Defendant

Prosecutor

The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall hold a public trial in the form of a leap Jin (Court) and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Law Firm Manil et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap1344 Decided December 24, 2013

The part of the judgment below excluding the violation of the Political Funds Act shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

30 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of taking good offices around March 201 is not guilty.

The summary of the acquittal portion in the judgment of this case shall be publicly announced.

The prosecutor's appeal on the violation of the Political Funds Act shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of reasons for appeal: Error of facts;

A. Parts concerning violation of the Political Funds Act

Although Non-Indicted 1’s statement, which is the core evidence of this part of the facts charged, is highly reliable for the following reasons, the court below rejected the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement by simple family.

In other words, ① consistently from the prosecution to the court of the court below, Nonindicted 1 stated that he delivered KRW 20 million in the name of political funds to the Defendant. ② From among several political parties, Nonindicted 1 stated the fact that he provided money and valuables to the Defendant, and in light of the fact that he stated the fact that he provided money and valuables in this case in the process of making a statement about the use of the use of the funds by the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”), there is credibility in the process of making the statement. ③ Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the same effect as Nonindicted 2’s name from the first investigation to the court of the court of the court below. ④ Nonindicted 1 made a statement about the time and place in which he raised money, ⑤ Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, etc. Nonindicted 1’s driver, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 18, etc., who received money and valuables from Nonindicted 1, also acknowledged the fact that he received money and valuables in consideration of the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant’s statement.

B. On June 2010, part concerning mediation and acceptance

Although the testimony of Nonindicted Party 8, which is the core evidence of this part of the facts charged, is very high for the following reasons, the lower court rejected the credibility of the statement by simple family.

In other words, (i) Nonindicted 8 stated consistently from the prosecution to the court of the court below that it delivered money and valuables to the defendant with a solicitation; (ii) Nonindicted 8 made an investigation agency’s statement about the substance of the fund that was made for the name of ○○ Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “○○○ Mutual Savings Bank”) in the course of proving the source of using the funds relating to the agreement of the Plaintiff○○ Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “○○○ Mutual Savings Bank”), and credibility exists in the process of making the statement. ③ Nonindicted 8 made a statement about the date on which Nonindicted 8 delivered money and valuables to the defendant ( June 19, 2010), Nonindicted 14’s statement and medical expenses coincide with the Defendant. ④ Nonindicted 13 assistant who prepared an interview with the Defendant, and Nonindicted 8’s statement that Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 14 coincide with the Defendant at the court of the court below, and that Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 18 made an objective interview with the Defendant, and that there was no possibility that the Defendant and Nonindicted 18 Nonindicted 14 made an interview with the Defendant.

C. On March 201, 201

Although the statements of Nonindicted 7 and the statements of Nonindicted 8, which are the core evidence of this part of the facts charged, are highly reliable in light of the following circumstances, the lower court rejected such statements, thereby misunderstanding the facts.

In other words, ① Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 consistently made a statement to the effect that they delivered money to the Defendant with Nonindicted 1’s solicitation related to ○○ Mutual Savings Bank from the prosecution to the lower court. ② Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 sent 30 million won from the main room of the National Assembly at the meeting of the National Assembly, and asked the Defendant to postpone the opening of the Management Evaluation Committee for ○○ Mutual Savings Bank organized by the Financial Services Commission. The Defendant was subject to the grace period by communicating the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission on his job and delivered 30 million won to the Defendant. ③ In the process of proving that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 8’s use of Nonindicted 1’s funds from the prosecution to the lower court, Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 8 made a consistent statement with the Financial Services Commission. Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 8 made an attempt to verify the credibility of the statement and that Nonindicted 2 made a false statement due to Nonindicted 9’s testimony during the period of Nonindicted 3’s participation in the meeting.

On the other hand, even though it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 8 had interviewed the Defendant with Nonindicted 7, the Defendant denied Nonindicted 8’s assertion, and it appears that Nonindicted 7 possessed the Defendant at the time and interviewed the Defendant, but the Defendant denied that fact without reasonable grounds, etc., the Defendant’s statement cannot be trusted.

2. Ex officio determination

B. Before the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that part of the facts charged in the instant case is withdrawn as stated in attached Table 1-2(b) of the facts charged at the 9th trial date. This court permitted this and thereby this part of the judgment below as to this part of the facts charged becomes unable to be maintained as it is. However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the judgment of the court below on the above facts charged in the instant case is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we examine the remaining facts charged together with the assertion of mistake

3. Common doctrine

In the instant case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, as seen in the instant case, is the issue, the statement made by the person who provided money or valuables is denied the fact of receiving money or valuables and, in the absence of objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, there should be not only the admissibility of evidence but also the credibility of a reasonable doubt. In addition, when determining the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined whether there is a concern about the existence of a criminal suspicion against him/her and there is a possibility of the commencement of an investigation, or there is a possibility that his/her criminal investigation may be conducted, and in particular, if there is a possibility that the evidence of the statement might not be denied, there is a possibility that there may affect the statement that he/she would escape from the imminent place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

4. Judgment on the violation of the Political Funds Act

A. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court denied the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement, and otherwise deemed lack of evidence to acknowledge the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

In other words, according to the use details, etc. of the corporate card and Happ Card used by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1 did not have time for Nonindicted 1 to communicate Nonindicted 2 with or deliver money and valuables to Nonindicted 2, or only within five minutes. ② Specific place for receiving money and valuables cannot be specified. ③ It is difficult to see that Nonindicted 1 had a pro rata relationship with the Defendant to the extent that it can be able to contact the Defendant, and in particular, it is difficult to see that the Defendant received money and valuables through a third party (Nonindicted 2) in a situation where he was living in the past after receiving money and valuables from the Defendant due to the crime of receiving money and valuables, and it is difficult to understand that the Defendant sent Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 2 without being a campaign title, and Nonindicted 1 did not have any specific explanation on the situation at the time of Nonindicted 2’s election. ⑤ Even if Nonindicted 1’s statement was made by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1’s objective suspicion that the Defendant had made a false statement through the Defendant’s statement in the instant case 1.

B. The judgment of this Court

1) Issues

As the Defendant and the prosecutor asserted, whether it is possible to acknowledge the guilty of this part of the facts charged depends on whether it is possible to believe that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that he/she himself/herself is a money donor.

2) Determination

A) The lower court determined that Nonindicted 1’s delivery of Nonindicted 2 to Nonindicted 1, if Nonindicted 1’s statement, was difficult as a result of examining the details of use of Nonindicted 1’s corporate card and Habrid cards and the search results of Nonindicted 1’s “road search” on the Internet portal site.

In other words, the reasons of the lower court are as follows. Nonindicted 1, on March 29, 2008, went to the Korea Highway Corporation, on or around March 20:05, and around 20:38, it is true that the number of times has taken 3 minutes from 20:05 to 20:38, and the number of times has taken 3 minutes from the station of the substitute oil. The defense counsel of the Republic of Korea War shall claim that the estimated movement time from the hotel to the station of the substitute oil is 37 minutes, and the prosecutor shall be 28-43 minutes from the hotel to the hotel of the above 10-15 minutes from the hotel to the hotel of the above 10-30 minutes from the hotel of the above 10-10-15 minutes from the hotel of the above 10-30-10-10-10-10-10-20-20-20-20-300-300-300.

검사의 신청에 의하여 당심에서 다음과 같이 현장검증을 실시하였다. ⓐ 가능한한 정확한 시간측정을 위하여, 공소외 1이 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시에 탑승하였던 차량과 동일한 차종(이하 ‘이 사건 검증차량’이라 한다)을 준비하고, 재판부가 탑승한 상태에서 공소외 3이 운전하였다. 다른 가능성과도 비교하기 위하여 검사가 탑승한 차량과 변호인이 탑승한 차량의 운행시간도 측정하였다. ⓑ 목포톨게이트에서 샹그리아비치호텔 300m 전방에 있는 세븐일레븐 ☆☆점 앞까지(공소외 3의 진술에 의하면, 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시에 공소외 1이 하차한 장소이고, 당시에는 허허벌판이어서 거기서 샹그리아비치호텔이 바로 보였다는 주1) 것이다), 이 사건 검증차량은 12분 22초, 검사 탑승 차량은 14분 56초, 변호인 탑승 차량은 15분 24초가 각각 소요되었다. ⓒ 공소외 1이 금품을 전달하고 다시 이 사건 검증차량으로 돌아온 시간을 측정한 결과, 검찰수사관이 재연한 소요시간은 2분 25초, 재판연구원이 재연한 소요시간은 2분 51초, 공소외 1이 재연한 소요시간은 4분 8초였다. ⓓ 세븐일레븐 ☆☆점에서 대불산단 주유소까지 걸린 시간을 측정한 결과, 이 사건 검증차량은 7분 13초, 검사 및 변호인이 함께 탑승한 차량은 7분 14초가 각각 소요되었다. ⓔ 대불산단 주유소에서 주유한 시간은 1분 31초가 소요되었는데, 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시에 주유한 주유량을 기준으로 그 두 배인 3분 2초가 걸릴 것이라는 점에 관하여는 검사와 변호인 모두 이의가 없었고, 주유소 직원이 신용카드를 결제하는 데 33초가 소요되었다. ⓕ 이와 같은 소요시간을 표로 정리하면 다음과 같다(공소외 1이 공소외 2와 대화를 나누었다고 주장하는 시간은 제외된 것이다).

12 minutes and 22 minutes of the verified vehicle of this case on board 15 minutes 14 minutes and 22 minutes and 4 minutes of the re-delivery of Nonindicted Party 1 on board 12 minutes and 56 minutes of the verified vehicle of this case on board 12 minutes and 4 minutes and 8 minutes of the re-delivery of Nonindicted Party 1 on board 14 minutes and 2 minutes of the re-delivery of Nonindicted Party 1 on board 22 minutes and 51 minutes, and 2 minutes and 25 seconds of the re-transmission time of the prosecution investigator of the Magian hotel, from 13 minutes of the verification vehicle of this case on board 7 minutes and 14 minutes and 7 minutes of the re-transmission vehicle of this case on board

According to the above on-site inspection results, even if the maximum time for the defendant 30 minutes is the maximum time for the defendant 21 minutes in most favorable to the defendant, it is within the scope of objective time 33 minutes. Thus, the presumption of the court below that it is impossible for non-indicted 1 to pay the payment by oiling and paying it at the oil station of the Wololol Art through Magmanian Keeping Hotel, is inconsistent with the result of the above on-site inspection by the court below.

B) In addition, Nonindicted 1’s statement was changed from the investigation agency to the point of view. Nonindicted 1’s initial statement related to the above on-site inspection was relatively consistent from the investigation agency to “the place where money and valuables are delivered is not accurate, but it is adjacent to the hotel with Magria Keeping.” In addition, Nonindicted 1 changed his statement to the effect that “the place of delivery of money and valuables has a thickness of her slickness from the slick to the slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick sl.”

C) As above, even if there are positive and negative changes in the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement in the trial, such as the above paragraph (a), as in the above paragraph (b), there are still a lot of changes in the situation that is positive, but it is still unreasonable to believe Non-Indicted 1’s statement, etc., consistent with this part of the facts charged, in order.

(1) As to the date and time of granting money and valuables, Nonindicted 1 made a statement at an investigative agency on April 9, 2008, to a certain extent prior to the opening line and to what extent the time is specified, and at the same time, the accurate date would be able to find out the expressway traffic records through one’s satis. Nonindicted 1 also made a statement in the lower court, in 2008, that the head of the 18th class presidential election and the 20 million won were delivered, and that the satisf was unsatisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisf fisfisfisfisf fisfisfisfisfisf fisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisf.

In addition, there is a little doubt in the process of the investigation. Nonindicted 1’s inquiry at the investigative agency’s time of providing money and valuables was made to the effect that “it would be possible to confirm the accurate date when examining the lower court’s record.” It was not an investigation by the investigation agency, but the investigation agency had already made the above Nonindicted 1’s statement on June 25, 2012, which was after June 8, 2012, which was after the date when the investigation agency secured the lower list, and thus, the process of such statement is not naturally 5). The highest time to be the proviso to the investigation against the Defendant on the evidence record is that Nonindicted 20’s statement on June 15, 2012, “The Defendant was able to confirm the correct date when examining the lower court’s record.” From around 2010 to 200, Nonindicted 1 stated that the Defendant was satisfying the Defendant’s personnel affairs, or that it was directly related to the Defendant’s parliamentary activity from the Defendant’s bank’s account.

