly presented by the lower court.

A) According to the results of the fact-finding reply to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, the office of the National Police Agency

The duty of U under the Rules on Division is limited to ① the collection and investigation of important crimes against the national and social interests, ② the investigation of important crimes accused by government agencies, etc., ③ the national economy, health, environment, etc., and the Presidential-friendly information collection or management affairs related to such important cases. However, the duty of ‘W Team' is also based on the following circumstances, namely, the duty of ‘W Team', which are acknowledged by reference materials submitted by the counsel to the prosecution, etc., under the regulations on the division of duties of the National Police Agency prior to the amendment: ① the collection of serious criminal intelligence detrimental to the national economy and order; ② the collection of intelligence related to public officials; ③ the handling of intelligence transferred by other government agencies; ③ the fact that W Team was actually managed under the direction of the President, and the defendant was in charge of the President-friendly management affairs; and the defendant was in charge of questioning and fee-related affairs conducted by the prosecutor and counsel at the court below on the trial date.

In full view of the fact that the president-friendly management duties were stated, and D also stated for the same purpose, its duties are limited to those stipulated in the Regulations on the Division of Duties of the National Police Agency of the National Police Agency at the time, and the head of U at that time may recognize the fact that the defendant, while managing the Presidential-friendly relationship information related to his duties, was in charge of the overlapping, repair collection, investigation, etc.

B) Work as D’s secretary in relation to Nos. 3 of the Bribery 1

On June 22, 2001, AG, which was in charge of the business of bank remittance, etc., has withdrawn from the bank account of AH on June 22, 2001 and remitted KRW 50 million to AL under the name of AI and AK. However, the defendant stated to the purport that the defendant has not received KRW 50 million each in the name of AI and AK, and the defendant and the defense counsel failed to submit objective data on the fact that he remitted KRW 50 million each in the name of AI and AK to D until the trial. In light of the fact that the defendant and the defense counsel did not submit objective data on the fact that he remitted KRW 50 million each in the name of AI and AK until the trial.

C) [Attachment I] With respect to [Attachment I] 5] Nos. 5 of the Commission and the Defendant’s Act, M:

In light of the fact that the defendant was ordered to investigate L at the trial of the party, who is an over-the-counter trading company, and that the defendant heard D's speech from D and met D, but there was a statement to the effect that D did not have any conversation on L-related money return issue or AM apartment price issue, etc. between D and D, the above fact can be acknowledged.

2) If so, the defendant's duty and status, and D's act as seen above;

In light of the above legal principles, the circumstances such as the circumstance in which the defendant first met, the situation in which the police officer was asked, the fact that if the defendant received money, valuables, or property benefits from D upon the request related to his duties, it seems that the fairness of the execution of his duties would be doubtful, and the defendant's money, valuables, or property benefits received by him cannot be viewed as a mere courtesy case in light of the amount, quantity, or the expected benefits at the time, etc., and the defendant could not be seen as a mere courtesy case. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's money, valuables, or property benefits received from D as stated in this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed as a courtesy case granted in relation to his duties, and that it is a bribe received in relation to his duties.

3) Accordingly, the lower court’s findings of facts as to this part of the facts charged and its process

We agree with the selection of evidence and the judgment thereof, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles against the rules of evidence, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below

(A) The judgment of the court below

1) Determination on the assertion of facts

A) Claim on the part receiving money and valuables

The defendant did not receive money from the first prosecutor's office, and money from Q.

In the past, the statement "only 15 million won was returned (39 pages of the same investigation record)" (39 pages of the same investigation record), and "A statement that received KRW 15 million from P on April 2001 (1st page 214 of the same investigation record)" (1st page 215 of the previous investigation record) was "A statement that received money from P on April 2001 and that received money from Q was false." In light of the circumstances leading up to the reversal of the statement by the defendant, the defendant's statement by the prosecutor was credibility and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, such as the defendant's statement by the prosecutor, were delivered KRW 15 million from P on April 201.

B) argument about the receipt of property benefits, such as return airline tickets

The defendant at the prosecutor's office "P" on July 7, 200, at the HanN hotel coffee shop

The statement that ASEAN purchased two copies of the right to shuttle aviation and gave credit cards (204Dahap993, 213, 274 pages of investigation records of the case), Q, which introduced the defendant and P, consistently with the court below and the prosecutor's office, did not know that there was a certain day between the defendant and P, 'I did not provide the defendant with the right to shuttle aviation and R, or receive any money or solicitation from P, 'I do not have any relationship with the defendant's statement at the court below, and it is inconsistent with the defendant's statement at the court below, and Q, which introduced the defendant and P, did not have any conflict with the defendant's statement at the court below, even if Q received the above corporate card from P, etc. and delivered it to the defendant, it seems that Q did not have any relation with P, etc., as the defendant did not have any interest with P, and thus, it was hard to see that Q, even if Q received it from P to the defendant at the time of delivery of P, etc.

