[2] The relationship between "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by promise to receive money and other valuables" and "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" in case where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives money and other valuables after promising to receive money and other valuables to act as an agent for a litigation case, and whether "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" can be punished as "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" in

[3] Where Defendant et al., who is not a lawyer, entered into a contract with Party A for the claim for cancellation of registration of initial ownership and the contingent fee, and received money from Party A in return for mediating the above litigation case, the case rejecting Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has already run from the time of the above mediation and the statute of limitations has expired at the time of the above indictment

[4] In a case where Defendants, such as the chief secretary of the office of the attorney-at-law et al. conspired, and the State or local governments received part of the winning price after the judgment in favor of the Defendants in return for representing or handling the legal affairs of the so-called "exploiting the land," such as finding the descendants of the land used without legitimate authority and filing a lawsuit against the State et al., even though they are not attorneys-at-law, the case holding that the Defendants violated Article 109

[2] In a case where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, promises to receive money and other valuables and receives money and other valuables after arranging a litigation case, etc., the above "act of mediating money and other valuables constitutes the elements of "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" as well as "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables." Although the "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables is established by arranging a proxy in a litigation case, the "act of receiving money and other valuables" is incorporated into "an act of receiving money and other valuables" and the "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" is not established separately and only constitutes "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables" after the expiration of the statute of limitations period of limitation period of "violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money and other valuables pursuant to the promise to receive money and other valuables", the act of receiving money and other valuables after the expiration of the statute of limitation period can no longer be punished for the completion of limitation period.

[3] The case rejecting the Defendant’s assertion that, in a case where the Defendant, other than an attorney-at-law, was indicted for violation of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008) on the ground that he/she received money from the attorney-at-law in return for mediation after entering into a contract for the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership and the contingent fee agreement with the attorney-at-law, he/she received money from the attorney-at-law in return for mediation, the statute of limitations for the violation of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008), if he/she received money from the Defendant, etc. after entering into the above contract for the delegation of the above lawsuit, it constitutes “the former Attorney-at-law Act by arranging for the case, etc. and receiving money after the delegation of the contract,” thereby constituting “the violation of the former Attorney-at-law Act by receiving money.”

[4] In a case where Defendants, such as the office chief of the attorney-at-law office, conspired to register the preservation of ownership without a legitimate title, and the State or a local government found the descendants of the land used as road sites, etc. and had them file a lawsuit against the State, etc., and received part of the winning price after the favorable judgment was rendered in return for the payment of the legal services of the so-called "exploiting the land" that the State or a local government performed as an agent for consultation on compensation, the case holding that the Defendants violated Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act

From Defendant 1, KRW 123,720,286, KRW 737,244,829 from Defendant 2, and KRW 550,24,829 from Defendant 3 shall be additionally collected.

No one, other than an attorney-at-law, shall handle or arrange legal counseling, preparation of legal documents and other legal affairs concerning a litigation case or other general legal case, in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits.

Nevertheless, the Defendants discovered and accessed the descendants of the original owner of the land used in the road site, etc. for a long time after having been registered for preservation of ownership by the State or a local government without any justifiable authority for a long time since the Japanese colonial period, and then tried to appoint an attorney-at-law from KRW 3 million to KRW 5 million to proceed with the litigation related to the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership due to the invalidation of the cause against the State or a local government registered as the land owner, such as the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership due to the invalidation of the cause, and to deal with the legal affairs of the so-called "exploiting the unclaimed land" and to distribute profits by receiving 20% to 40% or 40% of the litigation price at the time of winning the above descendants.

1. Defendant 1 and 2’s crime of conspiracy with Nonindicted 2

Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2, around November 3, 2003, entered into an agreement with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 to the effect that, at the law office of law, registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the State, Nonindicted 3, the descendants of the site for the road on four parcels of land, including Handora (hereinafter omitted), the original owner of the site for the road, which is in the use of the city in Yong-si, and introduced them to Defendant 1. Defendant 1 entered into a contract to accept the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonindicted 1’s attorney-at-law, and entered into the contract to accept the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership in the above site for the above road that became the Defendant Republic of Korea, separately, the aforementioned “the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership” was made with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 “the economic value at the time of winning 40%” under the pretext of success in the lawsuit, and was rendered a favorable judgment by the Suwon District Court on October 22, 2004.