D. Next, I consistently state that the place of delivering money and valuables is in the vicinity of the Silgian hotel before the on-site inspection of the party. While Nonindicted Party 1 consistently stated that the place of delivering money and valuables is in the vicinity of the Silgian hotel, it is difficult to accurately memory as to whether the more specific place is a car page, a street, or a street is as if it is. As pointed out by the lower court, if Nonindicted Party 1 attempted to deliver money and valuables to Nonindicted Party 2, it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted Party 2 did not specify it even though it had undergone the process of determining the place of delivery with Nonindicted Party 2, which was kept in the Magpo Ri.

Furthermore, even if Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the time of the on-site inspection of the political party at the time of the fact-finding, it is difficult to believe Nonindicted Party 1’s statement as it is, because of entertainment, by considering the fact that there was a change in the situation and the on-site situation, even if there was a long time since the specific location was considered and it was anticipated that it would be more specific, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement is difficult to believe as it is, in fact, at the time of the on-site inspection.

In this regard, when Nonindicted Party 1 returned to the issue of the date and time of granting money and valuables, since Nonindicted Party 1 delivered money and valuables to the Defendant through Nonindicted Party 2 at a time other than March 29, 2008, it is possible to make a statement contrary to the objective facts about the vehicle moving time as above, but it is not March 29, 2008. On March 21, 2008, the day which was possible in the middle of March 2008, the day was around March 21, 2008, which was the day after the use of the hybrid, was sent money and valuables at night. Since it was irrelevant to this part of the facts charged if it was other time than on March 29, 2008, the day was placed in the front statement of Nonindicted Party 1 on the temporary location of the money and Nonindicted Party 1 or after the on-site inspection of the party at the trial, it is insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged.

Article 12(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Any person who is subject to investigation by the investigative agency shall be subject to the investigation of Nonindicted Party 1’s credibility of the statement, and any person who is subject to investigation by the investigative agency shall be subject to the investigation of the investigative agency, and any person who is subject to investigation by Nonindicted Party 1 shall be subject to the investigation of the investigation of the investigative agency, and any person who is subject to investigation by Nonindicted Party 1 shall be subject to the investigation of the aforementioned temporary location, and any person who is subject to investigation by Nonindicted Party 2 after telephone conversations with the accused, and he shall be subject to the investigation of the facts charged, and he shall be subject to the investigation of the aforementioned facts charged, and he shall be subject to the investigation of the aforementioned facts charged from Nonindicted Party 2 to September 208 without questioning Nonindicted Party 2, 208.”

x) Nonindicted 3’s statement on other parts of the investigation agency to support Nonindicted 1’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is difficult to believe according to the statement in the trial.

Nonindicted 3 made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 made a telephone conversation,” and the Defendant’s voice was known to the other party to the telephone in the broadcast, 9). However, Nonindicted 3 made a statement at the trial to the effect that “The fact that Nonindicted 1 made a telephone call with the Defendant, which, in turn, took place, is hostile, followed by Nonindicted 1’s attitude, and that the date is not accurate memory,” and there is a question as to whether the statement at an investigative agency would be made by accurate memory. This may be deemed to be a scambling of the accuracy of his memory in the first time via objective factual relations with the Defendant and his defense counsel. In addition, according to Nonindicted 1’s statement at the trial, it is doubtful that Nonindicted 2 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3 was a driver of Nonindicted Party 1’s phone and the other party’s name was scambling in the process of Nonindicted Party 1’s testimony and that Nonindicted Party 3’s name was scam 3.

설령 공소외 3의 진술대로 공소외 1이 샹그리아비치호텔 인근에 내려 누군가를 만나고 왔다고 하더라도, 위와 같이 공소외 1의 진술을 믿기 어려운 이상 공소외 1이 만난 그 사람이 이 부분 공소사실에 기재된 공소외 2가 아닌 다른 사람일 가능성을 배제할 수 없고, 가정을 더하여 그 사람이 공소외 2라고 하더라도 아래 ⑺항에서 보는 바와 같이, 공소외 2가 피고인과 공소외 1과의 약속에 따라 그 장소에 나와 공소외 1로부터 돈을 건네받은 후 피고인에게 전달하였다는 점을 인정할만한 직접적인 증거는 존재하지 않는다.

Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the statement made by Nonindicted 3 is supported by the credibility of Nonindicted 1’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged.

(v) there are differences between Nonindicted 1’s statements and Nonindicted 3’s statements regarding the circumstances at the time of providing money and valuables. According to Nonindicted 1’s statements, Nonindicted 1’s statements, Nonindicted 208 (“Nonindicted 10,000 won in cash 20,000 won in the red ginseng shopping bags prepared by Non-Indicted 3”) are 10. However, according to Nonindicted 3’s statements, Nonindicted 1’s statements contain a large number of materials in packaging at the rear seat before the total period of 2008, which is presumed to have been presumed to have been in the A4 site box. In addition, Nonindicted 3’s statements made in red ginseng shopping bags around the hotel with materials presumed to have been in the said money, and that Nonindicted 1 made a difference between the facts and the facts charged, “The possibility that Nonindicted 1 made a difference between the facts and the facts charged,” and that Nonindicted 3 made a difference between the facts and the facts charged.

⑹ 당심의 현장검증결과에 대하여, 검사는 원심의 판단근거가 무너졌다고 주장하고, 피고인과 변호인은 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시와 위 현장검증 일시는 도로나 교통상황 등이 많이 달라졌으므로, 동일한 도로환경이나 교통상황 등을 전제로 한 위 현장검증결과가 유죄의 증거가 될 수는 없다고 주장한다.

According to the above on-site inspection result, there is room for change in the circumstances among the main grounds for not guilty of this part of the facts charged, but around March 2008, the date and time of on-site inspection as indicated in this part of the facts charged, around November 2014, which was the date and time of on-site inspection, and around June 2012, there has been more than six years. Among them, there was a change in traffic conditions, such as the traffic volume and speed of the road subject to on-site inspection as the improvement of the traffic signal system from around 2013, in view of the circumstances where Nonindicted Party 1’s statement is difficult to believe as it is, the above on-site inspection result alone is difficult to eliminate such reasonable doubt.

⑺ 설령 공소외 1이 공소외 2에게 돈을 교부하였다고 하더라도 공소외 2가 피고인에게 전달하였다는 점을 인정할 충분한 증거가 없다. 검사는 공소외 2가 피고인의 대리인 자격으로 공소외 1로부터 돈을 받았으므로 위와 같은 전달사실에 대한 입증은 불필요하다고 주장한다. 그러나 검사의 주장이 유지되기 위해서는 피고인이 공소외 1과 통화를 한 후 공소외 1을 만나도록 공소외 2를 보낸 사실, 즉 피고인이 공소외 2에게 금품수수를 지시 또는 위임하였다는 점이 증명되어야 할 터인데 앞서 본 바와 같이 믿기 어렵거나 입증에 부족한 공소외 1과 공소외 3의 진술 외에는 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

⑻ 검사는 항소이유에서, 공소외 1이 피고인에 대한 금품공여 사실을 여러 정치인 중 맨 나중에 얘기하였다는 점에서 신빙성이 있다고 주장하나, 그 정황이 꼭 신빙성을 가지게 하는 요소로 보기 어렵고, 오히려 그 반대로 없는 기억을 짜낸 것으로 볼 여지가 있다는 점에서 신빙성이 결여될 요소로 작용될 수도 있다. 또한 공소외 1로부터 돈을 받은 다른 사람들이 범행을 인정하였다는 사정이나 그 밖에 검사가 항소이유에서 들고 있는 사정만으로는, 이 부분 공소사실에 대한 공소외 1 진술의 신빙성을 부정하는 위와 같은 모든 의혹을 해소하기에 부족하다.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below's decision of not guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the determination of evidence is justified in its conclusion, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

5. Determination on the part concerning good offices and acceptance of orders around June 2010

A. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court denied the credibility of Non-Indicted 8’s statement, and found otherwise insufficient evidence to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

In other words, unlike the statement made by Nonindicted 8 at the prosecution, Nonindicted 8’s statement appears to have attended with Nonindicted 10 in the interview place with the Defendant is difficult to view that the contents of the statement are consistent with logical and empirical rules, such as the method of delivering cash to the Defendant, etc. The majority of the ex post facto circumstances inconsistent with the contents of the statement are also discovered. ② Nonindicted 10’s statement that is contrary to Nonindicted 8’s statement is consistent and is very concrete. ③ Nonindicted 8’s legally deposited donations are returned at a time that has not yet been long from the date indicated in this part of the facts charged, and Nonindicted 8’s statement that Nonindicted 8 requested the Defendant to appear in the interview place with the Defendant on March 2011, and then, Nonindicted 8’s statement that the Defendant and Nonindicted 8 offered money and valuables to the Defendant, and Nonindicted 8’s statement that was highly likely to have already been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance trial during the investigation process.

B. The judgment of this Court

1) Issues and the direction of argument

On the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant and Nonindicted 8’s arguments are consistent with each other regarding the fact that the Defendant met Nonindicted 8. However, the Defendant made a statement that Nonindicted 10 continued to sit in the meeting place, Nonindicted 10’s statement also conforms to it, and Nonindicted 10 further made a statement that Nonindicted 8 did not recognize that the Defendant did not give money to the Defendant. On the other hand, Nonindicted 8 made a statement that Nonindicted 8 provided money and valuables at that time, and that the Defendant and Nonindicted 10 provided money and valuables, are inconsistent with each of the above statements given by the Defendant and Nonindicted 10.

Therefore, the issue of whether it is guilty of this part of the facts charged depends on the testimony made by Nonindicted 8 and the statement made by Nonindicted 11 in support of the testimony made by Nonindicted 10 and the statement made by Nonindicted 11 in support thereof that Nonindicted 8 asserted as a money and goods provider. In particular, if the Defendant is in a run-off, it was not necessary to have the appearance of Nonindicted 10, a third party at risk of danger and at any time, who is able to receive a statement, and thus, it was not necessary to have the appearance of Nonindicted 10, etc., so the credibility of Nonindicted 10’s statement can be seen as a key evidence in determining the credibility of this part of the facts charged, as well as the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement, which is the core evidence in finding the facts charged.

Since Nonindicted 10 was naturally present at the meeting site because he arranged the interview with Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant, Nonindicted 10 compared and analyzed the statements made by the relevant persons including Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant before and after the interview with Nonindicted 10, and examined the credibility of each statement made by Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 10, and further examined other circumstances related to the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statements.

2) Determination

A) Review of the statements made by Nonindicted 8, who is a money donor

(i)Contents of statement

The investigation of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against ○○ Mutual Savings Bank was under way, the auditor of the Financial Supervisory Service was in need of assistance from the group in the planned situation, and the Defendant, a member of the National Assembly, based on the local constituency, was determined to be helpful through the advice of Nonindicted 20. As the Defendant promoted through Nonindicted 20, etc. did not have a sexual intercourse, Nonindicted 11 was recommended by Nonindicted 12, who became aware of business, and Nonindicted 11 had an interview schedule with the Defendant through Nonindicted 11. Nonindicted 10 was farcing in the lower court’s court.

On the date of the interview, Non-Indicted 11 was waiting for the completion of the interview with the other person of the defendant, the defendant sent out the interview to the other person, and met with Non-Indicted 8 himself together with the defendant. The defendant asked the defendant to explain the summary of the case of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, which was arranged in writing, and the plan for normalization of the ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, and requested the defendant to provide assistance so that it can be processed smoothly. He heard a positive answer from the defendant, and put the document bags containing the above KRW 30 million on the consignee.

After the interview, Nonindicted 11, who was waiting outside of the office, proposed a plenary session, and she was accompanied by Nonindicted 10 as Nonindicted 11. Nonindicted 11, a meal place proposed by Nonindicted 11, went to the “Seong Dok”, and Nonindicted 11 said that there are many people in that place, it is thought that Nonindicted 11 would be able to lead to drinking with himself/herself, and that he did not take meals together.

She review

Although the above statements are consistent and relatively concrete as a whole, the court below rejected its credibility on the ground that it is difficult to see that they conform to logical and empirical rules, and it is objectively inconsistent with the objectively revealed circumstances, and that contradictory ex post facto situation is also discovered, and that the possibility of false statements cannot be ruled out because Nonindicted 8 was under investigation or criminal trial on a separate basis.

However, as the detailed arguments in the following paragraphs (b) through (d), Nonindicted 8’s statement may be consistent and recognized to be consistent with the investigation agency and the court of original instance, as well as to be reasonable and objective in itself. On the other hand, the respective statements made by Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 are not consistent with the original judgment and the court of original instance as to the circumstances after the interview immediately before and after the interview, and are inconsistent with each other. In particular, the statements made by Nonindicted 10 as well as the statements made by Nonindicted 10 are not considered as the statements made by the visitors or visitors, so it is difficult to recognize their credibility.

