Defendant

A and C Each fine of KRW 7,00,000, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 00, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000.

Punishment of the crime

A certified architect may conduct on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation of an application for approval of use of a building by delegation from the competent authority pursuant to Article 27 of the Building Act, Article 23 of the Certified Architects Act, etc.

Such agency certified architect (one special inspector; hereinafter “special inspector”) is deemed a public official in applying the crime of acceptance of bribe, etc. pursuant to Article 105 of the Building Act.

In the case of Seoul, if the owner files an application for approval for use with the competent Gu office, the competent Gu office shall request the J to designate the special prosecutor, and the above J shall appoint the special prosecutor from approximately 420 certified architects who are qualified as the special prosecutor to the specific sequence designated as the non-exclusive inspector.

The designated special inspector shall inspect the design drawing and the execution status, etc. of the on-site investigation, and approve the use of the buildings which passed the inspection without any violation.

K served as L by the J from around 2009 to July 2014, and has overall control over the affairs concerning the designation of the special prosecutor.

1. Defendant A is running a new house construction and sale business. A

Around May 2013, the Defendant: (a) requested K to the effect that “the Special Inspector’s inspection is allowed to pass by the Special Inspector’s inspection without permission; (b) the Special Inspector’s designation is allowed; and (c) the Special Prosecutor’s personal information and other information, etc., are changed to pollution; and (d) passed the inspection without permission as a result of the request, the Defendant, as a result of passing the inspection, sent in cash three million won to K in the Ncafeteria near the J Office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on May 2013.

In addition, the Defendant made the same solicitation from December 2, 201 to June 2014, 201, to K on a total of eight occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Table (1), and provided property or pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 25,00,000 in total.

Accordingly, the defendant deals with the work of J K.