beta
인천지방법원 2012.05.31 2012고합18

변호사법위반

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and six months, respectively.

Defendant

A 50 million won from A,

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) and Defendant A is the director and Defendant C is the chief management officer.

I, which was considered as a matter of the construction of a factory in the H forest of Kimpo-si, was introduced to the defendant A, who was known as the completion of solving the problem.

On January 9, 2007, G was awarded a contract for the construction of a new factory with the introduction of Defendant A who was requested by I to build a new factory, and both G and Defendant A were responsible for and responsible for the construction of a new factory under the contract.

1. On January 11, 2007, Defendant A violated the Attorney-at-Law Act by Defendant A received KRW 50 million in cash from Defendant A for the construction of the above factory in order to obtain the consent of the military unit in the vicinity of the establishment of the above factory, in front of the Kusung-JT Office located in the Goak-gu Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju District Office.

As a result, Defendant A received KRW 50 million under the pretext of solicitation or good offices for the affairs handled by public officials.

2. Defendant A and B violated the Attorney-at-Law Act, around August 2007, in order to construct the above factory, Defendant A received KRW 100 million in cash from Defendant A from the public official in charge of obtaining Kimpo-si approval and approval for Kimpo-si for the construction of the factory, and around that time, delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant B in a way of reporting to Defendant B before the J Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Kimpo-si.

Defendant

B, I received KRW 100 million from Defendant A and C to the public official in charge of the authorization and permission of Kimpo-Viewing and viewing.

As a result, Defendant A and B received KRW 100 million under the pretext of solicitation or good offices on the affairs handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement, Defendant B and C’s partial legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness I and K;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A, B, and C by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each contract and a copy of each contract.