2) Determination on the assertion that no duty relationship exists

Investigation into subordinate employees by the defendant who is the chief of the National Police Agency U.S. Director upon receipt of an investigative application

In light of social norms, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's act of asking the fair handling of the case by phone calls to the person in charge of investigation at the one-way police station is an act that is included in the duty of investigation that is closely related to or actually managed by the defendant's duties within the authority of the defendant. The defendant and P are not a company that gives and receives money and valuables or property benefits exceeding 20 million won in total without permission, as the introduction of Q Q from the first time in 2000, and the time when the defendant gives and receives money and valuables or property benefits from P corresponds to the time when P asks the defendant's request, it is reasonable to deem that the money and valuables or property benefits received from P are merely an ordinary price in light of social norms, or that it is an individual-friendly relationship, and rather, that the defendant has received money and valuables or property benefits from P in relation to his duty as a public official.

(C) Judgment of the court below

1) We examine the following circumstances as well as the reasons properly presented by the lower court.

A) P Prosecution’s prosecution for himself conducted on April 25, 2005 immediately after his return to Korea

피의자신문에서는 'A가 여름휴가를 갈 무렵인 2000. 7. 말경 또는 2000. 8. 초경 A에게 인도네시아행 항공권과 R 신용카드를 교부하였다. 평소에 A에게 신세를 졌고 A 부인이 아프다는 말을 들어 A에게 수표로 1,500만 원을 교부하였다'고 진술하였다가 2005. 6. 10.에 행해진 당심 제4회 공판기일 증인신문에서는 'Q을 통하여 인도네시아행 항공권과 R 신용카드를 교부하였다. 곰곰이 생각해보니 돈도 200만 원 내지 300만 원을 준 것 같다. 하지만 검찰에서는 당시 기억나는 사실 그대로를 진술하였고 진술한 대로 조서가 작성된 것을 확인하였다. 검찰 진술 이후 구치소에서 피고인을 만난 사실은 있으나, 이 문제를 가지고 깊이 대화한 적은 없다'고 종전의 진술을 번복하였다.

B) However, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below

In all the following circumstances, P has been demanded from the investigative staff of P to explain or statements on this part for a long time overseas due to its crime. As such, P appears to have been able to sufficiently anticipate that P himself/herself can be punished for this problem after returning to Korea. Nevertheless, P made a statement unfavorable to himself/herself and the defendant in the prosecutor's investigation conducted after returning to Korea, but reversed P's statement in the court of the first instance, and it is difficult to easily find reasonable reasons to reverse P's statement. Meanwhile, the corporate card claiming that P used after receiving P's statement was clearly stated in P's name, and it appears that P's statement was clearly stated in P's name at the time of delivery to P's prosecutor's statement, and it was well known that P's statement was made by P's prosecutor's statement, and it appears that P's statement was given more objective and reasonable convenience than those of the defendant's prosecutor's statement and that P's statement was delivered to P's office as part of the facts charged, in light of the objective and objective evidence evidence.

2) If so, the defendant's duty and status, and occupation of P as seen above

In light of the above legal principles, the circumstances such as the contents of the business, the circumstance in which the defendant and P met, the defendant's act related to P, the defendant's act related to the police, and the fact that if the defendant who is a police officer receives money, valuables or property benefits from P upon the request related to his duties and received money or property benefits from P are likely to be suspected of being fair in the execution of his duties from the general public, and the defendant's money or property benefits received by the defendant cannot be viewed as a mere courtesy case in light of the amount, and the fact that the defendant seems to have sufficiently recognized that P would deliver money or goods or property benefits in relation to his duties. In light of the above legal principles, the money or property benefits received from P cannot be deemed as a courtesy granted by the defendant in relation to

3) Accordingly, the lower court’s findings of facts as to this part of the facts charged and its process

We agree with the selection of evidence and the judgment thereof, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground for this part of the defendant's assertion.

(4) Paragraph (3) of the decision of the court below

(A) The judgment of the court below

1) Determination on the assertion of facts

T under investigation conducted on three occasions by the prosecution, 201, 3 times around April 200 to the accused.

A consistent statement is made to the effect that the defendant delivered KRW 1 million, KRW 2 million, and KRW 2 million in successive order over several occasions. [However, although the defendant was under investigation with her confrontation, he/she received KRW 3 million or KRW 5 million, he/she made a somewhat unclear statement that he/she did not continue his/her statement, T alleged that he/she did not cause any confusion with others at his/her disadvantage, and it is clear that T was due to his/her idea that he/she would not cause any confusion with others at his/her disadvantage (Article 204Dahap993 of the Investigation Records of the case in 2004Dahap993)]. In light of the following, in light of the fact that the defendant received KRW 5 million in total from T around April 3, 2001, it can be recognized that the defendant received KRW 5 million from T.

