168,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On September 28, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months at the Seoul Northern District Court for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 8, 2010.

around September 2008, the defendant was investigated by the police due to the violation of the Regulation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Activities, etc. in front of the Gangseo-gu, Seoul. The defendant was asked by the victim D and his wife E, who was the chairperson of the (State)C, or by the investigative agency to write his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant told that "it is possible for the police and the prosecutor to make the police and the prosecutor to conduct an investigation, make the police and the prosecutor not to be detained, and even if they are detained, it will be punished to the maximum extent so that it will continue to provide school expenses."

Therefore, the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000 from the victims on October 2, 2008 for school expenses and expenses, from that time to April 10, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 168,000,000 from the victims on a total of 26 occasions from that time.

Accordingly, the defendant received money under the pretext of solicitation for cases or affairs handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution (including each part of D, E, F, and G statements);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the choice of imprisonment, inclusive, with respect to facts constituting an offense and punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a receipt of money and valuables by the defendant to the victim who was under investigation by the police at the request of an investigative agency, and the crime of this case is less severe in light of the details thereof, the method of crime and the amount to which the defendant was given.

The defendant sees that he has a considerable friendship with those who work in a line of judicial agencies, such as the police and the prosecution.