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

(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Acceptance of bribe;

1.(c)(d)The head of the department in charge of assistive equipment for the operation of the Project.

2.2.B.S. On the port Heavy Industries Bureau

3.2.C. Electric Power Company:

4.B.D.S. On the port Heavy Industries Bureau

5.2E. Company Board

6.(a)F self-employed

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant C, D, and E)

The movement port (prosecution) and Kim Woo (prosecution, public trial)

Law Firm G

Busan District Court Decision 2013Dahap133, 142(combined) decided January 10, 2014;

165(Joint), 205(Joint), Judgment

July 17, 2014

[Defendant A]

The part against Defendant A in the judgment below is reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years and by fine for 3,500,000,000 won. Where Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 3,50,000 into one day. The cash confiscated by Defendant A (Article 602,50,500,000 (Article 838, No. 838 of the pressure of the Dong District Prosecutors’ Office in Busan District Prosecutors’ Office in 2013) shall be confiscated. The amount of KRW 430,50,00 shall be collected from Defendant A. The amount of KRW 430,50,00 shall be collected. [Defendant B]

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

[Defendant C]

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C shall be reversed. Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

[Defendant D]

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant D shall be reversed. Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years.

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

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant E shall be reversed. Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

[Defendant F] Defendant F’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) Defendant 2) A (the part concerning the crime related to an emergency diesel generator and an alternative exchange power generator)

The Defendant introduced F to enter into a contract for verifying equipment with respect to the emergency diesel power generator, etc. to be supplied to the UAE nuclear power plant (hereinafter referred to as "Modern Heavy Industries Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "Modern Heavy Industries") and the Defendant merely received a bribe related to his duties from the Hyundai Heavy Industries without the consent of the Defendant. In other words, F acquired service proceeds from the part of the Hyundai Heavy Industries using the Defendant without any agreement with the Defendant.

As such, the defendant does not accept a bribe in collusion with F.

2) The instant service contract concluded between Defendant B and E (common assertion) Hyundai Heavy Industries and F is subject to the needs of the modern Heavy Industries

As a normal service contract concluded, Hyundai Heavy Industries only paid the fair service price to F, and A merely received money from F under the name of F in order to assist F to enter into a service contract with Hyundai Heavy Industries. In other words, it is reasonable that F’s above act can be a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (recrimination) or a crime of offering of bribe, and that A and F did not receive a bribe in collusion with Hyundai Heavy Industries.

In addition, the Defendants thought that they would provide services to F that they would enjoy economic benefits by providing services to F that they are familiar with A, and there was no intention to give a bribe to A as well as there was no conspiracy to offer a bribe.

3) Even if Defendant E’s act constitutes the crime of offering of bribe, the amount of grant is limited to KRW 300,000 that A actually received.

4) Defendant F

A) The Defendant only cooperates with the crime of bribery according to the direction of A, and the Defendant is merely an aiding and abetting the crime of bribery. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for co-principal liability for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

B) A bribe delivered to a public official who is deemed a public official from Hyundai Heavy Industries

Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act applies to a person who delivered B/L who is a third party. Therefore, the defendant should be applied not to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) but to a third party acquisition crime.C) The defendant had KON's staff H report the forgery of a new test report to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission. Accordingly, while the prosecution expanded the relevant investigation due to the former defense, the defendant discovered and investigated the instant crime and prosecuted the instant case, the defendant's punishment should be mitigated or exempted in accordance with the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Reporters.

D) Even if the Defendant violated the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

Even if the defendant actually performed the service contract of this case, the amount of acceptance of bribe of this case must be deducted from the assessed value equivalent to the actual part of the defendant's performance.

5) Defendant C.

A) The Defendant did not have expressed his/her intent to offer a bribe to A, and there is no fact that he/she demanded the J to deliver money in relation to the contract for placing an order for a heavy gas device.

B) In addition, the source of KRW 700 million delivered to A through K of the Hyundai Heavy Industries is not a modern Heavy Industries, but a bribe offered by the J of the said money to A. In the process, there is no fact that the Hyundai Heavy Industries agreed to preserve the said money later to J. Accordingly, the Hyundai Heavy Industries is not the subject of the offering of a bribe.