2) Determination as to the assertion that there is no duty relevance or duty relevance

T The reason why the prosecution gives the defendant KRW 10 million is that the defendant has a casino permit.

Since the defendant knew that he did not have a plan, he would be the party to the political party. If he had known that he did not know that he did not have a plan, he stated that he was the party to the political party. If he had known that he did not know that he did not have a plan, he would have received many necessary expenses while operating a casino-related office, and that he did not have been able to prevent waste by informing the defendant of accurate information, so he thought to do so (2 right 143 of investigation records of the case in 2004Dahap993). On the other hand, the defendant consistently collected the statement from the prosecutor's office and issued it to the prosecutor's office that he would use the money as a down payment for the stud lease deposit when she was enrolled in Seoul, with the request of the prosecutor's office to ask him to find out the studio as well as the fact that the defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office's office's office's office's office's office's act and the head of the police office's office's office's office's duty's identity and consistency.

(B) Judgment of the court below

1) We examine the following circumstances as well as the reasons properly presented by the lower court.

A) T is for the first time in the trial, and 5 million won in total on three occasions around April 2001 to the defendant.

The previous statement was reversed to the effect that there was no delivery of KRW 50,000,000 per time, and that there was only a delivery of KRW 10,50,000,000 including the said money to the defendant is not related to the defendant's duties.

B) However, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below

In all the following circumstances acknowledged, T has consistently stated that the defendant paid five million won to the defendant three times at the expense of the court prior to the transfer of the party, which led to the reversal of the statement as above, as well as the defendant's previous defense and accuracy in important parts, and it is difficult to easily find reasonable grounds for T to reverse the defendant's own statement. Moreover, as seen above, it is little to say that the defendant, who had shown very careful appearance in recognizing the criminal facts of the defendant himself/herself, was aware of the person who intends to obtain casino business license through AO's neighboring figures in the court below, and there is no thought that T used to indicate the help of the defendant to ask about the casino business license. The part of the defendant's statement re-convened as mentioned above, which is a manager of T in relation to his/her duties, as stated in the facts related to his/her duties and information at the time of his/her receipt of his/her own money and valuables.

2) If so, as seen above, the defendant's duty and status, and the job of T

In light of the above legal principles, the circumstances such as the contents of business, the defendant's act related to T, the defendant's act related to the police officer's receipt of money and valuables from T are likely to be suspected of being fair in the performance of his duties from the general public, and the fact that the money and valuables received by the defendant can not be considered as a simple courtesy case in light of the amount of money and valuables received by the defendant, and the defendant seems to have sufficiently recognized the circumstances that T will receive money and valuables in relation to his duties. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the money and valuables received from T cannot be deemed as a formal gift in personal-friendly relationship, and it

3) Accordingly, the lower court’s findings of facts as to this part of the facts charged and its process

We agree with the selection of evidence and the judgment thereof, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground for this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor

(1) This part of the facts charged

From January 4, 200 to April 22, 2002, the Defendant worked as the chief of the National Police Agency director, and was in charge of the overlapping, repair and investigation of corruption-related corruption-related public officials, the investigation of Cheongdae-dae-dae case, and the intelligence, repair and investigation of a serious crime contrary to the national and social interests. D from the National Police Agency U to the Korean National Police Agency, the Defendant informed the doctor of the J Hospital of whether the drug rebates-related public officials were involved in the investigation, and ordered K to conduct an additional investigation by requesting the investigation of the subordinate employees upon request from K, and to conduct an additional investigation by requesting the preference of the doctors belonging to the J Hospital, and the case of receiving KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and 300,000,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 300,000,00 won.

(2) The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court did not prove the facts charged as to this part of the charges.

The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the case constitutes a case (However, the lower court did not render a separate verdict of innocence on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of Article 325 of the same Act

(A) Determination on whether to receive money

1) Evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged

The defendant received money from D as stated in the above facts charged.

As evidence consistent with or consistent with the point, D, AT’s prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s statement (including the legal statement of a case in which AT was tried by himself as the Defendant), AU, AG’s prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s statement, AV’s prosecutor’s statement, investigation report (Attachment to D), each investigation report (not more than 568 pages, not more than 568 pages, not more than 961 pages, not more than 101 pages, not more than 1045 pages, not more than 1071 pages, not more than 1134 pages, not more than 1154 pages, not more than 1215 pages, not more than 1244 pages, and not more than 1270 pages, etc.) are written in order to examine the evidence above.

