변호사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
15,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged is an official in charge of D, etc. in the current planning and finance division C division, and from April 2003 to January 2005, the Defendant was in charge of the duty to compile the Korean Petroleum Institute budget from the planning and budget division budget to the planning and budget division of industrial information.
1) On September 29, 2013, at around 11:20 on September 29, 2013, the Defendant received a shopping white paper containing KRW 10 million in cash on the street of a coffee shop from G and H, upon receiving a request from G and H to ensure that “The Defendant may undergo re-inspection or control the gas stations regulated by fake petroleum products.”
2) On October 4, 2013, the Defendant received transfer of KRW 5 million from G to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant at the point located in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd. located in 175, Young-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., which was located in 175.
3) On November 11, 2013, at the J restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 19:00, the Defendant demanded H to provide that “at the time of receiving the above solicitation, the Defendant was provided with KRW 10 million in cash on the same page, stating that “at the time of subsequent detention, the cost of attorney’s appointment is required, and the cost of attorney’s appointment is changed to KRW 30 million.”
Accordingly, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials.
B. The lower court’s determination 1) In light of the following circumstances as to Article 1 of the facts charged, the lower court: (a) deemed that the police officer M’s statement in the lower court was inadmissible; and (b) the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was issued KRW 10 million from G and H as stated in this part of the facts charged.
It is difficult to conclude this.