Therefore, the circumstances based on the statements made by Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 10, for which recognition of credibility is difficult, cannot be objective or reasonable, and there are parts that are inconsistent between such circumstances and the statements made by Nonindicted 8 may rather serve as a factor to add credibility to the statements made by Nonindicted 8. In addition, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 8’s statements are in contravention of logical and empirical rules, as the circumstances to suspect the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statements are pointed out by the lower court or the parts asserted by the Defendant or his defense counsel can be reasonably explained.

B)review the statements made by Nonindicted 10, i.e., visitors to interviews and visitors to interviews;

(i)Contents of statement

As to the background leading up to the interview arrangement, the court below reversed the statement that “The circumstances leading up to the interview schedule with the defendant were directly promised with the defendant or through Nonindicted 13, or the background leading up to the interview is not accurately memoryd by Nonindicted 13, upon receiving the request from the defendant and Nonindicted 8, the Defendant’s performance schedule through Nonindicted 13, and the Defendant’s performance schedule was notified to Nonindicted 11.” However, the court below reversed the statement that “The circumstances leading up to the interview schedule with the defendant were directly promised with the defendant or through Nonindicted 13.”

With respect to the situation immediately before the interview and the circumstances leading up to the interview, Nonindicted 8 did not divide Nonindicted 8 into her femines on the date of the interview, and Nonindicted 8 introduced Nonindicted 8 to the Defendant’s office to introduce the Defendant. Nonindicted 8 asked the Defendant to resolve only the press by reporting to the media after the investigation into ○○ Mutual Savings Bank was completed. Nonindicted 8 asked the Defendant to address this issue. The Defendant respondeded with the awareness that “I would know what I would have known,” and that Nonindicted 8 did not consider that I would have paid money to the Defendant.”

On the circumstances after the interview, the statements were not consistent, such as “after the interview, I would like to get a meal as Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 11 on the proposal of themselves (after the interview was completed)”, and “I would like to get a meal like Nonindicted 11 on the proposal of Nonindicted 8”.

She review

The above statements by Nonindicted 10 are difficult to believe in the following respects:

Non-Indicted 10’s testimony at the lower court on May 1, 2013, which stated that “Non-Indicted 10 made an interview promise through Non-Indicted 13,” and Non-Indicted 13’s testimony at the lower court on June 24, 2013, the Defendant made a statement that “Non-Indicted 10 did not have received such phone from Non-Indicted 10.” Therefore, in the trial court, the circumstance leading up to the reversal of the statement is not clearly explained, except in cases where Non-Indicted 10 was urged to reverse the statement because Non-Indicted 10’s testimony was different from Non-Indicted 13’s statement. In other words, Non-Indicted 10’s memory was not affected after the lapse of time, but because Non-Indicted 10’s testimony was different from that of Non-Indicted 13’s statement, it is highly probable that there was a difference between the fact and the original statement, or there was a high probability that there was a difference between the fact and the original statement.

The Defendant and Nonindicted 8 did not appear first at the time indicated in the instant facts charged. Nevertheless, it is difficult to accept Nonindicted 10’s statement that Nonindicted 8 entered the Defendant’s office together with Nonindicted 8 to introduce Nonindicted 8 to the Defendant. Even though Nonindicted 10 was unaware of the circumstances that Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant did not appear at the time of the interview, if Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant were present in the actual interview, they would have sufficiently known the circumstances that the two were not the initial one, and if so, they would have been aware of such circumstances, they would have been her memory after becoming aware of the circumstances. Nevertheless, the fact that Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant were “ how they were first seen, and how they were her being her initial one,” and that Nonindicted 10 was her memory at the court of the lower court’s trial that only the two persons were her initial one, would not have been present at the interview place or would have raised the possibility of not having been present at the interview place.

In addition, if the defendant and the non-indicted 8 met with the non-indicted 8, as a matter of course, it is natural to ask why the non-indicted 8 met the defendant's office, or why the non-indicted 8 met. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand that the non-indicted 10, who did not confirm the reason through the non-indicted 11, was going to sit in the defendant's office without any specific relation to the non-indicted 8. According to the statement of the non-indicted 8, the non-indicted 11 and the non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 16 had been going to go to the second floor with the defendant's office, and the non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 8 did not have any specific relation with the non-indicted 8's office, but did not have any specific relation with the non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 8's office. But it is not necessary to divide them into the non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 8's office.

In particular, if Nonindicted 10’s statement is true, it is consistent with the empirical rule to view that Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 10, who asked the meeting between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant to the extent that they would arrange for an interview. However, according to Nonindicted 13’s statement, “Nonindicted 10, before Nonindicted 8 talks with the Defendant, she was waiting for a waiting room on the one side of the waiting room, and Nonindicted 11, who was going to the front place of the Sscke, but the two were not divided into her frisome. As such, even according to the above statement made by Nonindicted 13, who was not in a position to make a statement unfavorable to the Defendant, the above behavior of Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 10, who requested the meeting, cannot be seen as a natural behavior of the person who acted in good faith after receiving the meeting, are highly doubtful as to whether Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10, who was an assistant.

On the other hand, there is some doubt that Nonindicted 10 was present in the presence of Nonindicted 8. At the time, Nonindicted 8 was likely to be the auditor of the Financial Supervisory Service who is scheduled to investigate and proceed with the investigation by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office in progress with respect to ○○ Mutual Savings Bank. In particular, as the result of the investigation is anticipated when the announcement was made in the real name of a financial institution, it appears to be the largest purpose of resolving these concerns. However, according to Nonindicted 10’s statement, according to Nonindicted 8’s statement, Nonindicted 8’s request made by Nonindicted 8 to resolve the media problem by the Defendant, who is a member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, at the time of Nonindicted 8’s request for the resolution of the media problem by Nonindicted 8’s member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, it is somewhat unreasonable that Nonindicted 10 was present in the meeting, and thus, it leads to question whether it is finite or not, leading to the question about whether Nonindicted 10 was present or not.

As seen in Nonindicted 10’s statement, Nonindicted 10’s statement does not coincide with that of Nonindicted 10’s statement as to the developments leading up to Nonindicted 10’s sending “Surged well” to the place of food agency. Nonindicted 8 made a statement that Nonindicted 8 took the proposal, and Nonindicted 10 made a statement that Nonindicted 8 took the same way with his own food. First of all, Nonindicted 10 made a promise to the “Surged well” as Nonindicted 19. If he received a reply from Nonindicted 8 as the principal agent, he cannot be said to have made a proposal to the place of food agency at the same time, and it is not acceptable that Nonindicted 8’s statement made by Nonindicted 11, on the ground that Nonindicted 11 was a person on the restaurant, did not have a good position in view of the status of Nonindicted 10, which was the head of the △△ Police Agency at the time, at that time.

On the other hand, since the above attitude of Nonindicted 8, which does not seem to be audit and conduct from the standpoint of Nonindicted 10, is very peculiar, the situation seems to be difficult to be confused with memory for a long time, but this part of Nonindicted 10’s statement is not consistent. Nonindicted 10 is presumed to be ideal of Nonindicted 8’s above attitude, and it is anticipated that Nonindicted 8 was directly confirmed on the part of Nonindicted 8, because it is neither confirmed by Nonindicted 8, nor knew with Nonindicted 8, nor confirmed by Nonindicted 8, because it was considered that the situation of Nonindicted 8 was the person who arranged for an interview. In other words, at the time of Nonindicted 10, the behavior or memory of Nonindicted 10 was not directly related to the interview between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant, nor did it be viewed as an act of a person who has no interest in the interview.

On the other hand, Non-Indicted 8’s statement related to this is that “after the interview with the Defendant, Non-Indicted 11, who was known to the principal offender after the interview with the Defendant, she was accompanied by Non-Indicted 10, who was the head of the savings bank, and Non-Indicted 11, the meal place proposed by Non-Indicted 11, and Non-Indicted 11 said that there are many persons who want to know, and did not think that he would be able to take a food for himself and her, and did not take a meal together. Thus, considering the status of Non-Indicted 11 who was in the position of receiving a large amount of loans from Non-Indicted 8 on the basis of the region and the degree of friendship with Non-Indicted 10, the head of the savings bank, and the degree of friendship with Non-Indicted 10, who was the police officer of the district, the head of the savings bank, and the contents of Non-Indicted 8’s statement, it seems that the behavior of Non-Indicted 11 is more natural and more natural.

C) Review of the contents of Nonindicted 11’s statement made by Nonindicted 10 upon Nonindicted 10’s request for interview messages

(i)Contents of statement

수사기관에서, ‘공소외 12로부터 공소외 8과 피고인의 면담을 주선해 달라는 부탁을 받고 공소외 13을 통해 면담일정을 잡았다’고 진술하였다가, 원심에서부터 ‘공소외 10을 통해서 면담일정을 잡았다’고 그 진술을 번복하였다. 위와 같이 진술을 번복한 경위는, 수사기관에서 조사받을 때 ‘공소외 8이 공소외 10 총경을 진술하지 않았다’고 귓속말을 해 주어 현직 경찰관인 공소외 10을 보호하기 위하여 자신도 진술하지 않았다가, 법원에서 사실대로 진술한다는 것이다.

The lower court stated that “Non-Indicted 10 was waiting with Non-Indicted 8 on the day of an interview, and Non-Indicted 10 was going to the second floor in which the Defendant’s office was located, and Non-Indicted 10 and Non-Indicted 8 went to the Defendant’s office together.” The lower court reversed the statement that “Non-Indicted 10 was coming to the second floor as well as Non-Indicted 8.”

In the lower court, “after completion of the interview, Nonindicted 8’s proposal, she called Nonindicted 10 with Nonindicted 8’s proposal, and the place of meal was proposed by Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 10 made a statement. In the first instance court, “Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 10 were divided into fly,” and Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 10 were not Nonindicted 11 themselves, but Nonindicted 10. Whether Nonindicted 8 had her fly flyed with Nonindicted 8’s proposal.”

She review

The above statements by Nonindicted 11 are difficult to believe in the following respects:

우선 면담주선자에 관하여 진술을 번복한 경위가 석연치 않다. 수사기관에서 조사받기 전에 공소외 8로부터 귓속말로 ‘공소외 10 주20) 총경 을 진술하지 않았다’는 말을 들었다는 것 자체가 선뜻 믿기지 않은데다가, 설령 그러한 말을 들었고 공소외 10과 공소외 11의 친분관계를 고려하더라도, 국회의원인 피고인의 피의사실과 관련되고 피고인에게 결정적으로 유리할 수 있는 목격자의 존재 여부에 관하여, 피고인과 한 마디 상의도 없이 혼자만의 판단으로 오로지 현직 경찰관을 보호한다는 명분으로 묵비하였다는 것이 수긍이 가질 않는다. 만일 공소외 8과 피고인의 면담자리에 공소외 10이 동석한 것이 사실이라면, 공소외 8이 아니더라도 피고인이나 또는 피고인의 수행원 등 다른 목격자에 의하여 금방 드러날 일인데, 이를 숨겼다는 것은 지극히 이례적이다.

공소외 8의 입장에서 보더라도 공소외 11의 진술이 사실이라면, 공소외 8이 현직 국회의원에 대한 금품공여 사실을 자백하면서 금품수수와 상관없이 그 자리에 동석한 것에 불과한 현직 경찰관을 비호하고자 그 경찰관의 존재를 묵비하였다는 것이 된다. 그러나 공소외 8이 공소외 11이나 피고인의 진술에 의하여 금방 드러날 일을 묵비하고 있다가, 공소외 11이 조사받는 자리 옆에 그것도 우연히 앉게 되자, 그 기회에 공소외 11에게 귓속말로 ‘공소외 10의 존재에 대하여 진술하지 않았다’는 취지로 귀띔해 주었다는 것은 수긍하기 어렵다. 더구나 공소외 8은 공소외 11의 사업 문제로 공소외 10과 식사를 같이 한 적이 있고, 공소외 10의 조카를 ○○상호저축은행에 취직시켜 준 정도의 친분만 있을 뿐, 특별히 공소외 10으로부터 혜택을 입는 등의 사정은 없으므로, 현직 국회의원에 대한 금품공여 사실을 진술하는 마당에 막연히 현직 경찰관이라는 이유만으로 그 존재를 묵비한다는 것을 기대하기 어렵고, 그 묵비로 인하여 공소외 8 자신이 얻게 될 이익이 무엇인지도 의문이다. 결국, 공소외 8로부터 ‘공소외 10을 진술하지 않았다’는 말을 듣고 수사기관에서 사실과 다른 진술을 하였다는 공소외 11의 진술은 상식에 비추어 수긍하기 어렵다.

