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

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.2.C

4. (b) D.

5.c) E;

6.c)F

Cho Jae-in (prosecution) and Gumbin (public trial)

Law Firm G (for Defendant A)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm I (Defendant B)

J., Attorney J

Attorney K, L (for the defendant C, D)

Attorney M, N (for the defendant E, F)

July 26, 2013

Defendant A’s imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B’s imprisonment of three years, respectively. The amount of KRW 300 million from Defendant A, and the amount of KRW 800 million from Defendant B shall be additionally collected. Defendants C, D, E, and F shall be acquitted, respectively.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power, etc.】

Defendant A was sentenced to the Seoul High Court on October 22, 2010 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 30th of the same month. From July 1, 2002 to February 2, 2010, Defendant A overall control over all administrative affairs such as policy-making related to various redevelopment projects in Seoul0 area, various authorization and permission decision-making related to redevelopment projects, etc. Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months at the Seoul Western District Court on July 6, 2012 at the Seoul Western District Court on June 27, 200, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 27, 2005, at the 20th meeting of the Seoul Western District Court on March 20, 2005, the resident redevelopment project owner who acquired a license for urban renewal project operator under Article 84 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and 2.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant A

Defendant: (a) around August 2005 and around September 2005, the head of the Gu office located in Seoul S, the head of the Gu office, and the head of the Gu office in Seoul, designated U.S. as the third candidate in Seoul around August 2005; (b) but (c) requested the co-defendant B to grant approval for the existing redevelopment promotion committee; and (d) requested the modification of the promotion committee.

On November 2005, the Defendant received a proposal from Co-Defendant B to grant KRW 300 million to Co-Defendant B, who again received approval from the redevelopment promotion committee for Q and R zones, as the cost of services entered.

As a result, Co-Defendant B applied for approval of the committee for promotion of redevelopment of Qan area, which is the residents' consent rate of 54% in November 2005, and obtained approval from the committee for promotion on December 2, 2005, and applied for approval of the committee for promotion of redevelopment of Ran area, which is the residents' consent rate of 52% in early 2006, January 26, 2006 and obtained approval from the committee for promotion on January 26, 2006.

After that, the defendant, at the end of July, 2006, instructed Sheet W to contact that the gift was prepared by Co-defendant B by telephone, and received KRW 300 million from Co-defendant B.

Accordingly, around August 2006, at the entrance of the Seoul X apartment, WW received 300 million won in cash on behalf of the Defendant from Co-Defendant B for the purpose of providing for the convenience of redevelopment approval and permission. Around that time, the Defendant received 300 million won in her own name from DongW in her apartment site. Accordingly, the Defendant received 300 million won in her own name from DongW in her dwelling site. Accordingly, the Defendant received 300 million won in her duties.

2. Defendant B

A. 50 million won received and delivered from Y

On January 2006, the Defendant proposed that Co-Defendant D, Co-Defendant D, a co-defendant, Y (hereinafter referred to as "Y") at AA hotel coffee shop in Jung-gu in Seoul, Seoul, input KRW 3,400 million in relation to Q area redevelopment business, and the extent of KRW 500 million in Jeju, still remains important authorization and permission in the future.

At the same time, the Defendant concluded a false service agreement between Co-Defendant D with Co-Defendant C’s permission at the same place, stating that “I will pay KRW 500 million in return for securing the construction right, but will give money in the form of ordering services after securing the status of redevelopment construction right in Q area.” After that, on March 2, 2006, the Defendant was selected as a redevelopment construction contractor in Q area. On March 2, 2006, the Defendant entered into a false service agreement between AB (hereinafter “AB”) and Y (hereinafter “AB”), a Dormant Corporation, a Dormant Corporation, designated by the Defendant at theY Office located in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and Y (hereinafter “AB”), a false service agreement between AC (hereinafter “AC”) and Y, the Defendant borrowed the name of her main, respectively.

On March 24, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from Co-Defendant C and D to AB account in consideration of securing the construction right of the above redevelopment area, and received KRW 200 million in total from AC account, and KRW 500 million in total.

Accordingly, the defendant received a bribe of KRW 500 million in relation to his duties.

B. The portion received in KRW 300 million from AD

On January 2006, the defendant suggested that AD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AD") AD Co., Ltd. F and AF agency will make it possible for AD to be selected as a contractor by making it possible for AD to be selected as a contractor by making it possible for CD to meet the cost invested in relation to the R zone redevelopment project by preserving KRW 4,500 million.

