If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On June 29, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “F may be prosecuted upon the victim’s request for the case, if the victim was well aware of the victim D’s complainted E, but the witness was suspended.” The Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “F may be prosecuted at the expense of KRW 1.5 million.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to prosecute E through a person who works in the government prosecutor's office.

The Defendant, as such, received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the case that public officials handle at the same time by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 1,500,000 from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime; Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;