A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant prepared and submitted a written complaint to C, D, and E to the Gyeonggi-do Police Station located in the Gyeonggi-dong, Namyang-si.

The content of the contract was that, with respect to the sale and purchase contract of August 2, 2006 between G and E with respect to the F Forest in Gyeonggi-gu (hereinafter “the forest in this case”), the Defendant, at the time (D, E is the married couple, C was involved in the sale and purchase contract with his children, and C was present in the investigation and trial process) did not state that the forest in this case would be developed as the site for electric source, or that authorization and permission would be possible, and there was no public official’s expenses, and there was no demand for development costs, and C et al. did not demand public official’s expenses and development costs against the Defendant around March 30, 201. Since C et al. was in collusion with H (G husband) and H were developing the forest in Korea as the house site for electric source, C et al., by deceiving C et al. to have the house for electric source within two years if it was purchased and paid expenses for non-public official expenses.

However, the Defendant conspired with H to purchase the instant forest land from around July 17, 2006 to around August 8, 2006, and concluded that the Defendant would obtain authorization and permission so that the instant forest land can be located within two years, and would establish an access road to the said forest land. It was true that C et al. acquired KRW 300 million in total, including KRW 250 million in the purchase price of the said forest land, KRW 50 million in the authorization and permission cost, KRW 50 million in the authorization cost, and the said judgment became final and conclusive after having been sentenced to two years of imprisonment with labor for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on November 15, 2012.

Nevertheless, the defendant was dismissed for the purpose of having C, D, and E criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D or E;

1. Police in relation to C.