Afterward, the Defendants and Nonindicted 2 obtained, on behalf of Nonindicted 3, an application for the compensation of the unclaimed land and consultation on the compensation amount in accordance with the above winning judgment, from December 2, 2005 to March 6, 2007, the Defendants and Nonindicted 2 received from Nonindicted 3 for the total sum of KRW 600 million of the compensation amount for the land from Young-si and received from Nonindicted 3 for the total sum of KRW 205,405,722 from December 14, 2005 to March 6, 2007.

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted 2, the Defendants received or promised to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits from the case, and provided or mediated legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs, and received a total amount of KRW 205,405,722 in return for such act.

2. Crimes committed in collusion with Nonindicted 4 by Defendant 1

Nonindicted 4, around December 2004, entered into an agreement with Nonindicted 1’s legal office to the effect that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the State, and that Nonindicted 5, the descendants of the original owner of the road site located in Pyeongtaek-dong (hereinafter omitted), Pyeongtaek-dong (hereinafter omitted), would be introduced to Defendant 1. Defendant 1 entered into a contract for the acceptance of the claim for rent on the above road site that became the Plaintiff 5 and the Defendant, in the name of Nonindicted 1’s attorney, and the Defendant 1 would pay 40% of the economic value at the time of winning the contract with Nonindicted 5, separately from Nonindicted 1’s attorney, and received a favorable judgment from the Suwon District Court around August 30, 2006.

On October 11, 2006, the Defendant and Nonindicted 4, on behalf of Nonindicted 5, submitted the “written request for rent claim and for transfer to an account” under the above winning judgment against Pyeongtaek-si on behalf of Nonindicted 5, and had Nonindicted 5 receive an amount equivalent to KRW 27,430,620 from Pyeongtaek-si in return, and received an amount equivalent to KRW 8,228,686 from Nonindicted 5 in return.

In such a way, the Defendant and Nonindicted 4 received a total of KRW 153,722,416 from three persons, including Nonindicted 5, as shown in the attached Table (1).

As a result, the defendant and the non-indicted 4 conspired to receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, and dealt with or arrange legal counseling, preparation of legal documents and other legal affairs, and received a total of KRW 153,722,416 in return for such act.

3. Crimes committed in collusion with Nonindicted 2 by Defendant 1

In around the end of 2003, Nonindicted 2 introduced to the Defendant by finding Nonindicted 6, the descendants of the original owner of the road site located in Jongno-si, Seoul-si (hereinafter omitted), which was used in the territory of the State, at the law office of law around the end of 2003, the registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of the State, and introduced to the Defendant. The Defendant entered into a contract to accept the claim for confirmation of ownership on the above road site that became the Plaintiff 6 and the Defendant, in the name of the attorney of Nonindicted 1, and entered into a separate contract with Nonindicted 6 to the effect that “20% or 40% of the economic value acquired at the time of winning” shall be paid as the contingent reward for the lawsuit in question with Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 6, without knowledge of the fact of the contract, by having Nonindicted 1 attorney-at-law file a lawsuit, and was finally confirmed on September 18, 2003.

Afterward, the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2, on behalf of Nonindicted Party 6, consulted on the application for the compensation of the unclaimed land and the compensation in accordance with the winning judgment, and around December 2005, the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2, on behalf of Nonindicted Party 6, had Nonindicted Party 6 receive the total amount of KRW 1 billion of the compensation for the unclaimed land from the Young-si, and received from Nonindicted Party 6 the amount equivalent to KRW 250 million around that time.

In such a way, the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 received a total of KRW 256 million from two persons, including Nonindicted Party 6, as shown in the attached Table (2).

As a result, the defendant and the non-indicted 2 conspired to receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, and dealt with or arrange legal counseling, preparation of legal documents and other legal affairs in the case, and received a total of KRW 256 million in return.

