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

No money or valuables shall be received under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement for cases or affairs handled by a public official.

Nevertheless, on January 13, 2014, the Defendant met the victim B under detention in the meeting room of the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, and said, “The Director-General of the Inspection Office of the Prosecutors’ Office is well known, and there are many prosecutors who are aware of it. I would make it difficult for the Defendant to receive summary prosecution or suspended execution.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to release the victim by a suspended sentence, upon solicitation of the public official in charge of investigation and trial.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from C in cash on the same day, and received KRW 6 million on February 14, 2014, KRW 1200,000 on March 6, 2014, KRW 100,000 on April 4, 2014, and KRW 200,000 on April 25, 2014 from the Defendant’s new bank account to the Defendant’s new bank account, and received a total of KRW 30,20,000 on the pretext of soliciting the case to be handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Act on the Statement of Evidence to Prosecution B

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the receipt of money in the name of a request for a case dealt with by a public official);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is that the sentencing criteria do not present a separate handling method for the commercial concurrent crimes, so the sentencing criteria cannot be applied.

Although it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly because the nature of the crime is not good, the defendant's mistake is recognized and divided, and the victim consents.