2019Gohap246 Bribery

A

Long-term prosecutions, creation leaps (trials)

Law Firm Pacific

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

June 21, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents at the Seoul Northern District Court, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 27, 2017. On July 19, 2018, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents, etc. On September 28, 2018, the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2018. On March 29, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 5, 20

【Criminal Facts】

1. The defendant and B's status and duty relationship;

In the process of supplying military goods through enterprises, such as C, D, E, and F, in which the Defendant directly operates or is participating in the management, the Defendant manufactured the goods to be directly produced in China at low-price costs, and supplied them by deceiving the end-user institution as if they were directly produced in Korea, and supplied them by being awarded a successful bid by other bidders to supply the goods subject to the tender at the same time.

B From August 17, 2010 to December 2016, 2016, the Army Headquarters G performed the quality inspection of general commodities procured by the military while serving as an inspector for goods procured from general commodities, etc., and was in charge of the quality inspection of laundry, inserted, and old name that the Defendant supplies.

2. Resolution for crimes;

The Defendant, in the process of supplying military goods, should pass a quality inspection at a rapid time to reduce compensation for delay. As such, the Defendant offered convenience by soliciting the quality inspection officer B to conduct a quality inspection at the place and time desired by the Defendant, and passing through the inappropriate opinions or methods. In particular, in the process of quality inspection of the name of the Gu supplied by the Defendant, the Defendant solicited B to impliedly approve that the name of the Gu was not directly produced in the Republic of Korea, but imported from China, and to deliver money and valuables for such consideration.

3. Criminal facts;

(a) Crimes around June 2013;

On June 2013, the Defendant made a request for the quality inspection of the laundry net supplied to B in the same Gu K located near the Defendant’s “J Office” located in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building, and made a request for the provision of convenience, such as conducting quality inspection at the place and time desired by the Defendant, and passing through the laundry net under the name of C without giving any inappropriate opinion, and in return, delivered KRW 20 million in cash.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. Crimes from August 7, 2015 to April 1, 2016

(1) 피고인은 2015. 8. 7.경 위 'J' 사무실에서, D 명의로 납품한 삽과 E 명의로 납품한 구명의, F 명의로 납품한 손톱깎이 등에 대한 품질검사와 관련하여 B에게 원하는 장소와 시기에 품질검사를 해주고, 부적합 의견을 내지 않고 통과시켜 주는 등 편의를 제공하여 달라는 청탁을 하고 그 대가로 B가 지정하는 M 명의의 기업은행 계좌로 50만 원을 송금하였다.

(2) Around October 2015, the Defendant made a solicitation to provide such convenience to B with respect to quality inspection of the foregoing insertion and name, and, in return, remitted KRW 2 million to the above M’s corporate bank account.

(3) On December 10, 2015, the Defendant made a solicitation to provide the above convenience to B with regard to quality inspection of the foregoing insertion and name, and, in return, remitted KRW 5 million to the above M’s corporate bank account.

(4) On April 1, 2016, the Defendant made a solicitation to provide such convenience to B with respect to quality inspection of the foregoing insertion and the name of the Gu, and, in return, remitted KRW 10 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of N as designated by B.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (including copies; hereinafter the same shall apply);

1. Examination protocol of the suspect about 0 to the prosecution, and examination protocol of the suspect about 2 to the prosecution;

1. Court rulings (general military courts in the Ministry of National Defense, High Court for Armed Forces 2017No182, Supreme Court for Armed Forces, Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17845);

1. Each internal investigation report (A’s report on the circumstances of bribe and conversations between P and message, submission of suspected B and monetary transaction records in connection with the provision of this case), each investigation report (the report on the execution of a warrant of search and seizure of the account relating to the provision of this case, and confirmation of the source of bribe funds of A);

1. Previous records: Results of inquiry, investigation reports (verification of details of disposition A orO by a suspect and report accompanied by the judgment) and copies of each judgment attached thereto;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact of offering of a bribe and the fact of offering of a bribe in Article 3(b) of the Decision), and each choice of imprisonment with labor

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (Mutually between the crimes and the crimes on the records of the crime in which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (A) of the Criminal Act

Punishment of Bribery (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. The scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply as it falls under concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination of sentence: Four months of imprisonment; and

The Defendant, at a disadvantage: (a) imported and supplied the Gu name to be directly produced in China in an unlawful manner; (b) received various conveniences related to quality inspection from a military-related person, who is in charge of quality inspection of supplied goods, and offered B a bribe exceeding KRW 30 million over a long period; and (c) the Defendant has considerably heavy criminal history. The Defendant has several prison labor force prior to committing the instant crime.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The defendant is against his or her will to recognize his or her mistake, and it is necessary to consider equity with the case where he or she judges together with each of the crimes listed in the criminal records of this case. The defendant has no same power.

○ Other factors for sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, home environment, motive, means and method of committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

The presiding judge, the Full Judge Line

Judges Kim Gin-tae

Judges Bo Dong-dong