C) Even if the crime of offering of a bribe is established against the Defendant, the prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendant, D, and K, which is one of the co-offenders in the crime of offering a bribe in this case, without prosecution L, which is considered as the accomplices in the crime of offering a bribe in this case. This constitutes an abuse of the right of prosecution as a discriminatory indictment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

1) Defendants

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 15 years, fine of 3,50,000,000 won, etc.; imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months for Defendant E; imprisonment of 5 years: imprisonment of 5 years; fine of 1,050,000, etc.) is too unreasonable.

(ii)a prosecutor;

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant C, D, and E is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion of Defendant A, B, and E (the Defendant A did not receive a bribe in collusion with F, and there was no intention that Defendant B and E gave a bribe to Defendant A, and there was no intention that Defendant B and E offered a bribe to Defendant A)

The above Defendants asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above allegations in detail in light of the first, first, and first, under the title of "the judgment on the important arguments of the defendants and their defense counsel". We agree with the judgment of the court below after closely comparing the judgment of the court below with the records. In particular, we cannot see that the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

As evidence directly consistent with the facts charged, F’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and the court below (“i.e., ‘F’s statement’ (i.e., ‘F’s M of the Hyundai Heavy Industries’ will to grant a successful bid for the diesel power plant of Hyundai Heavy Industries at the direction of Defendant A, and in return, M again introduced F to B, and then gave F a service of KRW 1.5 billion to F in return for assisting the successful bid for the Hyundai Heavy Industries as above (i.e., ‘F’) (i., ‘F’s statement at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at the disposal of the services at least KRW 1.5 billion.

However, unlike the statements at the above prosecutor's office and the court below at the trial, the F stated, "The F entered into a service contract with the Hyundai Heavy Industries side by selling the name of Defendant A, but during this process, there was no demand from Defendant A to partially change the service cost or there was no participation from Defendant A in the decision on the service cost, and the instant service contract is a reasonable amount of KRW 1.5 billion in light of the service performed as well as normal, and the service performed, and it is a reasonable amount of KRW 1.5 billion in consideration of the name of Defendant A during the process of the service contract. It was merely a fact that the F used the name of Defendant A in the process of the service contract, and it was not a money that was made at the beginning."

As such, F's statement is changed, first of all, I examine F's credibility of F's above prosecutor's office and the court below's legal statement.

F has made a consistent statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part not only in the prosecution five times but also in the investigation of witnesses and other suspects, and the testimony made by the court below. The contents of the statement also contain circumstances or conversations that are difficult to take place without very specific and direct experience. In particular, F’s statement is debrisoning the real value of services directly performed by it, and made a statement that is punished as a accomplice of the defendant A and the crime of acceptance of bribe, and there is no reason to have any particular unfavorable statement to the above defendants. Furthermore, F’s statement is considerably consistent with F’s specific statement in the modern Heavy Industries and the service contract execution process and the process of this case’s service contract execution process. In addition, F’s statement is considerably consistent with F and the content of the OKakax messages messages between F and the defendant also conform to the above facts charged. Considering the objective circumstances such as the 300 million won out of service payment to the defendant A, the credibility of the above statement by the prosecutor and the court below is sufficiently acknowledged.

On the contrary, F’s previous statement at the trial date to the effect that the said statement was de facto Defendant A by entering into a false service contract with Defendant A at the request of the said company, and that the said statement was operated as a partnership business (i.e., the N and the enterprise operated as a partnership business, and that the prosecutor’s office should order N as to one billion won in the process of investigating the case of fabrication of nuclear power plant supply cable before the instant case at the prosecution before the instant case was at issue, and that it was anticipated that N should be informed of the service cost of the instant case deposited in Docen service. ② In that process, if it is discovered that one billion won in its own service contract was concluded by the Dong company and that one billion won in its service cost was not notified to N, it is difficult to reverse the previous prosecutor’s previous statement at the trial date without considering the fact that the aforementioned statement was made by the defense counsel at the prosecutor’s request, and thus, it is difficult to view that the aforementioned statement was made to the extent of aiding and abetting Defendant A’s criminal defendant’s criminal intent.

