2013No192 A. Forgery of private documents

(b) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

1.(a)(c) A;

2. D. B

Defendants

Promotion for Family Head Service (Public Prosecution), Security Service (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Kim Jong-tae, and Kim Min-soo (Defendant A)

Attorney Gangnam-ho et al. (for the defendant B)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012 Senior 3533 Decided February 7, 2013

July 5, 2013

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the sentence (2 years and six months of imprisonment, and two years of imprisonment, etc.) imposed by the court below on the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A

Although there is no penalty force in addition to punishment force for the defendant once, there is no punishment force for the defendant, and there is favorable circumstances such as that the defendant reflects his fault. However, the defendant is not only actively engaged in the crime of forging the private document of this case, the crime of uttering of the above investigation document, but also actively participated in the crime of giving money to B in order to find out the bid price of F who is a competitor in advance from E Co., Ltd. in the process of receiving the contract from E Co., Ltd. in order to obtain registration as a qualified company for the development company such as D Co., Ltd. with the vice head of the Energy Business Headquarters of C Co., Ltd., and also actively participate in the crime of giving giving money to B in order to find out the bid price of F Co., Ltd. which is a competitor in advance, and the defendant has increased to B in KRW 300 million. The defendant received KRW 100 million from B thereafter, and considering all the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant'

B. Defendant B did not have any punishment power in addition to the one-time fine, there is no punishment power for the Defendant; Defendant F wanted to be placed in the Defendant’s preference against the Defendant; Defendant performed his duties in a relatively faithful manner with 30 years of imprisonment; and Defendant breached his fault. However, the crime of this case was committed in a favorable condition, such as: (a) the Defendant received money in return for informing the Defendant of the bid price of the “ex officio producer” ordered by E Co., Ltd., a competitor, as a director of the F power generation business and design for the Defendant; (b) the Defendant received money in return for the Defendant’s bidding price of E Co., Ltd.; and (c) thereby, the Defendant ordered the said construction to take account of the nature of the crime; and (d) other all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character, and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable and unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. [However, among the "application of the law of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure", the "Article 30" and "Article 357 (2) and (1)" of the 5th 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth 16th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Kim Jae-jin

Judge Sung-sung