2) D’s statement

D In the case where doctors of J Hospital have received unfair money from the pharmaceutical company

In the process of investigating the suspicion of having received money from AV in favor of the defendant and received money from AV, the fact itself was denied until the suspect is examined three times, and on May 30, 2002, the suspect was examined and the defendant was given a statement to the effect that he received KRW 150 million from AV and delivered KRW 70 million among them to the defendant. On June 24, 2002, the suspect was examined on June 24, 2002, and the statement to the effect that the whole or part of this part of the facts charged is consistent with the original judgment, but such statement is difficult to believe for the following reasons.

A) Failure to maintain consistency in statements

D’s statement is the date, time and place where the defendant delivered KRW 70 million to the defendant.

The first statement was made on March 2001 that was delivered to the AW Day cafeteria, and the statement was changed to the statement that was delivered to the AW Day cafeteria on March 2001, [Attachment Table 3] to change the statement that was “(70 million won, 30 million won, etc.).” As seen in the part of the [Attachment Table 3] concerning the issue of whether or not the above money was delivered and the amount to be delivered, the date and place of delivery, the reasons for the decision on the amount of delivery, the source of funds, the method of packaging cash, the circumstances after delivery, etc., and the statement that was delivered to the AW Day cafeteria on March 2001, lack consistency, and thus lacks consistency.

B) Lack of reasonable grounds for reversal of the statement

On the other hand, the reasons or process why D changed the above statements are reasonably stated.

It is also difficult to clarify.

(1) The statement on whether to issue the certificate and the amount of delivery

D is the fact that only the original defendant has delivered shares and provided money.

하여는 함구하고 있다가, AV이 D과 AT에게 1억 5천만 원을 교부하였다는 진술을 하자 비로소 위 돈 중 7,000만 원을 피고인에게 교부하고, 나머지 돈은 자신과 AT이 나누어 가졌다는 취지로 진술하였고, 피고인에게 7,000만 원을 전달한 이유에 관하여는 자신과 AT 사이에 피고인에게 좀 많이 주자고 얘기가 되어 피고인에게 7,000만 원을 주고, 자신들은 나머지 돈을 반씩 나누어 가졌다'는 취지로 진술(2004고합349 사건 수사기록 231쪽)하였다(1억 5천만 원의 1/3인 5,000만 원에서 D과 AT이 1,000만 원씩을 피고인 몫으로 보태면 피고인의 몫이 7,000만 원이 되는데, 그와 같은 셈으로 7,000만 원을 교부했다고 진술한 것으로 보인다). 그런데, D이 위와 같이 진술한 후 AV이 ‘D에게 1억 5천만 원을 주었다'는 종전의 진술을 뒤집고, 'D에게 3억 원을 주었다'고 진술(같은 수사기록 377쪽)하자 D은 '피고인에게 7,000만 원만 준 것이 사실이냐'는 질문에 ‘전에 7,000만 원을 줬다고 진술하였으나 사실은 7,000만 원을 준 후에 다시 한 달 후 3,000만 원을 더 주었다'고 진술(같은 수사기록 575쪽)을 바꾸었고, 3,000만 원을 더 준이유는 '1억 원을 채워주기 위한 것'이라는 취지로 진술하였다. 그러나 1억 원을 채워 주기 위하여 3,000만 원을 더 주었다는 진술은 앞에서 7,000만 원을 교부하게 된 이유와 명백히 배치되는 진술이다. 당초 7,000만 원을 교부했다는 진술은 '자신이 AV로부터 1억 5천만 원을 받은 것을 전제로 이를 피고인, AT, 자신이 나누어 가지되 피고인에게 더 많이 배분했다'는 것으로서 그 후 밝혀진 객관적인 사실, 즉, 자신이 AV로부터 3억 원을 교부받았다는 사실과 모순되는 것이며, 그 후 1억 원을 맞추기 위하여 피고인에게 3,000만 원을 추가로 주었다'고 진술함으로써 그러한 모순을 해소하고자 한 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다. 즉, D의 위와 같은 진술의 변화는 피고인을 의도적으로 보호하기 위하여 당초 금액을 축소하여 진술하였다가 AV의 진술번복으로 말미암아 종전 진술을 유지할 수 없게 되자 추가로 3,000만 원을 줬다고 진술하였을 가능성도 없지 않으나, 다른 한편으로 자신의 책임을 경감시키기 위하여 AV의 진술에 따라 금액을 맞추어 진술하였을 가능성 또한 배제할 수 없다(D이 자신의 책임을 경감시키려 노력하였다는 점은 AT과의 분배에 대한 진술에서도 나타나는바, D은 처음에는 'AT이 AV로부터 돈을 받아와서 자신에게 일부 나눠주었다'는 취지로 진술하였다가, 나중에서야 'AT과 자신이 함께 돈을 받아와서 자신의 집에서 둘이 반씩 나누기로 하였다'고 진술하거나, ‘AT이 5,000만 원만 갖겠다고 하였는데, 나중에 미안하여 따로 3,000만 원을 더 주었다'고 진술하였다).