○ As to the assertion of admissibility

Defendant E’s defense counsel asserts as follows. Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant E, ① Defendant A asked F to the effect that “I, who was well aware of at the end of August 201, as the representative of the UNCC service, was aware of whether I would be able to reach a successful bid for the present Heavy Industries.” ② Accordingly, F requested F to the effect that “I will look at M at the present Samsungdong-gu Seoul Samsungdong-gu's chemical model, but I will assist in the present Heavy Industries, such as the present evaluation of technical ability, etc., or in the future delivery process.” This part of the statement was admissible as evidence consistent with Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is proved that “I would like to change the services in the present Chinese Heavy Industries.” This part of the statement was admissible as evidence for F and M, each prosecutor’s interrogation of the suspect, who was well aware of it from the end of the original trial.” This part of the statement can only be admissible as evidence for reasons such as Defendant AF and the person making the original statement, death, or any other similar circumstances.

However, as long as Defendant A and F, the original person making the original statement, are present at the court of original trial and make statements, the above prosecution protocol is inadmissible.

Therefore, there is no evidence as to this part of the facts charged.

On the other hand, as alleged by Defendant E-defense, the above part of the interrogation protocol of Defendant F and M among the above interrogation protocol of Defendant E is a full text statement, and this part of the protocol is a full text statement by Defendant A and F, the original person, made the original statement, to the effect that they denies their facts of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5679, Dec. 27, 2000).

However, at the court below's first place, F stated that "I do not directly frien the first part of the money," and "I have been sent to the witness," and "I can see if I can work at our company, I can see that I can do so at the present time, and I can see that I would like to see that I would like to help in the modern Heavy Industries, even though I would like to do so, I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that "I would not have first friend with the above, because it was delivered, I would have been introduced later," and that the above statement of F would be sufficient evidence to support the above part of the charges, and that "I would not have any other part of the charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's charges of this case's violation of this case's charges of this case's E."

As to Defendant E’s assertion related to the evidence of the defense counsel, Defendant E’s defense counsel asserts that, on the ground that the Hyundai Heavy Industries ordered the instant emergency development machine, etc., Defendant A did not have any help to the Hyundai Heavy Industries, Defendant A did not give a bribe in relation to the acceptance of the said order. However, Defendant A is a person in charge of the purchase department directly in charge of the former process from bidding of nuclear power aids, including the instant emergency development machine, to the contract, etc., to the contract, and provided money and valuables to Defendant A who is deemed a public official by the Hyundai Heavy Industries, regardless of whether Defendant A actually committed an unlawful act for the Hyundai Heavy Industries, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to Defendant E’s assertion (the brain grant amount is KRW 300 million that A actually received), as described in the facts charged, the bribe amount of KRW 1,002,188,970 from Defendant E, B, and M on the part of Hyundai Heavy Industries is the total amount of KRW 1,002,188,970 that A and F jointly received, and even if the amount of the bribe was returned to A in the course of distribution between F and A, it cannot be deemed that the amount of the bribe amount is limited to the amount of the bribe. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. As to Defendant C’s assertion (no one was involved in the offering of a bribe, the subject of the offering of a bribe is J, and there was no fact that Hyundai Heavy Industries offered a preservation undertaking to J in the process)

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail in its 3.3. of the title "the judgment on the important argument of the Defendant and his defense counsel" under the title III, which is "the judgment on the important argument of the Defendant and his defense counsel". Examining the judgment of the lower court closely and closely with the records, it is acceptable to accept the judgment, and in particular, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendant in the lower judgment.

Pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment below, A and D’s confessions made in the part of the facts charged of bribery at the court below, but all of the facts charged were presented at the court below. D, the party who offered the bribe, denied the fact of offering the bribe as stated in this part of the facts charged, and made confessions in whole at the court below. Such confessions made by A and D, which can be regarded as the co-offenders of the crime of offering the bribe of this case, are sufficiently proven. In light of the various circumstances cited by the court below, there is no reason to suspect objective rationality, and there is no reason to suspect objective rationality, and there is no conflict or conflict with the confessions among circumstantial evidence other than the motive, reason, circumstance, and confessions. In particular, the confessions made in the above A and D are consistent with J, L, and K’s statement or confession that can be regarded as co-offenders of the crime of offering the bribe of this case, and thus, it is difficult to accept the evidence of this part of the court below and the court below's final statement that it does not violate the J.