4. Defendant 2 and 3’s crime of conspiracy with Nonindicted 7

Defendant 2 and 3, at around May 2007, prepared a transfer agreement with Nonindicted 8 and 9 law office located in Suwon-si (hereinafter omitted), to the effect that “Nonindicted 10, the original owner of the road site located in Suwon-si, for which registration of ownership preservation has been made in the name of the State, and the registration of ownership preservation has been made in the name of the State, and that Nonindicted 7 introduced to Nonindicted 7, the head of the above law office, and that Nonindicted 8, under the name of the attorney-at-law, entered into a contract to accept the claim for registration of ownership transfer of the above road site that became the Republic of Korea and the defendant, upon which Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10, transfer the share equivalent to 25% of the land at the time of winning” under the pretext of the success of the lawsuit, and that “The transfer of the share equivalent to the 25% of the land at the time of winning,” and that the winning agreement of the winning agreement was rendered final and conclusive from the above judgment of the Supreme Court on November 15, 2007.

After that, the defendant 2 and 3 obtained, on behalf of the non-indicted 10 on behalf of the non-indicted 10, an application for compensation for the unclaimed land and a consultation on compensation in accordance with the winning judgment, and around July 2009, the non-indicted 10 had the non-indicted 10 paid the unclaimed land amounting to KRW 188,550,000 from the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation, and received, on behalf of the non-indicted 10, the amount equivalent to KRW 42,000 from the non-indicted 10 on July 24, 2009.

In such a way, the Defendants and Nonindicted 7 received a total amount of KRW 1,100,489,659 from 13 persons, such as Nonindicted 10, etc., as shown in the attached Table (3).

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted 7, the Defendants received or promised to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, and received or promised to receive legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs in the litigation case, and received or arranged these acts, and received a total of KRW 1,100,489,659 in return.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 11, 12, and 1

1. Investigation reports (Listening to Nonindicted 3’s statement), investigation reports (Attachment to Nonindicted 11’s statement statements), investigation reports (Attachment to the copy of the judgment), investigation reports (Attachment to the copy of the judgment), investigation reports (the results of the account tracking), investigation reports (the second report), investigation reports (the results of account tracking), investigation reports (the submission of Nonindicted 4’s statement hearing), investigation reports (the submission of Nonindicted 4’s reference materials), investigation reports (the submission of Nonindicted 13, etc.’s report on compensation documents), and investigation reports

1. The certificate of deposits without passbook, certificate of remittance (Evidence No. 18), detailed statement of transfer income tax (Evidence No. 21), defendant 1, defendant 1, written agreement, written agreement, written application for the change of indication of a party, written application for the change of indication of a party, written decision (No. 24), agricultural cooperative account (No. 40), written decision (No. 120), written contract for compensation (No. 129), land use plan confirmation (No. 129), written statement of compensation for Bora-dong land (No. 267);

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 14

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Defendant 1’s possession floft storage document), investigation report (verification of the fact that Defendant 1 introduced Nonindicted 15 from Defendant 1 and 2 and had the client receive land compensation through a lawsuit), investigation report (verification of the fact that Defendant 1 received land compensation amounting to KRW 221,50,855 on behalf of Nonindicted 15 and received land compensation amounting to KRW 85,40,00 among them), investigation report (a confirmation of the fact that the amount of KRW 221,50,855) and investigation report (a compilation of related compensation documents, such as Nonindicted

1. Briefs related to Nonindicted 15 (Evidence No. 1088 of the Evidence Records), written claim for rent related to Nonindicted 16 (No. 1103), reference materials such as land sales contract (No. 1177 pages), and written request for the provision of financial transaction information (No. 1195 pages)

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 17

1. Investigation report (a confirmation of Defendant 1’s additional suspicion and attachment of supporting documents), investigation report (Attachment of Defendant 1’s possession flouses storage document), investigation report (a confirmation of the fact of mediation of Nonindicted 6’s lawsuit), investigation report (a confirmation of Nonindicted 2’s personal information), investigation report (a confirmation of Nonindicted 6’s application for land compensation and submission of supporting documents), investigation report (a copy of Nonindicted 6’s application for land compensation and submission of supporting documents), and investigation report (a filing