② The statement concerning the process of preparation of the “written confirmation of fact”

D At the request of the defendant around October 2003, the AX Hospital was hospitalized by the defendant.

The defendant's counsel, "no one hundred million won and V shares have been delivered to the defendant", and the defendant's counsel prepared a confirmation statement to the effect that "the defendant's statement that it was delivered to the defendant is a false statement that does not meet the prosecutor's meeting and intimidation (the investigation records of 2004Gohap349 case and 7th 3401 pages). With respect to the process during which the above confirmation statement was prepared by the prosecutor, "the above defense counsel should be sentenced to punishment and the defendant in the U.S. should not return to the defendant in his house," and the defendant's statement to the court that "It is not possible to find that the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's testimony.

Therefore, it is difficult to understand the reasons why D prepares a confirmation document which is completely different from its previous statement, and then reverses the contents of the confirmation document.

C) lack of credibility in the final and conclusive statement itself

(1) Details of the D’s oral statement finally maintained

D’s statements maintained following changes in the statements as seen earlier

‘The amount of KRW 20,000,000, which he/she had received from ATS rapidly, can be summarized as a package with AG, and it is unclear whether he/she is a middle and lower order restaurant or a AW-day restaurant) around March 2001 with the Defendant before completing the meal together with the Defendant, and deliver a shopping white paper containing KRW 70,000 to the Defendant before he/she went through, and then there is no memory about the situation, and the additional delivery was made to the Defendant of KRW 30,000,000,000 which he/she had in order to collect KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 which he/she had in order to obtain KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant after the last month. Such a statement itself is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances.

(2) Placement with the AG statements

Examining the aforementioned KRW 70 million and the statement on the developments leading up to the funding, D

The prosecution made a statement to the effect that "A" means that it is difficult to make a large amount of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 and then 30,000,000,000 won are stored next to the prosecution's initial statement, and that it is made into two guns each by using newspaper, and that it is difficult to make two bags containing a large amount of KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and that it is difficult to make a statement to the effect that "I's statement to the effect that there is no possibility that I will bring about a large amount of KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and there is no possibility that I's statement to the effect that I have made a statement to the effect that I's statement to the effect that I have consistently made a statement to the effect that it is 70,0,0,0,000,00.

(3) Examination points concerning the details of the delivery of KRW 30 million;

D relatively detailed as to the source of funds of KRW 70 million or the developments leading up to the preparation thereof.

Although the statement is made, with respect to KRW 30,000,000 which was prepared and delivered separately, it is difficult to disclose its source to the defendant because it was prepared in cash at the time of ‘not to memory' or ‘not to disclose its source'. As to the packing method of KRW 30,000,000,000, two plastic shopping bags overlap, and 30,000,000 won are stored above at a height of KRW 10,000,00,000, and 300,000 won were stored above, and it is difficult to release the above plastic bags to the defendant for 10,000,000 won. However, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to say that there is no possibility that the defendant's delivery of KRW 70,000,000 to the above plastic bags is to keep it out of 70,000,000,000 won.

(4) The fact that he/she has sought 20 million won rapidly from AT.

D receives KRW 150,000,000 from AC around March 2001 and receives KRW 100,000,000 among them.

It is difficult to accept a request from the Defendant for KRW 50 million, which entered various channels, such as having the remaining money in cash, to the effect that “it created and delivered KRW 70,000 to the Defendant with no statement of KRW 50 million (50,000)” (578 pages of the investigation records of the case 2004Da349). However, it is difficult to accept a request from the Defendant for KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 won, 200,000,000,000,000 won, 20,000,000,000,000 won, 20,000,000,000 won, 20,000,000,00 won, 20,000,00.

(5) Questions about the time when money is delivered to the defendant.

D 'AV' received KRW 100 million from 'AV' and then calls to the defendant at present.

B. At the 11st trial of the lower court, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant, who is expected to move to be a bad, now now (2004Dahap3499 investigation records of the case, 1277 pages).” The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “The reason why the Defendant was unable to deliver money to the Defendant immediately after receiving money from AV, is due to the Defendant’s “the reason why the Defendant was unable to deliver it to the Defendant,” but at the 6th trial of the lower court, the Defendant was at the time due to the Defendant’s statement, etc. at the 6th trial of the lower court, due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the guarantee obligation owed to AZ, and the Defendant was at a risk to go beyond the auction. In order to solve this, it is difficult to understand that there was a considerable economic difficulty, such as receiving KRW 8 million from the Defendant, and there was a change in money from other places, etc., and that the Defendant, who was in a very economic difficult situation, changed money later.”

(6) Points of inconsistency between statements.

D At the 11th trial of the court below, AV at the time when the defendant receives KRW 100 million from AV.

