2013 Gohap445 - 1 (Joints)

Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

reference domicile Leecheon-si

47,500,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

[2013Gohap371]

1. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money or valuables on the pretext of solicitation;

피고인은 2011 . 5 . 4 . 경 서울 서초구 서초동에 있는 피고인의 사무실에서 , 그곳을 찾 아온 조♤♤으로부터 " 사기죄로 고소당했는데 서울중앙지방검찰청에서 출석하라고 한 다 " 는 말을 듣고 , 조♤♤에게 " 서울중앙지방검찰청에 아는 수사관들이 많으니 부탁하여 사건을 잘 처리해 주겠다 " 는 취지로 말한 다음 , 조♤♤으로부터 검찰수사관에 대한 청 탁 명목으로 200만 원을 수수한 것을 비롯하여 , 그때부터 2012 . 8 . 20 . 경까지 별지 ' 범 죄일람표 1 ' 기재와 같이 청탁 명목으로 3회에 걸쳐 합계 400만 원을 교부받았다 .

Accordingly, the defendant can accept money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials.

2. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to receipt of money or valuables after brokerage;

피고인은 2008 . 9 . 경부터 2009 . 경까지 사이에 서울 서초구 서초동에 있는 피고인의 사무실에서 , 교통사고 가해자를 상대로 한 손해배상청구를 위해 그곳을 찾아온 허♤♤ 에게 " 내가 변호사 사무실에서 오랫동안 근무하면서 교통사고 사건을 많이 다뤘으니까 걱정하지 마라 . 적게는 8 , 9천만 원에서 많게는 1억 5천만 원까지 받을 수 있다 " 고 말 하며 조△△ 변호사를 선임하도록 한 다음 , 그 무렵 조△△ 변호사로부터 변호사 선임 료 550만 원 중 100만 원을 받은 것을 비롯하여 , 그때부터 2012 . 6 . 19 . 경까지 별지 ' 범죄일람표 2 ' 기재와 같이 총 9회에 걸쳐 법률사건을 변호사에게 알선하고 그 대가로 수임료 8 , 620만원 중 합계 1 , 400만 원을 수수하고 , 500만 원을 요구하였다 .

As a result, the defendant arranged the parties to a legal case to a specific attorney, and received or demanded money in return.

3. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the handling of legal affairs by non-Attorney;

From November 2, 201 to December 14, 2012, the Defendant opened a 3rd, Seocho-dong office in Seoul, from around November 2, 201 to around December 14, 2012; from around December 18, 2012, opened a 5th office in the same area; and opened a 110,000 to 130,000 won per case under the name of an attorney-at-law for bankruptcy, exemption, rehabilitation, etc.; and up to now, opened a 5th office in the same area; and opened a 10,000 to 130,000 won per case.

Around November 2, 2011, the Defendant conspired with this in the foregoing manner with the head of the office around this day, consulted with the head of the Cheongju District Court about about 760,100,000 won for personal rehabilitation, agreed to handle the case, received a fee of KRW 110,00 to KRW 1,30,000 for personal rehabilitation, and provided documents necessary to apply for personal rehabilitation in the name of the Cheongju District Court, and provided legal affairs concerning non-contentious cases by receiving money and valuables in collusion with this head of the office from about April 18, 2013, including filing an application for personal rehabilitation in the name of the Cheongju District Court, from that time until April 18, 2013.

[2013Gohap445 - 1]

피고인은 2009 . 2 . 경 서울 서초구 서초동에 있는 피고인의 사무실에서 , 그곳을 찾아 온 정♤♤의 사기 고소사건을 조△△ 변호사가 선임할 수 있도록 알선한 다음 , 그 무 렵 조△△ 변호사로부터 변호사 선임료 500만 원 중 100만 원을 받은 것을 비롯하여 , 그때부터 2012 . 6 . 경까지 별지 ' 범죄일람표 ( 사건 알선 ) ' 순번 2 내지 8 , 11 , 13 , 20 , 22 내지 25 , 28 기재와 같이 15회에 걸쳐 법률사건을 변호사에게 알선하고 그 대가로 합 계 2 , 950만 원을 수수하였다 .

As a result, the defendant provided the parties with respect to the acceptance of a legal case, and received money and valuables in return for it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Current status of receipt of a detailed statement of revenue and expenditure, certificate of transfer of Internet banking, written request, bankruptcy, exemption from liability, etc.;

1. Investigation report (report on confirmation of remittances presumed to have been suspected of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act), investigation report (Bankruptcy or Exemption);

In the case Broer and the name lending attorney's personal information, an investigation report (personal rehabilitation, correspondence, and amnesty)

(Report on Attachment of False Documentary Evidence Related to Book case), investigation report (civil criminal cases arranged by attorneys-at-law)

Further confirmation report), investigation report (the additional confirmation report of the case)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

each Attorney-at-Law Act Article 111(1)(a) of each Attorney-at-Law Act (a point of giving or receiving money or goods for solicitation), Article 109(2);

Article 34(1)2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the point of receipt or request of money after good offices), Article 109(1)1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(a), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of dealing with legal affairs by non-legal practitioners, inclusive), each choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Fluoral Defenses With the Maximum Punishment and Offense)

(g) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the handling of legal affairs;

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendant, without being qualified as an attorney-at-law, opened an office directly in the name of the attorney-at-law and recruited the office chiefs in order to deal with cases, such as strike and discharge, and arranged a large number of names of the public in order from November 201 to April 201, and had them deal with legal affairs in the name of the attorney-at-law by paying a certain amount every month from around April 201 to April 201. In addition, the Defendant provided money and valuables equivalent to KRW 50 million in total in exchange for orders of solicitation or referral of legal cases to prosecution investigators, etc. In addition, the Defendant prevented the illegal intervention of legal cases by the Defendant, thereby promoting the smooth operation of legal order, and ensuring transparency and morality in legal affairs, and taking into account the circumstances where the attorney-at-law’s law’s legislative intent to guarantee transparency and morality in criminal justice has been considerably dismissed, and the possibility of criticism has also been significantly damaged, and the Defendant’s acceptance of sentence for a total of up to 1.6 billion won in light of the circumstances corresponding to the Defendant’s criminal act.

However, in full view of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, there is no more than a period of suspension of execution, and there is no criminal record of the same kind of crime, and the defendant's age, occupation, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

Judges Su Young-young

Judges Jeong-he