On the other hand, with respect to the reasons why Nonindicted 8 did not enter in the Nonindicted 8’s written statement even after Nonindicted 8 met 10 on the date stated in this part of the facts charged, Nonindicted 8 made statements as follows. In other words, at the time of an oral investigation, Nonindicted 8 made a statement about Nonindicted 10 in the investigative agency, that “it was not recorded in the written statement or written statement because Nonindicted 8 did not have a farite relation to Nonindicted 10 at the time of a written investigation.” This comparison of Nonindicted 8’s written statement with that of Nonindicted 11 prior to the aforementioned Nonindicted 8’s statement, the content of Nonindicted 8’s written statement is far more persuasive and seems to be close to the factual relations. In addition, the aforementioned statement made by Nonindicted 8 is almost consistent with Nonindicted 16’s prosecutorial investigator who conducted an oral investigation with regard to Nonindicted 8’s written statement.

On the other hand, Non-Indicted 11 appears to have been examined by the investigative agency on July 11, 2012. At that time, Non-Indicted 11 stated that “Non-Indicted 10 made a report on the receipt of money from the savings bank to the Defendant at the early July 2012.” Even if Non-Indicted 11’s statement was made at the lower court, Non-Indicted 11’s statement, “Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Office. Non-Indicted 10 o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’.

On the other hand, it is far more natural to view that Nonindicted 11 had arranged for an interview between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant through Nonindicted 13, not Nonindicted 10, as in the initial statement at an investigative agency, inasmuch as Nonindicted 11 had no well-known knowledge of the purpose of Nonindicted 8’s attempt to visit the Defendant, Nonindicted 11 was well aware of the name of Nonindicted 11 at the time of the interview, as well as Nonindicted 24 a week in which Nonindicted 11 was called “brooms” and the 111 was a broom. In addition, Nonindicted 11 had never been aware of the purpose of Nonindicted 8’s attempt to visit the Defendant due to various circumstances at the time, it is a substitute for Nonindicted 11 that it was difficult for Nonindicted 8 to her incumbent police officer as a broom in the south of the financial person and the politician.

In relation to the Defendant’s assertion that Nonindicted 10 was partially concealed at the time of the interview with Nonindicted 8, because he/she was unable to believe that he/she had been examined by the investigative agency. This is because Nonindicted 10’s statement was due to Nonindicted 10’s pressure at the time of the interview with Nonindicted 8. However, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s above assertion in light of the contents of the protocol at the time. As such, the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency as to this part of the facts charged was examined by Nonindicted 11, and was in the office with Nonindicted 8 and Posting Nonindicted 13. As such, Nonindicted 11 sought an interview with Nonindicted 8 and asked an interview with Nonindicted 10 at the time of the interview with Nonindicted 10. However, it is difficult to accept that Nonindicted 13 knew that he/she first expressed his/her non-indicted 8’s refusal to prosecute, and that he/she did not know that he/she did not know that he/she would have any other person.”

Nonindicted 8’s statement on the process of Nonindicted 11 is not consistent until Nonindicted 8 enters the Defendant’s office, and there is a part that is inconsistent with Nonindicted 10’s statement.

In other words, the statement made by Nonindicted 11 to the investigation agency on this part is that “A person who was waiting for her life and was on the second floor where the Defendant’s office was located, Nonindicted 8 went out of his office, and Nonindicted 8 went out of his office, which was time to go out, and Nonindicted 8 went out, and Nonindicted 8 went out along with the Defendant.” Such statement is that “A person who was waiting outside of his office, waiting for the defendant, was on the second floor where the Defendant’s interview was closed, and was on the second floor where the Defendant’s office was located, and was on the second floor where the Defendant’s office was located, Nonindicted 10 was consistent with the Act on the Purpose of the Act on the Purpose of the Punishment, etc., and Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 8, who was an operator of the bank and driver’s memory on the part of the Defendant’s office, was waiting for the arrival of his office, and there was no person waiting for Nonindicted 8’s name and face when Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 8, who was on the Defendant’s office.

However, Nonindicted 11 was waiting for Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 11 at the lower court’s trial, and Nonindicted 10 appeared together, and Nonindicted 10 was asked for the second floor, and Nonindicted 11 confirmed that Nonindicted 10 was on the second floor, and that Nonindicted 8 was on the second floor, and that Nonindicted 10 was on the second floor, and that it was pointed out that it was different from the lower court’s statement. In addition, Nonindicted 11’s statement at the lower court’s trial was in front of the building in which the Defendant’s office was located, and Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 11 were waiting for the second floor, and Nonindicted 29 was going to the second floor, and Nonindicted 10 was not in violation of the degree of Nonindicted 10’s statement at the lower court’s trial, and there was a strong doubt as to whether Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 10 were on the same experience as Nonindicted 10, and there was a possibility that it was inconsistent with Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10.

Therefore, since Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 appear to have made a false statement in order to give up Nonindicted 10 to visitors, there is sufficient room to deem that there is any disagreement between them or that the statement has been reversed. On the contrary, Nonindicted 8’s consistent statement as to the circumstances leading up to the interview immediately before the interview after Nonindicted 8 arrived at the Defendant’s office, is consistent with Nonindicted 14 at the time of the interview, and is likely to be objectively true.

Nonindicted 11’s statement concerning the situation after the interview between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant was completed.

At the investigative agency, Nonindicted 11 called “Ilman,” and moved from each other’s vehicle to the restaurant called “Ilman,” which read that Nonindicted 11 was a large number of people who walked at the restaurant, and that Nonindicted 8 was willing to go to go to Seoul. However, Nonindicted 11 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 11 was “Ilman at the lower court’s meeting,” and that Nonindicted 11 made a short-term food contract, which led Nonindicted 10 on the proposal of Nonindicted 10, and that Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 100 million won were not well known, and that Nonindicted 8 made a consistent statement to the effect that Nonindicted 10 was a meal, and that Nonindicted 10 million won was not a meal.”

만일 공소외 10의 주선으로 공소외 8과 피고인의 면담이 이루어졌다면 공소외 8이 공소외 10에게 그에 걸맞는 장소에서 식사할 것을 제안할 것으로 능히 짐작되는데, 위와 같이 식사 제안의 주체가 누구인지에 관한 공소외 11의 혼동과 앞서 본 공소외 10의 혼동 및 이에 반해 일관된 공소외 8의 진술은, 공소외 10이 면담주선자가 아니었거나, 공소외 10이 면담주선자라는 사정을 공소외 8이 몰랐다는 점을 전제로 하여야만 자연스럽게 설명이 된다. 그런데 공소외 8로서는 공소외 10이 면담주선자였다는 사정을 몰랐다면, 수사기관에서 조사를 받으면서 공소외 10을 빼고 말고 할 것이 없는 것이고, 공소외 11에게 그런 내용을 귓속말 한다는 것도 상정하기조차 어려워, 어느 모로 보아도 공소외 11의 진술은 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

D) Review of any other circumstances relating to the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement

(i) The part in which the defendant silentd at the investigative agency the existence of Nonindicted 10.

I examine the part that the defendant, while making a statement in an investigative agency, has partially concealed the existence of Nonindicted 10.

On July 31, 2012, the Defendant was investigated by an investigative agency on this part of the facts charged, and asked questions as follows (to move possible expressions to the extent that it does not harm the meaning, but to the extent that it does not harm the meaning).

It is necessary to hold an interview with the non-indicted 1's office at the time of the call to the non-indicted 8's office. It is necessary to hold an interview with the non-indicted 1's office at the time of the call to the non-indicted 8's office. It is necessary to hold an interview with the non-indicted 1's office at the time of the call to the non-indicted 8's office. It is necessary to hold an interview with the non-indicted 1's office. The non-indicted 8's office's office's interview to the non-indicted 8's office's office's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted.

The Defendant’s assertion refers to Nonindicted 10 of the above statements. As such, it is difficult to believe that “other persons” refers to Nonindicted 10, and thus, in the process of trial, it was revealed in the process of investigation. Moreover, it is written in the end of the protocol as a self-written statement. Of the contents written at the end, the corresponding part is considered.

Even if the prosecutor appeared at the top public prosecutor's office included in the main text and talks about the truth, he will be able to pay attention to the fact that the opinion that the prosecutor will not talk about the case in detail, even if it is more favorable to accept it, by using such a changeer, even if it is more favorable. The opinion that the prosecutor would be able to say that he would go to the court without attending the prosecutor's office and make a statement. However, the member of the lower rate of the prosecutor's office strongly consulted the prosecutor's office that he would exercise the right of silent, or that the member of the lower rate of the prosecutor's office did not make a detailed statement at this time (in the second public prosecutor's office which was more detailed than at the time of the first investigation, more than at the time of the first investigation). It would be true that the prosecutor has been trusted. It would be better to ask for the prosecutor's trust from whom the end of the prosecutor's office was closed and who was trusted by him. It will be reasonable to ascertain all these facts in relation to the first public prosecutor's office.

First of all, when the contents of the written answer to the defendant in the investigation agency about the defendant are summarized, in 2010, the defendant took several persons different from the non-indicted 8 without the prior promise, and the contents of the interview are not accurately memory. In addition, if the contents of the written statement of the defendant are summary, it would be desirable for the defendant to be the prosecutor who was trusted in mind that he did not make a detailed statement with the advice of the same person under the condition that he was not able to do so.

However, the above questions and answers against the defendant read that the defendant does not accurately associate with evidence favorable to himself/herself rather than the impression that he/she impliedly expresses. The expression "other several persons" in the statement appears to have no detailed memory, and it does not read the content suggesting that he/she is a person favorable to him/her.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s position was under investigation on the part of the grant of money and valuables from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 7 as well as this part of the facts charged. As such, if there is any evidence in a critical aspect, it would be possible to clarify that it would be favorable to determine it and prevent prosecution against him/her even out of his/her suspicion. Accordingly, even if there is deep confidence in the prosecution, as long as the Defendant was present at an investigation agency to undergo an investigation, the Defendant denies the grant of money and valuables, rather than refusing any statement, and even if he/she appears to have made a statement as to other parts, it would be difficult to understand that this part of the money and valuables was stimulatedly hidden.

Furthermore, the purport of the above part of the Defendant’s statement is that there is no accurate memory as to this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, if the above statement was made to the effect that the Defendant intended to intentionally and silent the existence of Nonindicted 10, the following three premise should have been established. First, Nonindicted 10 should have been present at the time of an interview with Nonindicted 8. Second, the existence of Nonindicted 10 was not revealed in the investigative agency until the Defendant makes a statement. Third, the first and second premise are issues that the Defendant should be forgotten, and the second premise should have information on the facts. Thus, the first and second premise can be seen only as the third premise. If the Defendant intended to have information on the second facts, Nonindicted 11 was examined by the investigative agency and mentioned the contents thereof in Nonindicted 10, and thus, it is difficult to find any possibility other than the possibility of Nonindicted 10 to have been present at least through the investigative agency’s interview with Nonindicted 10, and thus, it appears that there was no possibility that the Defendant made a statement during the process of an interview with Nonindicted 10 and the Defendant.

Ultimately, it is difficult to reverse the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement with the Defendant’s statement.

b. The part on the Defendant’s pocketbook

The defendant's pocket book's part of June 19, 2010 (No. 8 No. 33) added to "6:40 non-indicted 10" is stated as "6:40" and under the above, "non-indicted 8" is recognized. However, it is hard to objectively ensure that the statement is made on the right side below the defendant's pocket book, i.e., the number of pages, and the defendant's schedule was established and progress as stated. Further, even according to the defendant's statement, the above mentioned part is written after an interview with the non-indicted 8, and the above pocketbook is evaluated without any difference from the defendant's statement in the jurisdictional area of the defendant. Thus, it is insufficient to consider the credibility of the non-indicted 8's statement as materials to conceal the credibility of the non-indicted 8 statement in circumstances where the contents are not secured by accuracy or objectivity of the statement.

ally, the relation between other facts charged

As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant received money from Nonindicted 8 as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thereby, was placed in a position where the Defendant could not refuse Nonindicted 8’s request without permission. As such, Nonindicted 8’s visit the National Assembly around March 2011 to visit the National Assembly to visit the Defendant and visit him/her to visit him/her and request him/her, and then the Defendant did not need to exercise overall control over Nonindicted 7.