Around that time, the Defendant, with co-defendant E’s permission, told Co-Defendant F to the effect that “AD will be selected as a contractor in the R zone,” and that money will be paid in the form of payment of the price by preparing a false service contract. On March 23, 2006, AD was selected as a contractor for redevelopment of the R zone and then on March 23, 2006, the Defendant entered into a false service contract of KRW 300 million between Dormant Corporation AH (hereinafter referred to as “AH”) and AD in the AD office located in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, from May 24, 2006 to September 11, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from Co-Defendant E and F to AH account as the consideration for securing the execution right of the redevelopment area.

Accordingly, the defendant received a bribe of KRW 300 million in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

【Fact of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Each prosecutor's statement about T and AI;

1. Investigation report (report on on-site answers to Seoul X apartment, a place where money is delivered to A), investigation report (in case of an extract of the AI pocket book and delivery of KRW 200 million in cash to copy andB);

[Article 2-2(a) of the Fair Trade Commission]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, C, and D

1. AJ account transactions, one copy, one copy of account transactions in AK (former AB), and a certificate of account transactions in AJ (the fact that paragraph 2-b (b) is in the market);

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, E, and F;

1. An interrogation protocol of a prosecutor with respect to AF and AL;

1. Investigation report (verification of the facts of AD and AH services contract, appending a copy of a list of total tax invoices), investigation report (the conclusion of a provisional contract with the promotion committee by title, and verification of the fact of selecting the maintenance company after approval for the promotion committee);

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant A: Inquiry into the criminal and investigation records of A, investigation reports (a separate judgment attached to the case of bribery and bribery), and detailed inquiry into the A Integrated System case;

1. Defendant B: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the detailed inquiry into the case of the B-related criminal history records, investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment of misappropriation), and the B-integrated system;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) and Article 129 of the Criminal Act [the maximum of imprisonment with prison labor: Provided, That the maximum of imprisonment with prison labor shall be 15 years from imprisonment with prison labor prescribed in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)]

B. Defendant B: Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129 of the Criminal Act; Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009);

1. Defendants to reduce their number: Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendants: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation following the handling of concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 55(1)3 and Article 55(2) of the Criminal Act (Taking account of equity between cases where a judgment becomes final and conclusive simultaneously with a crime)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the heavy amount of KRW 500 million)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 55(2) of the Criminal Act (As seen below, normal consideration in favor of the Defendants)

1. Additional collection:

Defendants: The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The crime in this case committed by Defendant A is the case where the defendant was working as the head of a local government and received a large amount of bribe in relation to redevelopment and reconstruction, and the nature of the crime is heavy, and thereby harms the integrity and fairness, which is one of the most important virtue of public officials, and in particular, the bribe given and received is 300 million won, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant as a penalty.

On the other hand, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the crime of this case, which are all the criminal facts in the judgment, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for four years and eight months due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery). The defendant has no criminal record except for the crime of this case and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) which is in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In particular, the defendant voluntarily surrenders and actively cooperates with the investigation of the crime of this case to the investigation agency, and contributed the job incentives received by the defendant to the crime of this case for the crime of this case by collecting the job incentives which are close to four years

2. Defendant B’s crime of this case is a representative director of a maintenance service company that requires high level of integrity and receives money and valuables in violation of his duty. The fairness in the performance of duty by an urban maintenance service company and the social trust thereon have been significantly impaired. The crime of this case is ultimately attributable to many interested parties, including partners, and the amount of bribe received is up to 800 million won. In view of the fact that the amount of bribe received is up to 800 million won, a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable for the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of giving property in breach of trust and each of the crimes of this case, which are all criminal facts in the judgment, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant is merely a public official who temporarily acquires a status as a public official in connection with redevelopment project. The crime of this case is committed by the defendant to be compensated for the expenses invested by the defendant in order to be selected as the maintenance business, and there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances of the crime. In particular, the punishment of this case is imposed by taking into account the following factors: (a) the number of crimes in this case

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Occupational embezzlement by Defendant C and D

In around 2006, Defendant C was in charge of receiving orders and implementing funds relating to redevelopment as a managing director of the Y housing project headquarters. Defendant D, as the head of the Y housing project headquarters in 2006, supported Defendant C as the head of the Y housing project headquarters, and was in charge of receiving orders and executing funds at the site of redevelopment in the Seoul Southernbuk area.

