A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around May 2012, the Defendant introduced the victim himself/herself as the prosecutorial public official in the “E” restaurant of the victim D’s “E” in Masung-si on May 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that when the victim files a complaint with F and G, which are in dispute with co-owned land, to the Suwon-nam Branch Office, the Defendant would arrest the F, etc. upon his/her request by him/her.

However, the defendant did not have the will and ability to arrest the public prosecutor in favor of the public prosecutor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, received a total of KRW 1 million from the victim to the prosecution officials around June 9, 2012, KRW 3 million around June 2012, KRW 1200,000 around July 18, 2012, KRW 1.2 million around July 18, 2012, and KRW 3.3 million around August 20, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant was issued KRW 8.5 million under the pretext of deceiving the victim, deceiving 8.5 million won from the victim, and soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public officials at the same time.

2. Around October 2012, the Defendant committed the crime: (a) around October 2012, when the Defendant came to know that the victim was using the State-owned land adjacent to the above restaurant and was seeking to leave the said restaurant; (b) when the victim was detained, he was well aware of the victim’s intention; and (c) he was still working for the emulation of the emulation of the State-owned land through H; and (d) he said that he would allow the public to leave the State-owned land by requesting the public to do so through H, on the ground that the public in the service was still working for the emulation of the State-owned land.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intent and ability to get the victim's state-owned land to be rejected by soliciting the public officials of the Sungsung Viewing.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby, he is against the public officials in charge of the sexual viewing.