However, at the time, Nonindicted 8’s place was Seoul, not boomed, but ○○ Group’s president, an affiliate of ○○ Mutual Savings Bank in Seoul. At the beginning of 2011, the Defendant officially participated in the issue of savings bank and was in conversations with Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8 was merely a professional manager. In addition to the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances for Nonindicted 8 to visit and request the Defendant at the time, there was room to think that Nonindicted 8’s promise was more effective to explain the situation through Nonindicted 7 rather than himself, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the existence of this part of the facts charged and whether or not there was a charge on the part of brokerage receipt around March 201, 201, as alleged by the Defendant.

x. The statement of Non-Indicted 13

Non-Indicted 13’s statement is that there was no contact between Non-Indicted 11 and Non-Indicted 10 to take a meeting schedule for the Defendant. However, since Non-Indicted 13, as an assistant officer of the Defendant, he is in the position to make a meeting schedule with the Defendant even if there is no special relationship with him, even though Non-Indicted 13 does not have any special relationship with him, it is naturally natural that Non-Indicted 13 may have an interview schedule with the Defendant. Furthermore, when there is a press organization, Non-Indicted 13 is in the position to have an interview schedule with the Defendant. Moreover, it is reasonable that Non-Indicted 11 would have a friendly relationship with Non-Indicted 11 with the name of Non-Indicted 11, as seen earlier, inasmuch as there is a friendly relationship between Non-Indicted 11 and the Defendant’s interview schedule with him.

In addition, Nonindicted 13, when undergoing an investigation at an investigative agency, said Nonindicted 13, said Nonindicted 13, called “the Defendant was investigated as at the time of investigation,” and thus, Nonindicted 10 was not mentioned at all at the time of being investigated by the investigative agency, even though there was no reason to conceal the existence of Nonindicted 10 in preparation for the trial proceedings as in the Defendant, in comparison with the Defendant, even though there was no reason to do so. As to this, Nonindicted 13 was “I have no inquiry,” and the contents of Nonindicted 13’s statements are more detailed.

First, this part of the investigation agency of Nonindicted 13 is related to this part.

본문내 포함된 표 [문] 공소외 8, 공소외 11을 아는가요. [답] 공소외 11은 알고 있지만, 공소외 8은 전혀 모릅니다. - 중략 - [문] 공소외 11 뿐 아니라 공소외 8도 역시 당시 공소외 8만 피고인 집무실로 들어가서 면담을 했다는데 어떤가요. [답] 아니요… [문] 그렇다면 피고인 집무실에 두 사람이 함께 들어갔다는 말인가요. [답] 아니요. 3~4명이 들어갔죠. [문] 공소외 11과 공소외 8 뿐만 아니라 다른 1~2명이 더 있었다는 말인가요. [답] 예, 처음에 공소외 11이 왔을 때는 몰랐는데 들어갈 때 보니까 3~4명이 들어가는 것 같았습니다. - 중략- [문] 공소외 11과 함께 3~4명이 피고인 사무실에 들어갔다는 것만 기억이 난다는 것인가요. 그 사람들이 누군지 모른 채 말인가요. [답] 공소외 11이 소개를 안 시켜 주니까 몰랐죠. - 중략 - [문] 공소외 11과 함께 들어간 3~4명의 사람들이 모두 한꺼번에 나오던가요. [답] 네 [문] 공소외 11이 나온 후에도 그 사람들이 누구인지 물어보지 않았는가요. [답] 안 물어 보았습니다. [문] -중략- 피고인도 공소외 11이 공소외 8을 데리고 와서 면담을 했다는 사실을 인정하였는데 어떤가요. [답] 저는 공소외 8을 모르기 때문에 누가 누군지 모릅니다.

In light of the above statement made by Nonindicted 13 to the investigation agency, it appears that Nonindicted 10 appears to have referred to the existence of Nonindicted 10, as a matter of course, if Nonindicted 10 entered the Defendant’s office together with Nonindicted 8. According to Nonindicted 13’s statement, Nonindicted 10 appears to have been “one time a week,” and there is no possibility that Nonindicted 13 would have been unaware of Nonindicted 10. Furthermore, when the Defendant made a statement at the investigation agency on July 31, 2012, it appears that Nonindicted 3 did not know of Nonindicted 11 by phone to Nonindicted 13, and that Nonindicted 13 did not have any interest in Nonindicted 8’s office at the time of Nonindicted 8’s memory, and that Nonindicted 13 did not have any interview with Nonindicted 8’s office, and thus, it is difficult to say that there was no difference between Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 13’s statement and the Defendant’s statement at least that it would have taken part in the Defendant’s office.”

Then, I examine the statements of Nonindicted 13 in the original trial.

본문내 포함된 표 [문] ‘피고인 집무실에 두 사람이 함께 들어갔다는 말인가요’라는 질문에 ‘아니요. 3~4명이 들어갔죠’라고 대답하고, ‘예, 처음에 공소외 11이 왔을 때는 몰랐는데, 들어갈 때 보니까 3~4명이 들어가는 것 같았습니다’라고 대답하였지요. [답] 그렇게 진술하긴 하였는데, 들어갈 때 본 것이 아니라 나올 때 보니까 3~4명이었습니다. [문] 증인이 말하는 3~4명은 누구를 말하는가요. 공소외 10과 공소외 11도 포함되나요. [답] 다른 사람은 증인이 모르고, 아는 사람은 그 중 공소외 10 뿐이었습니다. [문] 공소외 11은 피고인의 방에 안 들어갔다는 것인가요. [답] 예.

If Nonindicted 13’s above statements in the lower court compared to the statements in the investigative agency, while maintaining consistency in the statements made by the investigation agency, Nonindicted 10, who is “3-4,” has emerged in the instant trial proceeding, and Nonindicted 13 cannot raise the appearance that Nonindicted 13, who was 10, entered the Defendant’s office, was able to reveal the fact that Nonindicted 10 entered the Defendant’s office.

(v)records of conversations among the interviews of the detention center;

㈎ 공소외 11과 공소외 10의 대화 부분

When Nonindicted 10 was indicted on July 24, 2012 on the charge that Nonindicted 23 received money and valuables from Nonindicted 23 at the construction site, and was detained by law and detained on February 1, 2013, and detained in the Seoul detention center, Nonindicted 11 was admitted to the Seoul detention center. Nonindicted 11, on March 25, 2013, visited Nonindicted 10 on the interview between Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10, which proves that Nonindicted 10 was the host of the interview with Nonindicted 10 (to the extent that the context does not damage, is omitted, and some expressions are expressed in accordance with the language law).

[1] The non-public prosecution No. 11] He may see that the non-public prosecution (non-public prosecution No. 10) may be rejected at the time of 1 / 100 / (non-public prosecution No. 10) / Non-public prosecution No. 1) / Non-public prosecution No. 3 (non-public prosecution No. 10) / Non-public prosecution No. 8 (non-public prosecution No. 10) / Non-public prosecution No. 1) / Non-public prosecution No. 8 (non-public prosecution No. 10) / Non-public prosecution No. 1) / Non-public prosecution No. 1 (non-public prosecution No. 10) / Non-public prosecution No. 37) / Non-public prosecution No. 1)

Note 37) Postponements

Note 38) April 11

Note 39) 11 must be

According to the above recording, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserts that Nonindicted 10 was present in the interview space between the Defendant and Nonindicted 8. Nonindicted 11 is also confirmed by the above recording that the part that Nonindicted 11 did not make any statement about the existence of Nonindicted 10 in consideration of the status of Nonindicted 10, the incumbent police officer, in an investigative agency.

However, in light of the contents of the above recording before and after the record of this case, the contents of the recording does not always read the same as the defense counsel or the defendant's assertion. When the public prosecution of this case was instituted on September 28, 2012, the defense counsel submitted a written opinion on December 24, 2012, and applied for witness 10 (the assertion that Nonindicted 8 and the defendant were present in the meeting place) and Nonindicted 11 (the defendant's office) as witness. On January 24, 2013, the above witness's application was adopted at the second day of preparatory hearing on April 10, 2013, and the date of examination was designated as of April 10, 2013. On March 25, 2013, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 appear to have been present in the court below's testimony at the first day of trial, and there is no concern that the witness's testimony will overlap with the witness's testimony at the court below's first day of trial.

In addition, the part related to the instant case leads to the part where Nonindicted 10 in full franked. First of all, “The fact, however, is the part of the conversation of Nonindicted 10, which read “When the content of the conversation cam cam now at that time, I??” In light of the context before and after the above dialogue, the above contents do not appear to confirm “Nonindicted 10, as argued by the Defendant or his defense counsel,” that Nonindicted 10 was “the interviewer and the interviewer with Nonindicted 10,” but rather than the statement that Nonindicted 10 wanted to give testimony as objective facts, it appears to specify the target point when Nonindicted 10 wanted to give testimony and take the words to Nonindicted 11. In addition, even according to the common statements made between Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 111, it is objectively confirmed that 3 met with Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11, together with Nonindicted 8.

In addition, Nonindicted 10 appears to be the part of Nonindicted 8’s statement as to how to give money to Nonindicted 8’s beginning (4). If Nonindicted 10’s statement was made in the course of the public trial that Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant was present at the interview with Nonindicted 8, it appears that Nonindicted 10, at the interview, had a clear conversation with Nonindicted 11 that “it does not give money to him.” In addition, as seen in the part of Nonindicted 10’s statement, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 10 continued to have a conversation on the premise that the two parts of the above two parts of Nonindicted 10 were the first page (4) and there is no doubt about the statement that Nonindicted 8 were present at the interview.

At this time, Non-Indicted 11’s speech does not take place at the end of Non-Indicted 10, and it is probable to see that Non-Indicted 10 did not mention the existence of Non-Indicted 10 at the time it makes a statement at the investigative agency in order to grant money or goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da111009, Apr. 11, 200). However, Non-Indicted 10’s answer to Non-Indicted 10 refers to “a person who was in an investigative agency on the part of Non-Indicted 111,” and then speaks at all different topics (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do111138, Apr. 11, 200; 200Do111138, Apr. 1, 200).

㈏ 공소외 24와 공소외 10의 대화 부분

The part of the conversation between Nonindicted 10’s spouse Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 10 in the detention center is part of the recording that the prosecutor submitted as evidence, alleging that Nonindicted 10, who was legally detained, made a mutual compromise between his release and testimony in the instant case, and that Nonindicted 10, who testified in the detention center, made a mutual compromise.

본문내 포함된 표 〈2013. 4. 12.자 녹취록〉 [공소외 10] 뭔 말인지 알아. 나도. 그러니까 가서 형님(주42) 이 가서 서 변호사한테 말해요. 서 변호사한테 여의도 가서 답을 받아오라더라. [공소외 24] 아니, 나는 당신이 거기에 기대를 하지 마란 말이야. 여기서도 하니까. [공소외 10] 아, 그거 아니랑께. 이 사람아 다른 방법이 하나 있다니까. 그래서 하는 말이야. 자네는 모르는 거 하나 있어. - 중략 - [공소외 10] 그때 우리가 와서 그런 타협을 했어. 일단 그런 것이 다른 것이 있어. 그냥 하는 거야. [공소외 24] 오히려 그게 화가 된다는 거야. 〈2013. 4. 24.자 녹취록〉 [공소외 10] 전개하는 과정을 알아야 되는데. [공소외 24] 자기 일을요? [공소외 10] 내 일도 알아야 되고 저쪽 일도 알아야 되고. [공소외 24] 그러면 내가 가서 시숙님(주43) 한테 전화해요? [공소외 10] 내일 끝나고 전화해야 할 일이 있지. 그러고 서변이 왔다 갔다 되는데. 내가 뭐 하나 서로 간에 뭐 좀 조율할 것이 하나 있는데. [공소외 24] 그러니까 당신 일, 다른 일? [공소외 10] 그쪽 저쪽 일. [공소외 24] 아니 그러니까 그것은 시간이 조금 있으니까 그런가 봐 [공소외 10] 5월 1일자 일(주44). [공소외 24] 그러니까. 내일 지나고 해도 되잖아 그거는. [공소외 10] 내일 전화하면서 상황 전하쇼. 꼭 좀 와야 조율할 것이 하나 있다더라고 그래. [공소외 24] 자꾸 여기 이변도 마음이 자꾸 바뀌나 봐. [공소외 10] 저가 마음대로 하는 것이 아니니까. 하하. [공소외 24] 나한테도 이랬다저랬다 하고. [공소외 10] 그러니까. 하하하. 어떨 때는 막 와서 가능성이 좋다하고 어쩔 때는 또 어떠냐고 전망이나 해 보라고 하면 고개를 이렇게 갸우뚱갸우뚱. 그러면 그거 하려고 당신 한 건데 말이야. 그랬더니 어쩐다고 ***(주45) 하하하. 혼자 있으니까 괜찮네.