1. Documents related to Nonindicted 17 (Evidence No. 1004), a warden (No. 1027), a warden and a written claim for compensation (No. 1042), a written decision (No. 1046), a written decision (No. 1076), a written claim for compensation (No. 1076), a preparatory document related to Nonindicted 17 (No. 1084), a reply to a written request for rent (No. 1163), a deposit without passbook (No. 1164), a statement of transactions (No. 2 remittance details, No. 1165)

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 3;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendants 2, 3, and 7

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 7

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 18, 10, 13, 19, 20, 8, 21, and 22

1. Each written statement prepared by the Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 7

1. The case holding that: (a) an investigation report (to be attached to Defendant 3’s statement and the execution of the search and seizure of the office found on the ground); (b) an office site photograph (to be removed from 501); (c) an investigation report (to be attached to Defendant 2); (d) an investigation report (to be attached to a copy of the receipt of the litigation record); (e) an investigation report (to be attached to a copy of the receipt of the litigation record); (d) an investigation report (to be attached to a copy of the receipt of the litigation record); (e) an investigation report (to be attached to Nonindicted 9, 8’s office office’s confirmation of the fact that the head of Nonindicted 7 is Nonindicted 23, 24, 25, 27, 28; (d) an investigation report (to be attached to Nonindicted 27; (e) Nonindicted 1) an investigation report (to be attached to Nonindicted 29; (e) Nonindicted 29; (g) Nonindicted 1) an investigation report (to be attached to Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 300 million statement; and an investigation report on the receipt and statement of the Defendant 200.

1. A partnership contract (Evidence No. 426 pages), Nonindicted 9, 8 Attorney-at-Law (No. 427 pages), a delegation contract for a lawsuit (No. 988 pages);

Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008), Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of a concurrent crime with the punishment stipulated in the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Nonindicted 6 at the end of 2003, with the largest penalty)

B. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code (aggravated Punishment on or around March 2008, 208, which provides for the offense of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Nonindicted 18)

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8891 of March 28, 2008), the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8891 of March 28, 200), and the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-law Act [Defendant 1 alleged that he received KRW 10,270,286 from Defendant 2 in relation to the crime under paragraph (1), but he accepted the statement of Defendant 2 who delivered KRW 10,270,286 of the amount of profit to the above defendant, and recognized the above amount as 10,00,000,00 won, KRW 103,450,000 in relation to the crime under paragraph (3) of the crime + KRW 205,000 in relation to the amount of profit to the defendant 2, 200,000, KRW 2814,2529,254120

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. Whether Defendant 1 conspired

A. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant, as a person engaged in business, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and 4, etc. who was the owner of the land provided in the road site, etc. by the State or a local government, has already been found to receive part of the compensation in lieu of restoring ownership through the lawsuit, and requested the Defendant, who is the chief of the legal office of Nonindicted Party 1, to whom the Defendant requested the Defendant to pay the part of the compensation in favor of the owner. The Defendant, when concluding the delegation contract in the name of Nonindicted Party 1’s attorney, entered into the delegation contract in the name of Nonindicted Party 1’s attorney, stated the phrase on the case cost in the agreement, but only received the less of the case cost from the clients, and did not receive the case cost, and thus, the Defendant cannot be said to have conspired to commit the crime described in the facts charged.

B. Relevant legal principles

In relation to co-offenders who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy is not required under law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is achieved in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established. Even if there was no direct participation in the act of the conspiracy, even if there was a person who did not directly participate in the act of the conspiracy, he/she is held liable for the other co-principal's act as a joint principal. Further, the joint execution of the crime by the conspiracy is possible to cooperate to strengthen the decision on the act without the premise that all the accomplices realize the elements of the crime by themselves. Whether it falls under the conspiracy should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding of each accomplice's result of the act, the size of participation in the act, and the intent to control the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do111, Apr. 11, 2008).