around January 2006, Defendant D was proposed to “to induce Co-defendant B, the representative director, who was performing the maintenance service of Q area redevelopment area in AA hotel coffee shop located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, to secure the construction right on the face of KRW 500 million since Q area redevelopment project was put in KRW 3.4 billion in relation to Q area redevelopment project in the future and there remains important authorization and permission in the future. Defendant C, a subordinate employee, reported the requirements of Co-Defendant D and decided to place a false order to a corporation designated by the above B, which is deemed as a public official, and paid the price in the form of payment of KRW 500 million in return for securing the construction right.” Defendant D, who obtained Defendant C’s permission, stated in the same place to the effect that “The money would be paid in the form of ordering service after securing the construction status of Q area redevelopment project.”

After that, on March 2, 2006, Y was selected as a redevelopment project by the residents' general meeting of Q zone, Y entered into a false service contract with AB and 300 million won in Seoul, and AC and 200 million won in price, respectively, at the Y office located in Y office in Seoul, and Y entered into a false service contract with AC.

Defendant C and D remitted KRW 500 million to AC account designated by Co-Defendant C and KRW 300 million to AB account, among the Y’s funds kept for business on March 3, 2006 and around 24, respectively. Accordingly, Defendant C and D embezzled KRW 500 million for the purpose of offering bribe in collusion.

B. Occupational embezzlements by Defendant E and F

around 2006, Defendant E was in charge of receiving orders and executing funds at the redevelopment site in the Seoul Western area as the head of the AD Housing Project Headquarters development team in Seoul. Defendant F, as the head of the AD Housing Project Headquarters development team in around 2006, supported Defendant E and was in charge of receiving orders at the redevelopment site in Seoul Western area and executing related funds.

Defendant E received from Defendant F, the vice head of AD Project Development Team from May 2005 to December 2005, and received from Defendant F, the vice head of AD Project Development Team, from time to time, reports on the current status of the R zone redevelopment promotion. At the same time, Defendant E received a report from the P representative Co-Defendant B, the P, who was performing the project for the improvement of the said zone, and decided to grant money to the above B, who is deemed a public official, after being selected as a contractor for the project to realize the performance of the project. Accordingly, Defendant F requested Defendant B, at the main station near Seoul AE, to be selected as a contractor in the R zone around January 2006, that Defendant F would be able to give money to Defendant B so that AD will be selected as a contractor by making it easier to talk with the Promotion Committee if the cost invested in relation to the R zone redevelopment project was preserved in KRW 4,500 million.”

After that, with the permission of Defendant E, Defendant F gave KRW 300 million in return for assisting AD to be selected as a contractor in the R zone, and prepared a false service contract and agreed with Defendant F to give money in the form of payment. On March 23, 2006, Defendant F was selected as a contractor for redevelopment of the R zone and entered into a false service contract between Defendant F and AD in the AD office located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 23, 2006 and around April 2006, with Co-Defendant F’s false service contract between Defendant E and F. From May 24, 2006 to September 11, 2006, Defendant E and F remitted KRW 300 million out of the funds of AD, which were kept for business purposes, to Defendant H account designated by Defendant B. Accordingly, Defendant F, in collusion with intent to pay the funds of 300 million in the form of a bribe for the purpose of offering the funds to be held by Defendant EF.

2. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. The Defendants are in charge of the custody and enforcement of Y and AD’s funds at the fund team, and the Defendants are only authorized to apply for the execution of the funds kept by the fund team. As such, the Defendants are not the custodian of the occupational embezzlement.

B. Even if the status of the custodian is recognized to the Defendants, if the custodian disposes of it for the benefit of the owner, not for the benefit of the custodian himself/herself or a third party, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized. The Defendants promoted the instant service and the conclusion of a contract for the benefit of the company, and thus did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Whether Defendant C or DOY is a custodian of funds

1) Facts of recognition

According to each evidence, the following facts are recognized:

A) The housing project headquarters consists of 11 teams, such as housing project planning teams, housing project teams, development project teams, etc. At the time of the instant crime, the head of the housing project headquarters was the defendant C, and the head of the development project team team was the defendant C, and the head of the development project team.