Note 42) Narth

Note 43) Sgreging

Note 44) Japan

Note 45)**

In addition to the statements made by Nonindicted 24 in the trial of the above conversation, as argued by the Defendant and the defense counsel, it may be viewed that Nonindicted 10, who was applied as a witness in this case, is a arbitrative dialogue between the Defendant, who is a politician, and the Defendant, expected to have been released ex officio by the appellate trial division, and the Defendant’s release on bail at the discretion of the appellate trial division. However, as the prosecutor pointed out, if Nonindicted 10, who was a arbitr and the interviewee, was a arbitrative witness, who clearly stated the Defendant’s confession as the interviewee and the interviewee, he appears to have the attitude to “ratio” on his release and the testimony in this case, such as the above conversation, without mentioning Nonindicted 10 himself or in light of the Defendant’s pro rata relationship with him, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 10’s statement at the trial of the above case was a arbitrative statement by giving him the above arbitrative problem about his release and the above ar.

Ultimately, the contents of conversation between Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 24 in the process of the interview of the detention center would rather be difficult to reinforce the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statements rather than to impeachment the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statements.

⑹ 금품공여 방법에 관한 공소외 8의 진술 부분

In light of the relationship between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant, Nonindicted 8 appears to be somewhat little to give money in a way that he receives money from a customer into a closed price. There is no circumstance to deem that there is a trust relationship between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant to receive money and valuables without a srum, but the lower court’s pointed out that there is no circumstance to deem that there is a trust relationship between Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant, at the time, the public opinion becomes worse due to the savings bank issues at the time, and thus, it is also acceptable to some extent in

However, at the time, when the investigation of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, which was the president of Nonindicted 8, was closed, and the investigation results were unlikely to be announced immediately, and when the ○○ Mutual Savings Bank was under its real name, the investigation results were likely to occur. As such, Nonindicted 8 appears to have requested the Defendant by an urgent inquiry, and there is sufficient possibility that Nonindicted 8 provided money and valuables in the way of expectation that the Defendant would respond to and request for an interview during a given time even if not, even if not, the Defendant would have been able to receive an interview. Furthermore, it is sufficient that Nonindicted 8 provided money and valuables by means of prior inquiry, rather than by the Defendant, and was able to prepare money in advance, because the Defendant did not have a close relation with the Defendant, and thus, it would be more natural that it was given by means of unfolding the documents bags containing such match on the consignee without confirming the intent of the Defendant. Ultimately, it would be no damage the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement concerning the method of offering money and valuables.

From the perspective of the defendant, an interview may have been permitted and sub-convened in a good sense to resolve the civil petition of the local financial institution, and there may have been a situation to receive money that is not the case of Nonindicted 8’s sudden action, but the above money may not be free from his responsibility unless it is returned to Nonindicted 8 immediately or within the time limit that the veterinary veterinarian would be denied.

⑺ 면담 후 공소외 8, 공소외 11 및 공소외 10이 식당에 동행한 부분

공소외 8이 면담주선자인 공소외 11 외에 공소외 10과 함께 저녁식사를 하러 가게 된 것은 공소외 10이 면담주선자이기 때문으로 볼 여지가 없는 것은 아니다. 그러나 면담 후 누구의 제안으로 누구누구가 어디로 식사를 하러 갔는지에 관한 부분은 원심 공판절차에 공소외 10이 면담주선자로 등장하면서부터 본격적으로 언급되고 주48) 있다. 이 부분에 관한 공소외 8의 진술은, ‘공소외 10이 면담주선자인 것을 알았다면 예를 갖추었을 것인데, 이를 몰라 공소외 11에게 저녁식사를 제안하였고, 마침 공소외 10이 옆에 있었고 모르는 사이도 아니어서 함께 가자고 하여 가게 되었다’라는 것이다. 여기에다가 ‘공소외 10이 ◁◁경찰서장 시절에 공소외 11을 통해 알게 되었고, 공소외 10의 조카를 ○○상호저축은행에 취직시켜 준 적이 있다’는 공소외 8의 진술, ‘공소외 11의 사업문제로 공소외 8과 식사를 몇 번 같이 한 적이 있다’는 공소외 10의 진술 및 ‘공소외 10은 ▽▽지방경찰청 ◎◎과장으로서 목포에 있는 피고인의 사무실에 자주 왔다’는 공소외 13의 진술 등에 나타난 세 사람의 관계 등에 비추어 볼 때, 공소외 10이 비록 면담주선자의 역할을 하지 않았다고 하더라도, 피고인의 사무실에서 공소외 8과 공소외 11을 우연히 만나 공소외 8과 공소외 11의 식사자리에 동행하게 된 것이 그리 이상하게만 여겨지지도 않는다.

Therefore, it does not interfere with the recognition of the credibility of Non-Indicted 8’s statement on the part of the facts charged by Non-Indicted 8, which Non-Indicted 8 went to a restaurant with Non-Indicted 11 and Non-Indicted 10 after the interview with the Defendant.

⑻ 후원금 300만 원의 반환 부분

The part that Nonindicted 8 returned on June 22, 2012, which was before June 19, 2012, when Nonindicted 8 interviewed the Defendant, KRW 3 million deposited to the Defendant under his spouse’s name on June 15, 2012, and the part that the Defendant returned on June 22, 2012, which was after the date of the above interview, is recognized by both Nonindicted 8 and the Defendant. Although it is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted 8 returned the support money because of the lack of reputation on Nonindicted 8, it may be said that the information on the support money is disclosed outside, and thus, it may be said that the fact that the Defendant received the support money from the Plaintiff’s rejection of the Savings Bank President that was at issue at the time is open to the public. As seen above, the Defendant did not understand that it was impossible to return the support money in the course of managing it. Thus, the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement that it was returned is not determined.

⑼ 객관적 물증이 없다는 부분

We examine the argument that the non-indicted 8's statement cannot present objective evidence, such as financial materials to support the statement.

In light of the size of the non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 8’s cash amounting to KRW 30 million as stated in this part of the facts charged, the non-indicted 8 stated that it was located in the treasury of the office of ○○ Mutual Savings Bank located in Seoul, and in light of the size of the non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 8’s cash amounting to at least KRW 30 million, etc., it is reasonable to the extent that there is no financial data on the said money. Accordingly, the credibility of the statement is not determined.

⑽ 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시 이후 피고인의 역할 부분

We examine the fact that the defendant cannot find out a trace of exercising influence over the announcement of the investigation results of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office.

In the investigation results of several savings banks including ○○ Mutual Savings Bank in Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fact referred to in English (A, B, and C) with respect to the relevant savings bank was the defendant’s role in the process. However, even if so, whether the defendant served as requested by Nonindicted 8 after the receipt of money or other valuables or not is the part in which Nonindicted 8 could no longer participate, and thus, there is no particular influence in determining the credibility of the statement on this part of the facts charged by Nonindicted 8.

⑾ 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시 이후 공소외 8의 태도 부분

After the date on which Nonindicted 8 entered in this part of the facts charged, it is considered that Nonindicted 15 asked Nonindicted 15 to arrange for the settlement of the Defendant’s South-North Korea.

Even if Nonindicted 8 delivered money and valuables to the Defendant as indicated in this part of the facts charged, it may be assumed that there still existed a distance between the Defendant and the Defendant by receiving support payments of KRW 3 million thereafter, and Nonindicted 8 did not directly contact to maximize the effectiveness of the request, and it does not seem to be any other way to request that the person who can be capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capable of capableing doing so. Moreover, in relation to this part, Nonindicted 15 requested Nonindicted 8 to pay KRW 200 million to the Defendant and the financial chairperson of the ○○ Mutual Savings Bank around January 201, and received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 8 at that time. According to the above facts charged, it appears that Nonindicted 8 delivered KRW 150 million to Nonindicted 15,000,000,000 to Defendant 15, rather than to request the Chairperson of the Financial Services Committee to do so.

Therefore, taking account of the aforementioned various circumstances, even if Nonindicted 8 asked Nonindicted 15 to arrange for the Defendant’s arrival as above, it is difficult to view it as a circumstance that may significantly affect the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement.

⑿ 공소외 11의 수사기관에서의 조사시간 부분 등

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 11 was investigated by the investigative agency at the time when Nonindicted 11 was investigated, it is doubtful whether Nonindicted 11 did not conceal the existence of Nonindicted 10, as the Nonindicted 11’s statement, in fact, Nonindicted 11 was investigated for a long time.

However, at the end of the protocol on Nonindicted 11, an investigation was conducted up to 10:40-23:20 on the part of Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 11’s self-written statement that “the middle rest has been made due to health problems” was made. Even according to Nonindicted 11’s statement in the lower court, Nonindicted 11 written a lot of difficulties in raising memory in relation to the main case at the first time of the investigation. As such, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 8 was investigated for a long time for a long time in which Nonindicted 8 carried a bank.”

Moreover, when Nonindicted 11’s statement on this part was made as follows in the trial room, Nonindicted 11 cannot be deemed to have concealed Nonindicted 10, the person who was the visitor of the interview, and received an investigation of Nonindicted 13 as the other visitor of the interview.

The statements included in the main text [Written Sheet] The words that she was fluored by Nonindicted 13 assistant officers now, and how she said her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.”

Furthermore, considering Nonindicted 11’s statement attitude and its statement that seems to avoid the following direct reply at the lower court’s trial, it seems more accurate to view that Nonindicted 11 received help from Nonindicted 8 in the process of confirming “the identity of the face-to-face victim,” rather than the process of memory and identifying “the identity of the face-to-face victim,” and that Nonindicted 11 took place in the Defendant’s office.”

The witness mentioned in the main text of the table [the answer] continues to answer at the time of the prosecutor's investigation that "at the time other than the defendant 8 did not have any person who wants to know when he found the defendant's party's party office?" The witness's statement that "I would like to answer the question" is "I would like to listen to the non-indicted 8' that "I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to face with the non-indicted 8, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to say that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to know about the non-indicted 10, but I would like to make a statement with the witness about the non-indicted 13.

Meanwhile, according to the statement of Nonindicted Party 11’s trial, Nonindicted Party 8 was in front of his investigation, and Nonindicted Party 8 continued to be in the same way during his investigation. On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 8 was in the first confrontation with Nonindicted Party 11 at the time of the completion of the investigation on Nonindicted Party 11. Accordingly, if Nonindicted Party 11’s statement was made, Nonindicted Party 11 would be able to confirm memory through Nonindicted Party 8, who was immediately in the same time until the night, even if the existence or name of Nonindicted Party 13 was unknown, even if Nonindicted Party 11 could have confirmed memory through Nonindicted Party 8, which was in the same time until the night, and the credibility of Nonindicted Party 8’s statement that the first confrontation with Nonindicted Party 11 was made.

On the other hand, according to the statement of Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11, who was given loans worth KRW 10 billion from the ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, was punished by Nonindicted 8’s request to the effect that “the person who would be deducted KRW 10 billion.” However, Nonindicted 11 was detained on charges of giving approximately KRW 10 billion loan and charges of giving KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 8 in the course of such loan, and was acquitted on charges of giving property in breach of trust. However, Nonindicted 1 was acquitted on charges of giving property in breach of trust on November 24, 2011 at the first instance court and was acquitted on charges of giving property in breach of trust. However, regarding the crime of giving property in breach of trust, Nonindicted 11 was sentenced to a stay of execution for two years, who was sentenced to a three-year imprisonment for the crime of giving property in breach of trust, and Nonindicted 100 million experience in Nonindicted 1’s testimony in relation to the instant case, which was not subject to the judgment of the lower court.”

⒀ 강도 높은 수사로 인한 공소외 8의 허위진술 가능성 부분

Although it is recognized that an investigation agency conducted an annual investigation with respect to Nonindicted 8, while taking into account the size of the crime committed by Nonindicted 8 and the investigation as to it, and the investigation as to ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, there is no aspect of the intensity of the investigation. In addition, according to Nonindicted 8’s statement, if the investigation can be normalized, it is said that the assistance of the person who requested it would be difficult. However, Nonindicted 20 Jeju 55) was no longer concealed at the end of this statement, and that Nonindicted 8’s statement at the investigation agency, the lower court and the lower court were consistent, and in particular, Nonindicted 8’s statement at the investigation agency and the lower court on this part of the facts charged was made on August 15, 201, which became final and conclusive on the date of the investigation, and Nonindicted 8’s statement at the first instance court and the first instance court on the same date on the same date on the same date on the grounds that it is difficult to dismiss its credibility.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, it is difficult for the Defendant and Nonindicted 8 to believe each of the statements made by Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11, which the Defendant and Nonindicted 8 were present on the job, while contrasting to the statements made by Nonindicted 8 in light of the relevant legal principles, and in full view of Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 16’s statements that are reliable and support the statements made by Nonindicted 8, the Defendant and Nonindicted 8, the guilty of this part of the facts charged can be established without reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this part of the appeal by the Prosecutor is with merit.

