변호사법위반등
1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for 10 months, by imprisonment for 8 months, and by imprisonment for 6 months, respectively.
2. The defendant.
Punishment of the crime
1. On December 10, 2010, previous convictions and Defendant C had been sentenced to two years and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Incheon District Court and two years and eight months of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 17th of the same month.
2. On November 2009, the criminal facts I received KRW 300 million in return for a request to create a deposit passbook for presentation which was deposited by J at least KRW 350 billion.
After that, it is found that the deposit passbook created by I was made using forged promissory notes, and I was accused of fraud from J around February 2010 to the Seocho Police Station.
By using a forged promissory note, K and L, who actually created the above deposit passbook, had a debate about the above problem on the issue to the defendant A and B, who was known to the general public. A.
Defendant
On February 2010, Defendant A violated the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to the following: (a) at a coffee shop in which it is impossible to ascertain the trade name near the same-sex party located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant A was charged with this case; (b) a police officer affiliated with the National Police Agency (Seoul Local Police Agency) located in Namsan, who paid money to him to him; (c) a police officer of the National Police Agency (referring to the Seoul Local Police Agency) located in Namsan, who is a police officer in charge of the Seocho Police Agency, and (d) a police officer of the Seocho Police Agency (referring to the Seoul Local Police Agency), who received instructions from N, and instead did so for six (6) months, after being investigated and detained C. In order to proceed with this work, Defendant A was exempted from the obligation of 140 million won, 100 million won and 150 million won and 50 million won, and Defendant was exempted from the obligation of 10 million won and 50 million won as above.
As a result, the defendant received money, valuables and benefits under the pretext of solicitation or good offices with respect to cases or affairs handled by public officials.
(b).