C. Determination

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 4 had already been specialized in so-called “the so-called early land search” from around 2000. At the time of entering into the delegation contract of the above lawsuit, the Defendant took full account of all the circumstances including Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and 4 (hereinafter “Defendant 2, etc.”)’s agreement to receive part of the winning price from Nonindicted 3, etc.’s own descendants and the owner of the land, etc. at the time of entering into the delegation contract of the lawsuit, and prepared an agreement on the acceptance of the lawsuit and the winning case in the name of Nonindicted 1’s attorney. The Defendant directly prepared and submitted the complaint, the preparation of the preparatory document, etc. during the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant took part in the preparation or receipt of the written application for the unclaimed land compensation in case where the lawsuit was concluded by the final judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Defendant received the compensation received from the Defendant’s account directly from the Defendant to the Defendant’s account and delivered it to Defendant 200 million won.

Examining the facts acknowledged as above in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the defendant did not have made a direct contract with the client, and even if the amount received from the defendant 2, etc. is part of the winning reward, the defendant was aware of the fact that he entered into an agreement with the client at the time of entering into the delegation contract for the lawsuit, and thereby, the defendant was aware of the fact that he entered into the contract with the client at the time of entering into the delegation contract for the lawsuit, and thus, the defendant and the defendant 2 et al. agreed to realize the crime in this case by arranging the contract for the acceptance of the lawsuit in this case or dealing with the legal affairs such as filing the application for the unpaid land, and as long as the above circumstances are seen above, it is reasonable to view that the defendant participated in the agreement with the client, etc.

2. Whether the statute of limitations has expired;

A. As to Defendant 2 among the facts No. 1 in the judgment

(1) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has already been expired since November 3, 2003 when the statute of limitations has run since since November 3, 2003 when the defendant and the defendant 1 entered into a contract with non-indicted 3 to accept a claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership and arranged it, since the crime of violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act was committed by a non-legal person who received or promised to receive money and valuables, etc., and there was an act of arranging or arranging the handling of legal affairs.

(2) Relevant legal principles

Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "a person, other than an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money and other valuables, etc. and who acts as an agent for a litigation case, etc." The subject of punishment here includes not only "an act of receiving or promising to receive money and other valuables, etc. after receiving or promising to receive them," but also "an act of receiving or promising to receive money and other valuables, etc." as long as relation or quid pro quo is acknowledged between "an act of arranging money and other valuables, etc." and "an act of arranging money and other valuables, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5069, Jul. 24, 2001; 205Do7050, Apr. 14, 2006).

Meanwhile, in cases where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, promises to receive money and other valuables to act as an agent in a litigation case and receives money and other valuables, the above "act of mediating money and other valuables" constitutes not only the element of "violation of the Attorney-at-law Act by promising to receive money and other valuables," but also the element of "violation of the Attorney-at-law Act by receiving money and other valuables." In cases where "violation of the Attorney-at-law Act by promising to receive money and other valuables" is established by acting as an agent in a litigation case, and where money and other valuables have been actually received in fact, "act of receiving money and other valuables" is incorporated into "act of violating the Attorney-at-law Act by receiving money and other valuables" and at the same time, "act of violating the Attorney-at-law Act by receiving money and other valuables by receiving money and other valuables" is established, and even if the "act of receiving money and other valuables by proxy" cannot be punished for the completion of the statute of limitations after receiving money and other valuables after the completion of the statute of limitations.

(3) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence of the court below, the defendant, the defendant 1, and the non-indicted 2 agreed with the non-indicted 3 on November 3, 2003 on the acceptance of the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation and the success reward agreement, and the defendant et al. thereafter received the judgment of the non-indicted 1 lawyer on October 22, 2004 by allowing the non-indicted 1 lawyer to proceed with the above lawsuit, and accordingly filed an application for compensation for the unclaimed land and received compensation accordingly. After that, the defendant et al. received the total sum of KRW 205,405,722 from the non-indicted 3 in return for the mediation.