OK's credibility of the statement

As to whether the Defendant was informed of the fact that KRW 700 million was given prior to the Defendant’s delivery of KRW 700 million to A and the fact that he received the report from K after the establishment of the Defendant, K has made a statement consistent with the above argument by the Defendant’s statement to the effect that not only the above facts were denied at the beginning of the 5th interrogation but also the fact of the crime was committed, and later, the delivery of KRW 700 million to C was contrary to C’s instructions. However, if the Defendant’s assertion was clearly instructed, it is difficult to find out that K without any personal interest in the offering of bribe to deliver money to A, and that it was difficult for K to view that it did not have to deliver KRW 700 million to A with strong pressure, and that it was contrary to the Defendant’s statement that it was contrary to the Defendant’s assertion that it was in violation of the first instance court’s order.

○ Other

The Defendant already delivered KRW 700,000 to A prior to receiving the receiving of oil gas analysis device from the Hyundai Heavy Industries. In light of the fact that there was no way between J and Hyundai Heavy Industries to secure the preservation of the above KRW 700,000 between J and Hyundai Heavy Industries, the Defendant asserts that there was no agreement between the Hyundai Heavy Industries and J on the preservation of the said KRW 70,000, and that the said money is a bribe that the J personally applied to A.

However, in light of the fact that the supply contract of the modern heavy industry and the oil gas analysis device was not concluded in the position of the J, there is no reason to conclude a large amount of bribe of KRW 700 million to A by raising funds by embezzlement of company funds of any of the BTex, and in particular, as the circumstances where D withdraws personal interests in the process of the agreement on the creation and grant method of the above money creation and grant method were discovered to J and A, and D is excluded from the above work, and D is strongly demanded to enter into an agreement on the preservation method of the modern heavy industry, and in order to secure the implementation of the preservation agreement for the modern heavy industry, it is difficult to accept the above argument of the Defendant in light of the circumstances that: (a) intervention of K, an employee of the modern heavy industry, who is an employee of the modern heavy industry, to directly deliver the funds prepared by

D. As to Defendant C’s assertion of abuse of public prosecution power

In the lower court, the Defendant made the same assertion as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in Section III-B under title III-2, “Judgment on the important arguments of the Defendant and his defense counsel,” and upon closely comparing the judgment of the lower court with the records, the judgment can be justified, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of abuse of public prosecution right, such as the Defendant’s assertion, in this case. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant

E. As to Defendant F’s assertion (i) a crime of aiding and abetting acceptance of bribe, or (ii) a crime of acquiring a third-party brain material, not a crime of acceptance of bribe, should be applied; (iii) a punishment should be reduced or exempted in accordance with the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act; and (iv) the appraised amount corresponding to the actual service performed by the Defendant

1) First, the court below rejected the above argument in light of the title V I. and the title V. and 3.F. The reasoning for the sentence in detail under the title "the judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the important arguments". The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

2) Next, we examine the Defendant’s above assertion.

Even if a public official contributed part of the amount equivalent to the value of a bribe to the other party for the purpose of acquiring a bribe or provided other economic benefits, it shall be deemed that it is merely an incidental expense incurred in receiving a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1638, Oct. 8, 199).

The part of the Defendant’s direct performance of a part of the service based on the instant service contract is recognized. However, in full view of the various circumstances indicated in the instant case, such as the developments and process of the conclusion of the instant service contract, the details of the service actually performed, the evaluation thereof, and recognition and allocation of roles between the Defendant and related persons, etc., the instant service contract can be deemed to have been concluded only in appearance for the offering of bribe in connection with the successful bid in the modern Heavy Industries, and thus, it can be deemed that the service was already planned to have been “in the beginning” and the content of the service actually performed by the Defendant is very weak. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the part of the service that was partially implemented or the corresponding payment was merely an incidental expense disbursed for the receipt of brain in the legal doctrine as seen earlier. Accordingly, the

3. Determination on the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

A. Defendant A

There are many circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant actively demanded a bribe against related business entities by taking advantage of the so-called "A" position of the person in charge of the purchasing department of Hanwon, and that the defendant plans and implements the crime of bribery to which he directly placed a service contract and the contract for the issuance of goods is the most weak nature of the crime, and that the fairness and the uncertainty of the defendant's execution of duties concerning the purchase and execution of the original parts requiring high safety due to each of the crimes of this case is seriously damaged, the total amount of the bribe received by the defendant is equal to KRW 1,702,18,970, and the defendant submits a distorted rebuttal during the trial process of this case, etc.