Bter’s statement was made to the effect that “AV would deliver to the Defendant because it prepared for KRW 100 million,” while on the 12th trial of the original trial of the original instance, “AV would be the same as it was in itself, that is, the AV would have been the next step to help AV to assist itself.” If AV delivered money to D in relation to the business of the AV, it would be in no relation to having the Defendant properly handle the hospital-related investigation, and thus, it is clearly contradictory to D’s statement on the 11st trial of the original trial of the original instance.

3) Determination on the remaining evidence

A) AT’s statement

AT’s statement is mainly received by the Defendant and himself from AV and is given and received money.

Of the above money and valuables, it is difficult to find that D has delivered KRW 100 million to AV because it is related to “the process during which it acquired part of them and returned stocks among the above money and valuables,” and it is difficult to find that D has delivered KRW 20 million to the Defendant. However, even though there was a statement in the AT that “the Defendant provided KRW 20 million to the Defendant,” it is difficult to believe D’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant provided money to be delivered to the Defendant with KRW 20 million received from AT” as seen in the judgment on the above D’s statement, the above AT’s statement cannot be a evidence to support the fact that the Defendant received KRW 70 million from D.

B) AV’s statement

AV’s statement primarily provides money and valuables to D and AT, during which the person’s statement was given.

In fact, it cannot be the evidence to prove that D has delivered money to the defendant as it is in accordance with the purport of receiving money from AV, because it was partly included in the purport of changing the purport of the defendant to the case of the defendant.

C) AG’s statement

AG’s statement is “Defendant” as seen in the judgment of the above D’s statement.

In light of the fact that the defendant prepared 70 million won as the direction of the person, but there is no memory as to the packing of 70 million won with the defendant. However, in light of the statement that the defendant brought shopping bags or bags containing money as the office, taken part of them, taken part of them back, and delivered them again, it is contrary to the statement of D, and the defendant's statement that the defendant sent them to the defendant with the "D's packing of 70 million won and delivered them together with the "D's packing of 70 million won," it is difficult to see that the defendant brought the shopping bags or bags containing money as the office and took part of them back, and that the defendant again delivered money to the defendant, the statement of AG also cannot be recognized as having delivered this part of money to the defendant.

D) AU’s statement

AU is a driver of the defendant, and the purpose of his statement is not to see the defendant.

It is merely that there is a Mosing in AP AP cafeteria (the situation after it is without memory) and that there is no memory of the operator of D or D at the time (if there is a D driver, there is a high possibility that a dialogue between each other while waiting outside the country). It is not correct, and there is no memory of the shopping bags containing money on the same day, and as seen in the judgment of D's statement above, D is not well memory as to whether or not it was delivered money at the above AP cafeteria, and therefore, the above AU's statement is insufficient to be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.

E) The investigation report (the first instance court, the appellate court, the final appeal and the final appeal of this case are added to the protocol of trial.

(C) the description;

According to the above evidence, D in a criminal case against D, this part of this part is against the defendant

However, according to the above evidence, D may be found to have been sentenced to a final judgment of conviction due to the fact that it provided money or goods as stated in the facts charged. However, as to the facts charged, D's confession is merely a confession of all the facts charged in the trial proceedings at the time, and it is merely a statement and investigation report of AV and AT (report on the tracking of funds relating to J Hospital), and it can be known that D's confession has been used as a conclusive evidence of guilt, and at the time D's attorney also offered a bribe to the defendant, it seems that it was proved that it had a significant effect on the normal pleadings related to the sentencing (for example, the part in which D's attorney also offered a bribe to the defendant). However, as seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to believe D's statement in this case as seen earlier, D's legal statement in the criminal case against D is not reliable, and therefore, it is difficult to say D's final judgment as evidence that D's statement is not reliable.

F) Determination as to the defendant's circumstances of escape from overseas

Each statement and investigation report at the court below and the prosecutor's office of the defendant (A)

According to evidence such as the statement of the copy of the crime, the defendant left Hong Kong on April 14, 202 immediately after the issue of so-called D', and entered the Republic of Korea through Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Japan on April 20, 2002, and was arrested in the U.S. police around February 24, 2003 and delivered them under the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America on March 18, 2004. As such, the fact that the defendant had never been exposed abroad until the 4th day after the 4th day of this case became a social issue is that the defendant did not know that D's 2nd day of this case's communication was close to D', and that the defendant did not know that D's 4th day after the 2nd day of this case's communication, and that there was a suspicion that the defendant did not know about D's official duty to escape, as seen in the guilty part of this decision.

G) Other evidence such as the investigation report

The remainder of the evidence is money and other valuables between the investigation process, AV, D, and AT mainly with respect to V.