B) The main provisions of the Y’s Urban Improvement Project Team (hereinafter “Investigation Records 2305”) classify the discretionary decision-making authority into the executive officers, the head of the headquarters, and the president in accordance with the standards for the amount of project costs, business management, acceptance of orders, loan items, etc. The discretionary decision-making authority for service costs exceeding KRW 50 million in the instant case is the head of the headquarters, i.e., AM affairs at the time.

c) The Y Fund execution shall be executed at the request of each business department. When a development project team enters into a service contract and requests the accounting team of the Financial Headquarters to execute funds, the accounting team shall conduct an accounting by reviewing the feasibility and adequacy of the fund execution and deliver the content to the fund team, and the funds team shall execute funds at the request of the fund execution.

D) The Y’s provision on the receipt and disbursement management of money (Evidence 2) provides that the final responsibility and authority for the overall management of cash receipts and disbursements shall be vested in the head of the Treasury, and the responsibility and authority for the overall management of cash receipts and disbursements shall be vested in the head of the fund team (Article 4 of the above provision). The person in charge of receipt and disbursement of

Article 5(1)1 of the Act, and the person in charge of receipt and disbursement shall be appointed by each person in charge of receipt and disbursement (the above provision).

Article 5(1)3)

2) On the basis of the above facts of recognition, the following circumstances, namely, ① the funds paid to Co-Defendant B in this case were paid out of the corporate account managed by the Y Fund Team. The provisions on the receipt and disbursement management of funds in the Y Fund provide that the custodian of the funds in the corporate account is the person in charge of receipt and disbursement appointed by the head of the finance headquarters, the head of the funds team, or the head of the funds team. ② On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Defendants are in custody of the funds in the Y Fund. ③ The prosecutor has the authority to conclude a service contract in the name of the Defendants, and the Defendants are the custodian of the Y Fund. However, the Defendants are not authorized to independently conclude the instant service contract in which the service price exceeds KRW 50 million without the approval of the head of the AMF, and even if they were authorized to do so, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants were the person in charge of keeping the funds (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1901, Oct. 10, 1989).

B. Whether Defendant E or F is a custodian of AD funds

1) Facts of recognition

According to each evidence, the following facts are recognized:

A) The AD’s construction project headquarters was composed of 11 parts, including the development project division (former Urban Improvement Project Team), the private project division, and the building planning division (11 pages of investigation records) in 2006 (3045 pages). At the time of the instant development project division, the development project division was composed of Defendant F, the team leader, Defendant E, the head of the team, the head of the department, the head of the department, and the executive officer in charge A0.

B) According to AD’s official authority regulations (the investigation records No. 1366) (the investigation records No. 1366), the instant service contract constitutes a project site survey and market survey service among the above provisions, and the right to pre-determination of the said service contract is the executive director of AO as the reason for the full-time decision.

C) According to the Guidelines for Fund Execution (Evidence No. 4) and AD’s Guidelines for Fund Execution (Evidence No. 3), the instant amount of the instant service was paid as non-regular funds. The proposed department applied for the execution of funds through the computer network at the proposing department, allocated funds from the funds team in receipt of the application via the computer network, and made the funds to the customer through linkage with the bank.

D) In addition, the guidelines for fund execution of AD also stipulate that the responsibility and authority of the department in charge of the fund execution, such as approval of fund execution, supervision of fund execution, request of bank for fund execution, etc., shall be held by the head of the fund team (Article 3(1) of the above Regulations).

2) Determination.

The following circumstances are inferred by the above facts: (a) the funds of AD paid to Co-Defendant B in this case were paid from the corporate account managed by the AD Fund Team; (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants were in custody of the AD Corporation Fund while there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants were in custody of the AD Corporation Fund; (c) the Defendants are in the authority to conclude a service contract under the name of the Defendants, and the Defendants are the custodian of the AD Fund. However, the Defendants are not authorized to independently conclude the service contract of this case without the approval of AO regular director, who is the officer in charge of the AD Fund, and even if they are authorized to do so, the Defendants cannot be deemed to be the custodian of the AD Fund; and even if they are authorized to do so, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, as long as the defendants cannot be recognized as a custodian as the principal agent of embezzlement, this part of the facts charged without considering the remaining points is the case where there is no proof.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the above Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presiding judge, the whole judge.

Judges Dok-Ba

Judges Cho Jae-chul