6. Determination as to the part concerning mediation and acceptance on March 201

A. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court denied the credibility of each of the statements made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, and found otherwise lack of evidence to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged (excluding the part not related to the modified facts charged).

In other words, ① there was no special relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 7 on the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant had a food distance from Nonindicted 8. ② Nonindicted 8’s place where Nonindicted 7 gave money to Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7’s expression as to the money paid by Nonindicted 8, which Nonindicted 8 gave money to Nonindicted 7. In addition, the statement made by the lower court that KRW 30 million was put in the main machine outside the Coke as a result of the time limit in the trial, and that Nonindicted 7’s statement was inconsistent with the statement that “it was impossible for Nonindicted 8 to give money to the Defendant during the investigation process,” and that there was a possibility that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s additional statement made it difficult for Nonindicted 7 to give money to the Defendant in light of the empirical rule.

B. The judgment of this Court

1) Issues

This part of the issue depends on whether the defendant can be found guilty of this part of the facts charged with his statement made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, who voluntarily asserts that he is a money donor.

2) Determination

A) Of the grounds for the judgment of innocence by the lower court, the question on the second paragraph (2) (the part in which the statement made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 differs from each other in terms of Nonindicted 7’s expression on the co-owner’s money in which Nonindicted 8 paid money to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8) among the grounds for the judgment of innocence by the lower court was resolved to a certain extent in the process of the examination of the party’s evidence, or the degree of difference alone is insufficient to doubt the credibility of the statement.

In other words, Nonindicted 8’s statement on the place where Nonindicted 8’s order was delivered to Nonindicted 7 was first called “the place in which the money was delivered to Nonindicted 7,” and then, it was embodied as “the toilet side adjacent to the original representative room” and then changed to “the toilet adjacent to the original representative room” during the investigation process on the following day. As pointed out by the court below, it may be viewed that the statement was changed to a place which was not intentionally disclosed at a public place, but it is difficult to conclude that the statement was changed with any intention in light of the context following and following the statement.

In addition, according to the court’s testimony and trial time of Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 7, the expression “Cot’s money” is sufficient to see that the word “cot’s money” goes on the arms, not “cot’s inner part,” but “cot’s part outside the cot’s body.”

Therefore, it is difficult to reject the credibility of the statements made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 solely on the grounds stated in the above (2) by the lower court.

B) However, the above circumstances relate to the credibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement as to the facts charged to Nonindicted 7 and the part concerning whether Nonindicted 7 actually provided the said money to Nonindicted 7, the key part of the facts charged, namely, whether Nonindicted 7 actually provided the said money, must be consistent with it. From the conclusion, the following circumstances are added to the circumstances alleged by the lower court. In addition, it is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the key part of the facts charged solely on the basis of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s statement, etc.

(1) The Defendant also acknowledges that the Defendant was only with Nonindicted 7 in the original representative room as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, the Defendant was not present at that place, and Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 were present at that place, and made a statement by being present at that place.

The deep content of the savings bank situation is more well known to Nonindicted 8, and it does not seem natural that Nonindicted 8 sit in as Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s statement. However, the Defendant had a lot of interest in the savings bank situation, and the Defendant appears to have been able to have known of Nonindicted 8’s situation at the time of the savings bank situation, and there is a question as to whether Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s statement on the jobs they did not own in the original court room were seated with Nonindicted 8. In other words, Nonindicted 8 stated that the Defendant was seated at the seat of Nonindicted 7, and that Nonindicted 8 was seated with Nonindicted 7, and that it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s statement on the changed part of the Defendant’s statement at the time of Nonindicted 8’s statement to the effect that it was not easy to see that the Defendant’s statement was made at the seat of Nonindicted 7 and that it was a change in Nonindicted 7’s statement on the changed part of the Defendant’s statement at the court room.

According to the statement of Nonindicted 8, the amount was not expressed when he delivers to Nonindicted 7 any money, and according to the statement of Nonindicted 7, the amount was not asked to Nonindicted 8, and the amount was known to him in the prosecution investigation process. However, according to the first statement of Nonindicted 7 related to the facts charged, the Defendant refused to provide money, but the Defendant attempted to give money to his wife from Nonindicted 8, who was difficult to obtain marriage marriage, and used the remainder individually. The amount was 64). (The Nonindicted 7 denied the payment of money once again and changed the attitude thereafter).

Referencely, although the indictment was omitted in the facts charged due to the revision of the indictment at the trial court, the facts charged prior to the amendment are based on each of the statements of the investigative agencies and the court below, and Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 in the court below.

In other words, according to the facts charged prior to the change, “the defendant sent a telephone call to Nonindicted 9 at the place of receiving the request from Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, and then sent the purport of the answer to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8.” However, at the above time, there was a change in the indictment as seen earlier at the court of first instance where it was revealed that the Defendant and Nonindicted 9’s call was impossible.

그럼에도 피고인이 공소외 7을 만날 때 공소외 8이 함께 있었는지 여부 및 그 당시 무슨 말이 오갔는지 여부에 관한 공소외 7과 공소외 8의 각 진술은 이 부분 공소사실의 유무죄 여부와 직결되므로 이 부분을 세밀히 따져 볼 필요가 있다. 즉, 공소외 7과 공소외 8은 자신들이 피고인을 만난 자리에서 ‘피고인이 직접 공소외 9와 통화하면서 자신들의 청탁을 그대로 전달하고 공소외 9로부터 확답을 받았다고 말해주었다’고 주65) 진술하였고, 공소외 7은 ‘피고인이 전화를 끊고 경영평가위원회가 한 달간 유예되었으니 경영정상화를 잘 진행하라고 말했다’라고 주66) 진술하였으며, 공소외 8은 더 구체적으로 ‘피고인이 자신들에게 전화기를 내밀면서 “보셨죠, 공소외 9 위원장이 여유를 준답니다”라고 하였다’라고 주67) 진술하였다.

In addition, the above statements made by Nonindicted 8 are maintained in the trial. In other words, in the trial of the political party, Nonindicted 8 is that “The Defendant divided the phone with several horses, and the remarks about postponement are made, and Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 are called as “one month, humping, humping, humping, and humping the phone.” However, their statements are revealed by Nonindicted 9’s meeting of the National Assembly Affairs Committee at that time, or Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s National Assembly access records, etc., as shown in the following table, it is highly probable that the Defendant could confuse the above statements with other objective facts, because it is impossible for Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 8 to communicate with Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 at the Standing Committee at that time. Thus, the above statements made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 are inconsistent with objective facts.

At around 15:45, around 15:52, around 15:52, Nonindicted 7’s hours for admitting Nonindicted 8’s National Assembly at the National Assembly located in the main text, Nonindicted 9’s attendance at the National Assembly’s main office of the ombudsman (16:16 confirmation of the main office) at around 15:50, around 16:20, around 16:20, around 16:20, at around 16:52, via the north-do boarding vehicle using the fest boarding vehicle at the National Assembly at around 16:52, around 16:52, around 16:52, via the fest boarding vehicle at the National Assembly at around 16:56-14:52.52.

This circumstance makes it difficult to believe Nonindicted 7’s statement on the motive part of receiving money and valuables, the core of the facts charged. Furthermore, Nonindicted 7 made a statement different from that of Nonindicted 8’s initial investigation agency and the court below’s decision that “The monetary content of the Defendant was not accurately memory but was extended more than the desired time, and the other party to the Defendant’s monetary was believed to be Nonindicted 9 as a matter of course)” in the court below. However, it is difficult to further believe the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency and the court below, contrary to the statement at the investigation agency and the court below.

On the other hand, according to the result of the call recording, the Defendant recognized the fact that he exchanged with Nonindicted 7 on March 9, 201, around 17:15. As seen in the above list, Nonindicted 9 made a call between 16:56 to 17:14, as seen in the above list, and the Defendant’s statement was made between Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, and the Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 had been made during the above currency, and it cannot be said that it would be difficult for the Defendant to have a similar memory between Nonindicted 7 and 8 again, and it is difficult for the lower court to find that there was no possibility that Nonindicted 9 had made a statement later than the Defendant’s oral statement because it was not because of the reasons for opening the phone as seen above, and that there was no possibility that Nonindicted 8’s oral statement was made by Nonindicted 9 and the Defendant’s oral statement that was inconsistent with the Defendant’s aforementioned during the period of Nonindicted 7’s oral statement. However, it is difficult to say that it was not clear for the Defendant’s oral.

On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 might have known the Defendant and Nonindicted 9 in the currency between the Defendant and Nonindicted 9. However, the above statement contents of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 are too specific or specific, it is difficult to accept. Furthermore, with respect to the Defendant’s status as the representative in the Camp Party at the time, the contents of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8’s delay and the extension of the Management Evaluation Committee, which are not Nonindicted 9, cannot be presented by dividing the conversation between Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 to the extent that they would be perceived. If Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 8 were not in the Defendant’s position, there is no reason to forward the conversations between Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 9, and there is no reason to inform Nonindicted 7 of the result of the conversation and the Management Evaluation Committee, and there is no reason to inform Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 of the result of the conversation.

x) Ultimately, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received money directly from Nonindicted 7 in the original representative room on the date stated in this part of the facts charged only by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, and it is difficult to view that there is sufficient proof to the extent that there is a reasonable doubt.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act among the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal regarding the acceptance of good offices around June 2010 among the remainder of the facts charged is accepted, and there is a ground for ex officio reversal as to the receipt of good offices around March 201. Thus, the part of the judgment below which received the prosecutor's appeal and the part of ex officio reversal is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The Defendant worked as a 14th National Assembly member from May 1992 to August 1995, and had been employed by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee as a 18th National Assembly member from June 2008 to June 2008, through the Minister of Culture and Tourism, the Secretary-General, etc.

On June 2010, the Defendant received a request from the head of ○○ Mutual Savings Bank from Nonindicted 8 to the effect that “○○ Mutual Savings Bank was in the process of investigating ○○ Mutual Savings Bank in the Military Prosecutors’ Office, and ○○ Mutual Savings Bank was in the process of investigating ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, upon request of the persons concerned by the prosecutor, so that the investigation into ○○ Mutual Savings Bank can be completed well,” and received KRW 30 million in the same place as the case.

As a result, the defendant received 30 million won as to the referral of matters belonging to public officials' duties.

1. Each statement corresponding to Non-Indicted 8 in the second and third trial records of the court below and the fifth trial records of the court below

1. Statement consistent with Nonindicted 16’s statement in the third trial record of the party trial

1. Statement consistent with Nonindicted 14 in the fifth trial record of the trial of the political party

1. Statement that corresponds to the statement of Nonindicted 8 prepared by the prosecutor

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to “The Reasons for Determination of Punishment” below)

1. Additional collection:

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

The content of the instant crime is that the Defendant receives money and valuables upon the request from Nonindicted 8, the president of the savings bank, in connection with the referral of matters concerning the duties of public officials in the status of a member of the National Assembly (at the time of the member of the National Assembly), and does not hold any liability therefor. In addition, the amount cannot be deemed as small as KRW 30 million. In addition, it cannot be said that the amount is limited to KRW 30 million, and the Defendant denies continuous crimes from the investigative agency to the trial, and as long as the Defendant is found guilty of the relevant facts charged, this part of

However, there is no circumstance for the Defendant to actively demand money and valuables to Nonindicted 8, and in an interview with many civil petitioners, Nonindicted 8 met with each other, and Nonindicted 8 appears to have failed to return the document bags containing the Gap’s own money on the consignee’s hand, and thus, the circumstances leading up to the receipt of money and valuables may be considered. Furthermore, if the investigation results are announced in the media, the extent that the contents of the Defendant’s request are likely to cause banking and the result of the investigation is likely to cause banking, and as a result, there is no obvious material that the Defendant served as a son in the process.

Therefore, the above circumstances are favorable to the defendant, and the conditions of sentencing specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the sentencing cases in the case of mediating and receiving good offices similar to this case, shall be determined as per the order.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as stated in the [Attachment 2] indictment.”