As a matter of course of movement, etc., as long as it cannot be deemed a direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant received money and valuables, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received money and valuables from D solely based on the above evidence, unless he/she believed the evidence of the above D, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(B) Determination as to whether V’s shares were received

1) Evidence pertaining to the partial facts charged

The evidence attached to this part of the facts charged as to whether the above money was received or not.

As seen in the judgment part, each statement of D, AT and AV, investigation report (D's first instance court, appellate court, final appeal court, final appeal court and protocol of trial) and each investigation report are examined as to the evidence.

2) D’s statement

D B B Before making a statement at the original trial, as described in the facts charged above to the defendant.

Although it has maintained the statement to the effect that " there is a fact that shares are issued," the above statement of D is not reliable in light of the circumstances examined below.

A) Failure to maintain consistency in statements

D’s statement is attached Table 3 [Attachment 3] of the Statement Change Details of D; 2. Matters concerning the issuance of V shares

As stated in the statement part, the statement is reversed about whether or not the defendant issued shares or not, or the statement that does not coincide with before and after is lacking consistency.

B) Lack of reasonable grounds for reversal of the statement

D, as seen in the part of the determination as to whether or not the above money has been received, D itself

It is difficult to understand the reasons why the written confirmation of facts that are completely different from the previous statement is prepared by the defense counsel and then reverse the contents of the written confirmation of facts.

C) Deficiency of credibility of the statement itself

In accordance with this part of the facts charged, D's statement itself is reliable.

A public health room and D made a statement that ‘AV delivered the degree of 5,00 shares from the initial ‘AV to the delivery of the degree of 5,000 shares through AT,' whichever is later, ‘after the delivery of the degree of 40,00 shares', and ‘40,00 shares again delivered', there is room to regard that D's statement was changed to two times in 10,000 times, and these attitudes of 40,000 shares are to reduce responsibilities. On the other hand, D who made a consistent statement at an investigative agency to the effect that it does not seem to have any special reason to reverse the statement, even if D who made a statement that delivered 40,00 shares consistently at the time of the defendant's replacement, it is clear that D issued shares upon the investigation by the prosecution after that time, it is difficult to say that it was a statement to the effect that it was not memory or memory against the defendant, in light of whether D's statement was delivered or not.

3) Determination on the remaining evidence

A) Each statement of AT and AV

The main purpose of each statement of AT and AV is 140,00 shares to AT and D.

In addition, since AT has 40,00 shares among it, the remainder brought D, it does not include the fact that D has delivered shares to the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, unless D has believed D's statement.

B) The investigation report (the first instance court, the appellate court, the final appeal and the final appeal of this case) are added to the protocol of the trial.

(C) the description;

According to the above evidence, D in a criminal case against D, this part of this part is against the defendant

It can be recognized that a final and conclusive judgment of conviction was rendered on the grounds that money and valuables as stated in the facts charged. However, the above final and conclusive judgment cannot be used as evidence of guilt for the same reasons as examined in the judgment on giving and receiving money.

C) Determination as to the defendant's circumstances of escape from overseas

D for the same reasons as set forth in the part of the determination as to whether to receive the above money

As long as the above statements cannot be trusted, this alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

D) Other evidence such as the investigation report

The remaining evidence is mainly related to the progress of the investigation into V, etc.

As long as it cannot be deemed a direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that a person received shares from D, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant received shares from D as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) At the time of the acceptance of the bribe by the defendant who was identified as the consignee in the crime of bribery

In order to acknowledge a guilty of a person who has no physical evidence, such as financial data to support this, there should be evidence, and there should be credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the contents of the statement itself, but also his human beings; in particular, in the event there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated or an investigation is being conducted on the suspicion thereof, even if there is a suspicion that he/she may use it and there is no possibility that the admissibility of the statement may be denied, it should also be examined in addition, whether there may affect the statement that he/she intends to escape from the imminent place (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002).

(B) Ultimately, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

In a situation where there are various questions as properly stated, and such questions have not been reasonably clarified, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor up to the trial alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant is guilty of this part of the facts charged. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is unnecessary to determine the Defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6644, Feb. 13, 2004).

(C) If so, as the court below properly states, there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged by the defendant. Thus, we affirm and affirm the fact-finding of the court below and the selection and decision of evidence which has been conducted in the process, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, and the prosecutor's allegation in

C. Ex officio determination

(1) Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, Article 134 of the Criminal Act provides that the amount to be collected from the Defendant ex officio shall be confiscated as well as money and valuables to be offered as a bribe, and where it is impossible to confiscate them, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected. Such necessary confiscation or collection aims to deprive the offender of the pertinent property acquired by the offender and prevent him from possessing unlawful profits.