However, in the meantime, the defendant is deemed a public official, the defendant was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor due to the charge of forging the test report-related Act, etc. When the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, each of the crimes of this case and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes. In this case, the defendant may be sentenced to a fine for most of the defendant's property, or may be detained in a labor station for a long time corresponding to the amount of fine that has not been executed after the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment, the defendant was seized in the amount of the accepted bribery of this case, the defendant was not subject to criminal punishment, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the defendant has contributed to the conclusion of the original labor by actively cooperating in investigation in other corruption-related cases than this case.

As above, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case, such as favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant, the age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, are considered together with the amount of imprisonment with prison labor of the public prosecutor (a fine of eight years, a fine of forty million won, a fine of forty thousand won, a penalty of KRW 1,03,00,000) and the scope of recommendations for sentencing guidelines (a fine of eleven years or more), the sentence imposed by the court below is unreasonable. Accordingly, the defendant's argument in this part of the grounds for appeal is with merit.

B. Defendant B

Unlike the statement of the intent of the specific confession at the prosecution, the following circumstances are also unreasonable: (a) the nature of the crime is not less complicated in that the Defendant was directly in charge of the crime of the offering of the bribe in this case, (b) the amount of the offering of the bribe in this case reaches KRW 1 billion; and (c) the Defendant, unlike the statement of the intent of the specific confession at the lower court and the lower court, completely denying the crime; and (d) the fact that

However, the Defendant did not have the highest position in the decision-making process in the modern Heavy Industries, and the Defendant also took part in the instant crime according to the superior’s instruction, and the Defendant did not commit the instant crime for the purpose of taking personal benefits, and the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to the fine for one time prior to the instant case.

In addition, considering the equity in sentencing and the scope of recommended sentences (two to three years of imprisonment) in the sentencing guidelines with accomplices whose degree of participation is similar to the conditions shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Accordingly, the defendant's argument in this part of the grounds for appeal is with merit.

C. Defendant C and E

The number of bribes provided by the Defendants (the amount equivalent to KRW 1 billion, KRW 3.7 billion) is large, and the method of the acceptance is also likely to cause the poor nature of the crime by suggesting the service contract and the goods order contract, and the Defendants are obliged to fulfill their social responsibilities, such as ethical management, etc. of large companies in the Republic of Korea. However, the Defendants led the instant crime, leading the instant crime, and the fact that the investigation agency denies most of the facts in which they participated from the investigation agency to the trial, and did not violate their mistakes.

However, there is no special criminal power against the Defendants, and the Defendants do not seek their own personal interests, but rather make a simple thought that they contributed to raising corporate interests as its officers, and the Defendants appears to have participated in the crime of this case in response to the active demands and consistent plans by the consignees. Although the amount of the bribe is large, although it does not seem that there is a defect in the supply goods of the modern Heavy Industries, the Defendants seem to have worked in good faith for a long time as the officers of the modern Heavy Industries are favorable to the Defendants.

As above, if all of the sentencing conditions stated in the instant argument, such as favorable or unfavorable circumstances, the Defendants’ age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc., are considered as well as the scope of recommended punishment (two to three years of imprisonment) under the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants appears to be somewhat unreasonable. As such, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendants is not accepted. Accordingly, the Defendants’ allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is with merit.

D. Defendant D’s involvement in the act of taking part in the act of offering the bribe in collusion with the bribery recipient, such as taking part in the act of specifically determining the amount of offering the bribe or the method of offering the bribe, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant has an aspect according to the instruction of commercial C, the defendant was excluded from the business of this case and did not participate in the actual crime of offering of a bribe in the middle, the defendant cannot expect the remaining accomplices to prevent the crime after being excluded from the business of this case in light of the defendant's position in the company, etc., and all the facts of the crime have been led to the trial, and there is no record of criminal punishment in addition to the previous criminal records of a fine for one time prior to the transfer of this case.

