A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

B was a person who was in a relationship with the victim E from around 2005 to 2012, and the defendant A became aware of the victim through the defendant B, who was his female mother, around 2012, and was committed as if he was well aware of the person who works in the Cheongbu.

The Defendants knew that the victim was detained by the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to false accusation between F and G, and that the victim was detained for a six-month period, and that the victim was found to have a person to exercise influence on the investigation agency to be detained in the case that the victim filed a complaint with F and G with no accusation, etc., and suggested that the victim would be able to receive money from the victim under the pretext of receiving money from the investigative agency.

Accordingly, on March 23, 2015, Defendant B opened the victim to the I cafeteria located in Seosan City H, and Defendant A asked the public prosecutor in charge to exercise the pressure from the victim so that F and G may receive the custody investigation from the victim and asked the victim to talk with the public prosecutor in charge through a person who is well aware of it.

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have any person who does not have any intention or ability to detain F and G by making a request to the public prosecutor in charge, even if they received money from the victim in the name of the cost of receiving money from the victim.

As above, the Defendants were issued KRW 19,70,000,000 won cashier’s checks, i.e., KRW 10,000,00 won cashier’s checks, KRW 8,100,000, and KRW 17,000,00 won cashier’s checks, under the pretext of the number of checks from the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim to receive the property by deceiving him, and at the same time, received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the case handled by the public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. E.