(2) Upon examining the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below around June 2001, the defendant acquired 10,000 shares of N in the name of AI and AJ from D around March 12, 2001, and 5,00 shares of N in the name of AI around June 200, in light of the records, AY, the defendant's wife, has 15,00 shares of the above shares (760 shares number), and around December 18, 202, entered 10,00 shares of the above shares (760 shares number) into BB securities, and released them through BB on March 12, 2003; around April 24, 2003, the remaining shares out of the above shares (200 shares number 27,00 shares number 27,00 shares number 20,000 shares number 27,00 shares number 27,00 shares shares list 27,00 shares number 27,27.

(3) If so, the defendant does not dispose of the above 15,00 shares at present and without disposing of 15,00 shares, and is in possession of 15,00 shares in the name of the defendant's wife in the form of share certificates, etc. so it is possible to confiscate the above shares such as share certificates representing 15,000 shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5218, Jun. 13, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2002No836, Sept. 10, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2002No836, Sept. 10, 200). Thus, it is illegal to order the court below to additionally collect the above shares on the ground that it is impossible to confiscate the above shares (In addition, even if the court below's determination that the above shares were equivalent to the value of 15,00 shares, it should be collected at the price of 5,000 shares at the time of the judgment.

(4) Therefore, the lower court’s imposition of KRW 150,000,000 equivalent to the above share price by the Defendant is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles on misconception of facts or collection of additional charges due to a violation of the rules of evidence. In addition, where there was a error in the part of the lower judgment’s collection of additional charges, the appellate court should treat the principal sentence and such part as one of them, and reverse the entire conviction portion. Therefore, the lower court should reverse the entire conviction portion of the lower judgment: Provided, That even though the lower court did not render a decision of confiscation, the lower court’s imposition of additional confiscation would result in a change in the lower judgment unfavorable to the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 42895, Mar. 5, 1956; 98Do2111, Sept. 25, 198; 4294238, Oct. 12, 1961). Therefore, the lower court should keep the Defendant’s share certificates in its name and 7070,70,00.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion among the judgment below shall be dismissed as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence against the defendant recognized by this court is the same as that stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

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

Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively, the acceptance of bribe under Article 1 of the judgment of the court below.

Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively cover the acceptance of bribe under Article 2 of the judgment below.

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129(1)2 of the Criminal Act comprehensively cover the acceptance of bribe under Article 3 of the judgment below.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of Article 1 of the holding of the lower court with the largest punishment) and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (General Considerations in the Grounds for Sentencing below)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act [184,165,565 won = 8 million won + 70,000 won + 20,000 won + 50,000 won + 21,165,565 won + 15 million won];

Reasons for sentencing

In light of the legal principles as to the determination of punishment, the defendant asserted that the period of detention should be considered as the period of detention since he was arrested by the police of the United States around February 24, 2003 while the defendant left Hong Kong on April 14, 2002 after entering the United States and living for flight in New York, and he was living in the U.S. where he entered the Republic of Korea on March 18, 2004. Thus, the period of detention should be considered as the period of detention in the U.S. detention house. Thus, the execution of punishment is not a compulsory disposition which inevitably detains the defendant or the suspect in order to achieve the purpose of prosecution, but it is similar to the type of deprivation of liberty. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that the whole or part of the period of detention detention should be counted as the period of detention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do606, Feb. 11, 2003).

The Defendant’s crime of this case is that the Defendant received money or property benefits equivalent to approximately KRW 334,165,565 in total at the time of receipt from D, P, and T in connection with the duties such as overlapping remuneration collection and investigation of senior public officials in charge of the Defendant’s duties and investigation, investigation of Cheong Man-dae case, investigation of serious crimes contrary to the national and social interests, intelligence management, etc., and collection of money or property benefits equivalent to KRW 334,165 in total at the time of receipt from Do, P, and T, while working as the chief of the National Police Agency U.S., and the Defendant, who was in the position of performing his duties in a fair and fair manner while maintaining integrity and morality of duties, received such large amount of bribe while taking advantage of his position as a senior police official, etc. In particular, the Defendant seriously impaired the public trust of the public official by taking advantage of his position as a senior public official, and in view of the fact that the Defendant had concentrated suspicion and national interest in the press at the time, the Defendant’s crime of escape without permission.

However, on the other hand, since 1983, the defendant served for the country, such as faithfully serving as a police official for about twenty (20) years from 1983, such as winning the presidential commendation, etc., the defendant's wife has been very serious years ago, and there is no criminal record of the same kind, and the defendant has been living abroad to escape from punishment, but there was a lot of mental and physical suffering due to the escape life, but he was detained for about one year and one month in the United States, and some of his mistakes have been divided after the crime of this case, and the defendant has been detained for about one (1) year and one (1) months in the United States, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into consideration the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the motive, background, result, damage, the situation after the crime, age, character and behavior of the defendant, and the environment.

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

Judges Lee Dong-hoon

judges in writing;

Judges Yoon Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.