(4) Determination

According to the above facts, the act of the defendant et al. consists of the promise to receive money and the act of receiving money and the act of receiving money and valuables according to the promise, and the mediation on the litigation case is established not only with the promise to receive money and valuables prior to the mediation but also with the acceptance of money and valuables after the mediation. Although the defendant et al. "the crime of violation of the former Attorney-at-Law Act by the promise to receive money and valuables" was established by the conclusion of the delegation contract of this case on November 3, 2003 and the statute of limitations has already expired at the time of the prosecution of this case, even though the statute of limitations has already expired at the time of the prosecution of this case, if the defendant et al. received money and valuables from the non-indicted 3 from the non-indicted 3 until December 14, 2005 to March 6, 207, it is clear that the defendant et al. newly received money and valuables after the expiration of the statute of limitations period of limitation of 205,405,27.

B. As to the part on Defendant 1’s [Attachment Table (1)] No. 1 of the judgment of Defendant 2

(1) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant, upon Nonindicted 4’s request, filed a lawsuit claiming rent for Nonindicted 16 in the name of the attorney under the agreement of 40% of the winning price as shown in the [Attachment Table (1], and obtained a final judgment in favor of the Defendant. On January 31, 2005, the Defendant transferred 49,152,000 won from Suwon-si to the Defendant’s account and remitted 29,491,80 won out of the money to Nonindicted 16. On February 1, 2006, the Defendant transferred the remaining 19,660,800 won to Nonindicted 4’s account, and on July 14, 2006, the Defendant did not receive 60,000,000 won from Nonindicted 16 to Nonindicted 4’s account, and thus, the Defendant’s criminal charge had already been concluded by transferring 19,60,80,000 won to the account of Nonindicted 16 on July 14, 2006.

(2) Determination

According to the prosecutor's statements by the Defendant and Nonindicted 14, as long as Nonindicted 4 received the above money from Nonindicted 16, the Defendant and Nonindicted 4's accomplice, around July 2006, known Nonindicted 16 his account number (Account number omitted) in his own name, and Nonindicted 16 remitted KRW 60,000 to the above account under the pretext of winning the above lawsuit on July 14, 2006 (Evidence No. 2827, 3168 of the evidence record). Although the Defendant did not directly receive KRW 60,00,000 from Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 4, an accomplice, received the above money from Nonindicted 16, as long as the Defendant and Nonindicted 4 received the money from Nonindicted 16, the Defendant's and Nonindicted 4's above crime came to reach the number on July 14, 2006, and there is no reason for the Defendant's prosecution to prosecute the above case on July 16, 2010.

3. Whether a public contest is withdrawn (as to the part of paragraph (2) of the attached Table [Attachment 2] among the three facts at the time of the sale]

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not know that Nonindicted 2 received KRW 6 million from Nonindicted 17 around February 2009, since he was retired from the law office around the end of December 2007, when Nonindicted 2 was on the part of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1’s law office, and received the attorney fees. However, the Defendant asserted that this part of the crime was not established against the Defendant, since he did not know that Nonindicted 2 received KRW 6 million from Nonindicted 17 around the end of December 2009.

B. Relevant legal principles

When one of the conspiracys has left from the conspiracys before the others reach an action of the conspiracys, he/she shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the acts of the other conspiracys thereafter. However, even if the other conspiracys have left the conspiracys after the commencement of the implementation, the defendant may not be held held liable as a co-principal unless he/she prevents other accomplices from committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do5726, Oct. 14, 2010; 2010Do927, Jan. 13, 2011).

C. Determination

In light of the following, the Defendant’s return to this case and his health team, and the Defendant agreed to conduct litigation and legal affairs related to finding the land of Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 17, and receive the case fees from Nonindicted Party 17, and there was a conspiracy to commit the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act between them; the Defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that part of the compensation the Defendant received from Nonindicted Party 17 will be given according to the agreement between the Defendant or Nonindicted Party 2; and there was no way to block the progress of the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by means of the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as an accomplice with respect to the part that Nonindicted Party 2 received KRW 6 million from Nonindicted Party 17.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment] Crime List: Omitted

Judges Lee Dong-hun (Presiding Judge)