208Gohap638(a) Gonggres

(b) Embezzlement;

(c) Offering of bribe;

(d) Acceptance of bribe;

1. A. (b) A. (56) and the Director of the General Construction Site in XX.

2. The head of the building supervision group, A2 (55 years old, South), and the head of the architectural firm supervision group;

Jin-sicking

Attorney Park Sung-ho (for all the defendants),

November 28, 2008

Defendant A1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A2. 81 days in the detention days before the sentence is made shall be included in the calculation of Defendant A1, and one day in the calculation of the above punishment against Defendant A2.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A1, and for Defendant A2, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The amount of KRW 10,500,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant A2.

Criminal History Office

Defendant A1 is the head of the site office of the Busan City City Extension Corporation, which was ordered by the XX General Construction Corporation, and Defendant A2 is the head of the supervision center of the above site construction under the Y Engineering Construction Office. The Busan City Construction Headquarters, from September 2007 to June 2008, performed the extension work of the office building of Busan City with a total of KRW 2.7 billion budget from June 2008, and selected the x General Construction Company as the contractor by means of electronic open bid.

Defendant A1 is a staff member of the XX General Construction Company, who is in charge of public duties as a supervisor of the supervision group, such as checking whether the construction is executed in accordance with the design documents and other relevant documents, and conducting on-site guidance for quality control, construction management, and safety management, with the authority delegated by the Construction Headquarters of Busan.

1. Defendant Al;

(a) Points of conflict;

The defendant removed money using a position that could give disadvantage to the representatives at the site of the lowest contractor who directly control and supervise about 15 the lowest contractor that was put into the office building extension work of Busan City, such as reinforced concrete construction, electrical construction, painting construction, etc., and in the event that the representatives at the site of the lowest contractor do not hear their horses, the defendant laid down money from such representatives at the site using a position that could put about various disadvantages, such as being able to catch a house in the progress of construction work.

On November 26, 2007, the Defendant, at the office of the director of the office of the office of the office of the office of the director of the office of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of Busan City and Busan City, 1000-dong, "The defendant, a technician of the office of the director of the office of the office of the director of the office of the office of the director of the office of the director of the office of the Busan City and Busan City, borrowed 2 million won, 000,000 won, and deducted money on the card if there is no money."

As such, the Defendant, as indicated in the attached Table (1), received a total of KRW 34,50,000 through seven occasions, such as joining the victim and remitting two million won to his/her post office account and receiving the same amount.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a total of KRW 34,500,000 from the victims seven times in total.

B. Points of embezzlement

On February 25, 2008, the Defendant received from the representative director 52 of the relevant general construction company at the office of the head of the above site office of construction work to transfer money of 40 million won to his/her own post office account and received the order to pay it to B who received the last subcontract for the said construction work.

The Defendant remitted KRW 30 million out of the construction cost of KRW 40 million, which was kept in custody for the representative director C, to the above B, and the remainder KRW 10 million was paid at will, regardless of the payment of the construction cost of the sub-contractor, and used it at will, regardless of the payment of the sub-contractor’s construction cost. Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled KRW 10 million of the subcontracted construction cost in custody.

At the end of January 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 10,500,000 over seven times in total, as shown in the [Attachment 2] List of Crimes (Omission) to Defendant A2, who is delegated by the Busan City Construction Headquarters, to supervise the extension work of the Busan City Council at the above site office of the construction site, and is performing official duties, to Defendant A2, who is in charge of performing official duties, called “We go to the scene because of the horse, our country, so our country, and our country, our country, our country, our country, and the head of the party.” However, the issue that can be transferred out of the construction site, “,” upon request, 1.5 million won, was delivered from the time when he received a request and delivered a gold amount of KRW 1.5 million at the end of March 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant given a bribe of KRW 10,500,000 in total seven times in connection with public

2. Defendant A2

The Defendant received the same amount of honorariums from Defendant A1 at the same time and place as stated in Article 1(c) of the facts charged. Accordingly, the Defendant received the same amount of bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant Al: Articles 350(1) (a) and 355(1) (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 350(1) (a) and 355(1) (a) of the Criminal Act; (c) Article 45 of the Construction Technology Management Act; (d) Articles 133(1) and 129(1) (a) of the Criminal Act (a

Defendant A2: Article 45 of the Construction Technology Management Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Al: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with punishment and Article 50 of the Criminal Act on December 20, 207 against the heavier V1)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A2: Articles 48 and 134 of the Criminal Act

1. The reason for sentencing is that Defendant A1, while serving as the head of the construction site at the construction site, took advantage of the position to exercise influence over the preparation of the records of origin and the application for progress payment, etc. to the least subcontractor, embezzled 10 million won out of the construction cost being kept by him for the representative director of the construction site, and furthermore, the crime is not good in that he tried to impair the integrity of performing official duties by giving a bribe to the supervision service provider who is performing official duties under delegation from the air pipe in connection with his official duties. Defendant A2 received the bribe of the same amount provided as above, thereby deeming the supervisor as a public official, thereby enabling the supervisor to perform supervision duties by declaring the pureness or inequality of the duties corresponding to the public official, thereby ensuring fairness in the performance of supervision duties. It is also not good that Defendant A2 also commits a crime.

2. However, all the Defendants were to be aware of the crime of this case and are against their wrongness. Defendant A1 did not have any record of criminal punishment other than the punishment imposed on one occasion of suspension of execution and a fine imposed on several occasions, and only Defendant A2 also has been punished by a fine. Defendant A1 seeks some of the victims to agree with the victim and wanting to take measures against the above Defendant. Such circumstances should be specifically considered in determining the sentence.

3. In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, various sentencing conditions prescribed by Act, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendants’ punishment for the instant crime shall be determined and sentenced as ordered within the scope of the term of punishment.

Chief Judge, Senior Judge and Senior Judge

Judges Kim Gin-ok

Judge No. Doingk