As above, all the sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentences (two to three years of imprisonment) as shown in the argument in this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, which are unfavorable or favorable to the Defendant, have been detained for more than six months up to the present day. However, considering that the imposition of treatment within the society, such as suspension of the execution of imprisonment, could sufficiently cause special preventive effects, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant appears to be unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is justified, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

E. Defendant F began with the active proposal of the instant crime, which is an accomplice, and the active statement made by the Defendant to the investigation agency was significantly contributed to the Defendant’s revealing the appearance of the instant bribe crime that pretended to the service contract, and the driving under the influence of alcohol has no record of other crimes, and there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as having no record of other crimes.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case, in collusion with Korea-U.S. employees, was an act of receiving a large amount of bribe from large enterprises in the form of service contract, and the nature of the crime is extremely poor, and the amount received is a large amount of KRW 1 billion. The Defendant served as a key role in the execution of the crime of bribery of this case which is the most favorable to the service contract. The Defendant realized a certain portion of his own interest in relation to the distribution of the bribe; the Defendant made a statement to the prosecutor’s office and the lower court to the effect that he made a confession in the trial, but denies not only his own crime but also his accomplices' facts of the crime, etc., which

In full view of the above factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, as well as all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, as well as the fact that the lower court imposed the sentence equivalent to the lower sentence, which is far shorter than the recommended punishment set in the sentencing guidelines (nine years to twelve years), the lower court’s punishment belongs to an appropriate scope and it cannot be deemed that it is too unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by Defendant F is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by Defendant A, B, C, D, and E is without merit. Since each appeal by Defendant A, B, D, and E is well-grounded, each part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, C, D, and E is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant C, D, and E is decided as follows through pleading (the appeal by the public prosecutor against the Defendant C, D, and E is accepted by the same Defendants, and the appeal by the same Defendants

【Grounds for a new judgment】

[Defendant A, B, C, D, and E]

Criminal facts

The facts of criminal facts against Defendant A, B, C, D, and E are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below in the original trial, and "after that fact, Defendant F is in the corporate account of Geoenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenen******-1-one in its new account*-1-one in its new account**-one's-one's-one in its title*-one's.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence of the defendant A, B, C, D, and E, which the court acknowledged, added "the summary of the evidence" to "the criminal facts of the judgment in the original trial, Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act" to "1. witness F, Q, R, and A (excluding the defendant separated from the pleading)'s pleading, and Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act to "1. witness D's original trial, Part of the defendant A's original trial, 1. witness J's original trial, 1. witness R, 1. witness R (excluding the other defendants separated from the pleading)", and part of the prosecutor's examination of the suspect's examination of the defendant from the prosecutor's office excluding the part of the defendant's previous trial in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, excluding the part of the defendant's previous trial and the part of the prosecutor's examination of the defendant from the prosecutor's office excluding the part of the defendant's previous trial in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act."

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the occupation of acceptance of bribe under paragraph (2) at the time of the original adjudication, including the occupation of a limited term), Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management, etc. of Public Institutions (the occupation of acceptance of bribe under paragraph (3) at the time of the original adjudication, including the occupation of acceptance of bribe under paragraph (3),), Articles 357(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management, etc. of Public Institutions (the occupation of acceptance of bribe under

(b) Defendant B and E: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act at the time of the original trial, including the fact of offering of a bribe), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act at the time of original trial

1. Imposition of fines concurrently;

Defendant A: Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (as to the acceptance of bribe as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of the aforementioned Article)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in case of imprisonment with prison labor, the punishment and imprisonment with prison labor shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes resulting from a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) provided for in paragraph (2) when a judgment is rendered with the largest sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, and in case of a fine with prison labor, punishment with prison labor shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes resulting from a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant D: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (U.S. circumstances favorable to Defendant D’s above ground for reversal)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 and the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The presiding judge, the number of judges;

Applicable Mutatis Mutandis to judge gambling

Judges Anti-Jin-dong

1) As to the judgment of the court below that stated the appellate brief, the supplementary brief and the summary of oral argument, etc. submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Thus, such mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate

The arguments shall be taken into consideration only in supplement of the arguments stated in the grounds of appeal.

2) Under the following, the name "defendant" is used only for the defendant who falls under any of the items, and the remaining defendants

state only the name.