2. Determination

This part of the facts charged is insufficient to find guilty without any reasonable doubt by only the statements made by Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, as seen in the preceding paragraph 6-B, and there is no other evidence to find the guilty of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the acquittal is made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Kang Young-soo (Presiding Judge)

(1) On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 stated that it is not accurate memory on the lower place.

Note 2) Evidence records (7-6) 87 pages

Note 3) Evidence records (7-6), 86, 87 pages

Note 4) Evidence records (7-6) 5 pages

5) On June 25, 2012, the investigation conducted before the witness investigation against Nonindicted Party 1 was conducted on or around June 25, 2012, the evidence record reveals that Nonindicted Party 4’s general secretary of the Solomon Savings Bank and Nonindicted Party 21 was the written statement of Nonindicted Party 1 on around May 2012 on the part where Nonindicted Party 1 offered a bribe to other public officials; and Nonindicted Party 1’s written statement on or around June 2012 on the part where Nonindicted Party 1 offered a bribe to other public officials. There is no part related to the Defendant or the need for a Hamon survey. However, it is deemed that Nonindicted Party 1 was made an oral investigation before the investigation was conducted on June 25, 2012 (the trial record 190 pages). However, there is no evidence to know what extent the investigation was conducted on what date at any point.

6) Nonindicted Party 1’s failure to visit at all the same time after the close of the magian hotel, as of the date indicated in this part of the facts charged, is not between Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1’s on-site inspection. Even according to Nonindicted Party 1’s statement, Nonindicted Party 1 used this place as a place where they met.

Note 7) 166 pages of the trial records

Note 8) Court records 170 pages

Note 9) Evidence records (7-7) 617 pages

Note 10) Evidence Records (7-7) 622 pages, 165 pages of trial records

Note 11) Evidence Records (7-7) 616 pages

12) Although the Defendant did not receive money from Nonindicted 8 and was present with Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 10 was not present at the time of Nonindicted 8’s delivery. However, the possibility of Nonindicted 8’s statement is extremely low in light of the Defendant’s attitude to the effect that Nonindicted 10’s body was concealed in the investigative agency and the truth was revealed in the court, on the ground that there was concern that the investigation agency or the court made a decision different from the fact, and that only Nonindicted 8’s statement may be judged differently from the fact.

13) According to the testimony of Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 8, the date indicated in this part of the facts charged, there was a book of a shot room located in 2009 and around 1 year prior to the date indicated in this part of the facts charged, with the Defendant, at the model house located in the Seoul Cheongguro-dong (No. 486 of the trial record). The Defendant asserted that Nonindicted 8’s delivery period was not more than 2009 years but not more than July 2008, based on the contents written in the Defendant’s pocket book, but there is no dispute that the date indicated in this part of the facts charged was not the first time.

Note 14) Court records 469 pages

Note 15) Court records 468 pages

Note 16) According to the Nonindicted 10’s statement, Nonindicted 11’s business issues share with Nonindicted 8, as well as meals several times, and Nonindicted 8 employed Nonindicted 10’s Chon-kak in ○ Mutual Savings Bank (the trial record 465 pages).

On the other hand, according to the statements made by Nonindicted 11 at the lower court and the lower court, “Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 8 were about five minutes from the second floor in which the Defendant’s office is located.” Accordingly, according to the above statements, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 8 have a sufficient time to divide them into her fluence.

Note 18) Court records 823, 824

Note 19) The accurately confirmed Nonindicted 11’s above statements, and Nonindicted 10 responded to Nonindicted 10 “e.g.,” (the trial record 463 pages).

Note 20) Nonindicted 11 stated that Nonindicted 8 referred to as “Nonindicted 10 Superintendent” and Nonindicted 8 referred to as “Nonindicted 10 Superintendent,” and Nonindicted 8 merely stated “Nonindicted 10 Superintendent,” and in anywhere, “Nonindicted 10 Superintendent,” Non-Indicted 8 knew about the general public’s position or position rather than the rank or class.” In light of the general custom, Nonindicted 8’s statement is considerably persuasive.

주21) 공소외 16은 당심에서, 공소외 10과 관련된 공소외 8의 진술내용이 무엇이냐는 질문에 ‘공소외 8이 목포사무실에 골재채취업자인 공소외 11을 통해서 피고인을 찾아갔다. 목포사무실에 갔을 때 대기실과 집무실이 나뉘어져 있는데, 대기실에 갔을 때 “전 ◁◁경찰서장”을 보았었다. 그리고 면담이 끝나고 나와서 저녁을 먹으러 갈 때 같이 갔었다’라고 진술하였고, 위와 같은 공소외 8의 얘기를 기재하지 않고 담당 검사에게 말로 보고한 이유에 관하여 ‘그때는 금품을 공여했다는 것을 굉장히 중요하게 생각했었고, 피고인에게 돈을 주었다는 것이 굉장히 중요한 사실이었기 때문에 그 과정을 설명하면서 “대기실에서 우연히 목포 전 경찰서장을 만났다”는 이야기가 중요하다고 생각하지 않아서 구두로만 보고했던 것으로 기억한다’고 진술하였다.(당심 제3회 공판기일, 공소외 16에 대한 증인신문조서 3쪽)

Note 22) Nonindicted 11 responded to the counsel’s question whether the trial record 438 pages (Seoul Central Prosecutor’s OOO. Defendant and Nonindicted 8: whether Defendant and Nonindicted 8 wished to go out until 10:0 a.0 a.0 a.0 a.0 a.0 p.m., and under the witness’s investigation) were made.

Note 23) Nonindicted Party 10’s statement at the trial of the Party 10, stating that “Nonindicted Party 11 told that it would be between the two days before being investigated, but not by no later than 12 days after that day, she would not bring about a telephone (the fifth trial date for the Party 5th trial and the 56th trial date for the examination of witness against Nonindicted Party 10).”

Note 24) Court records 823 pages

Note 25) With respect to this part, the following sub-paragraph (1) shall be examined further in detail.

Note 26) Evidence Records (7-7) 744

Note 27) Evidence Records (7-7) 714 pages

Note 28) We examine this part in detail in paragraph (4) of the following subparagraph.

Note 29) The trial records 462 pages

Note 30) Evidence records (7-2) 971 pages

Note 31) 437,438 of the trial records

Note 32) Even based on the statement of Nonindicted 11, “whether or not there was Nonindicted 10’s phone call from the mother National Assembly member is not memory,” and the Defendant is a death that is not well-known.

Note 33) The trial records 421 pages

Note 34) Court records 820 pages

Note 35) Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Gohap338 Decided February 1, 2013 (after that, the Seoul High Court Decision 2013No691 Decided January 29, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1628 Decided August 20, 2014 and the final appeal was dismissed and finalized. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 10 filed an application for release on bail on May 9, 2013 and was released on bail on May 21, 2013).

Note 36) Nonindicted 24, the spouse of Nonindicted 10, also met.

Note 37) The context appears to mean postponements.

Note 38) In light of the fact that the date of examination of the lower court as to Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 was originally designated on April 10, 2013, and that the date of examination changed and implemented on May 1, 2013, the aforementioned “ April 11” appears to have been erroneous in the recording process.

Jeju High Court Decision 2013No691 decided March 28, 2013. The second trial date on April 25, 2013. The second trial date on Nonindicted 10 appears to be the first trial date on March 25, 2013, which was the second trial date prior to the opening of the first trial date on March 25, 2013.

40) On April 3, 2013, the defense counsel applied for the change of the trial date and the examination date of witness was changed to May 1, 2013.

Note 41) Even based on the statements made by Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11, since Nonindicted 11 did not enter the Defendant’s office together with Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 2 appears not to mean “when she entered the Defendant’s office” but to mean “when she entered the Defendant’s office” in light of the content of the expressions.

Note 42) At the same time, Nonindicted 26 appears to refer to Nonindicted 26.

Note 43) According to the testimony of Nonindicted 24’s trial, “Defendant” means “Defendant”.

Note 44) It appears that the original designation was made on April 10, 2013, and changed to May 1, 2013, the date of examination of the witness in the instant case appears to mean the date of examination of the witness in the lower court.

Note 45) It appears that it is impossible to hear.

Note 46) 33 pages of the fifth trial record, and of the protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 10

Note 47) The fifth trial records of the party trial, and the 22 trial records of the examination of witness against Nonindicted 10

Note 48) The lower court, on July 14, 2012, indicated the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement as well as Nonindicted 11 after having interview with the Defendant on July 14, 2012, that the situation after having interview with Nonindicted 11 was relatively detailed, and that Nonindicted 8 made Nonindicted 10 in the investigation process, even though Nonindicted 8’s statement was made by Nonindicted 10 in the investigation process, it does not seem to have been delayed. However, as indicated in the above protocol, Nonindicted 10 was “(Nonindicted 11), Nonindicted 11, who was on the part of Nonindicted 11, was to drink to drink the restaurant after he left the Defendant’s room.” Moreover, there was no room for the lower court to mention that Nonindicted 11 was Nonindicted 1’s oral investigation during the investigation process on Nonindicted 10’s need not have been made.

Note 49) Evidence records (7-3) 1376 pages

(50) Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gohap943, 1348 (Consolidated) decided July 19, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2013No2530 Decided January 17, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1631 Decided April 24, 2014

Note 51) Evidence records (7-3) 100 pages

Note 52) In collusion with Nonindicted 8, the effect that ○ Mutual Savings Bank would incur a loss equivalent to KRW 9.922 billion on loans to ○○ Mutual Savings Bank.

Note 53) Evidence records (7-2) 967, 978 pages

Note 54) Evidence records (7-3) 1143 pages

Note 55) The investigation of this part of the facts charged reveals that, on June 15, 2012, the investigation agency secured the statement of Nonindicted 20 that “ Nonindicted 8, from Nonindicted 8 to Nonindicted 8, made a call at the time of the investigation by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office at the time of the investigation by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office at around 2010 and asked the Defendant to harm and personnel affairs,” and immediately following the date, the investigation was initiated on June 16, 2012 by Nonindicted 8 to confirm the above statement by Nonindicted 20.

Note 56) As shown in [Attachment 1 and 2] As to the facts charged prior to the change, the part of the charge prior to the change that “the Defendant asked the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission to the effect that “○○ Mutual Savings Bank would present its wording, with sufficient time to present its wording,” and that “I wish to examine” from the above Nonindicted 9, which was delivered to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, was changed to the effect that “the Defendant received KRW 30 million from Nonindicted 7 for the case at that place.” The part that “the Defendant received KRW 30 million from Nonindicted 7” was “the Defendant received from the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission from Nonindicted 9 for the phone, and then received KRW 30 million for the case from said Nonindicted 7 and 8. Accordingly, whether the Defendant delivered the monetary result to Nonindicted 7 and 8, and whether it was related to the credibility of the said part.” However, this part of the judgment is examined.

Note 57) Despite amendments to the bill of amendment in the trial, it still remains common.

Note 58) Evidence Records (7-4) 1282, 1283 (Non-Indicted 7’s statement concerning the circumstances in which the defendant was sent)

Note 59) Court records 674 pages

Note 60) 50 pages of the 9th trial date, and the 50th trial date for the examination of witness against Nonindicted 7

주61) 공판기록 700쪽(재판장의 ‘피고인에 의하면 그 날은 크게 바쁘지 않았다고 하는데 증인은 피고인이 상당히 바빴다고 얘기하는가요’라는 질문에 대하여, 공소외 7은 ‘비서 내지 보좌진이 당일 “대표께서 오늘은 굉장히 바쁘신 날이다”라고 얘기를 해서 피고인이 바쁜 것으로 알았다’고 답변했다)

Note 62) 50 pages of the 8th trial date and the 50th trial date for the examination of witness against Nonindicted 8

Note 63) Court records 674 pages

Note 64) Evidence records (7-4) 882 pages

Note 65) Evidence Records (7-5) 1857,1858 (Nonindicted 8’s above statement, Nonindicted 7 made a statement that the contents of Nonindicted 8’s statement are consistent with the Defendant’s statements during the Modity process) and 627 pages of the trial records.

Note 66) Evidence records (7-4) 1285 pages

Note 67) Evidence Records (7-4) 903 pages, 616 pages of trial records

Note 68) 18 pages of the 8th trial date and the 18th trial date for the examination of witness against Nonindicted 8

Note 69) Trial Records 694

Note 70) 9, 10, 16 pages of the 9th trial date, Nonindicted 7

Note 71) Court records 1177 pages

Note 72) The trial records 1265 pages

Note 73) 18, 19,20 pages of the third trial date of the party trial and the protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 25