Seoul last dwelling

Seoul basic domicile

【Criminal Power】

On December 17, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Public Official Election Act by the Daejeon High Court on December 17, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 10, 2011.

[2012 Highest 69]

The Defendant was an attorney-at-law who opened and operated the Seoul 0-Gu 00-Gu 00-dong from February 2000 to October 2010, and was detained in Seoul 2007 and was detained in Seoul 200-gu around January 16, 2007 and was under trial for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence).

On March 2007, the Defendant received a proposal from the above 00 on March 3, 2007 that the Defendant would bring tobacco sent to the Defendant as parcel in disguisedly by documents, etc. and deliver it to the Seoul detention center, the Defendant would offer two million won at one time in return, and the inmates in the Seoul detention center pursuant to the relevant laws.

In order to deliver goods, etc. without permission, the public service center shall obtain permission to bring them into the country, and in order to monitor the violation of the regulations by posting a correctional officer in the meeting room, the public service center shall conduct a re-physical examination and regulate the bringing-in of illegal goods by conducting a re-examination. However, unlike the general public, the interview with a defense counsel is conducted without a correctional officer's attendance or surveillance by CCTV in the meeting room where there is no partitions between the prisoner and the defense counsel. The officer in charge of the surveillance of the meeting room performs his/her duties outside the meeting room, so the defendant, who is the lawyer, acted as if he/she conducts the consultation with the prisoner, and the defendant, knowing that he/she can deliver the goods the correctional officer's snow is prohibited to bring them into the damaged prisoner after leaving the meeting room, he/she consented to the proposal of 00.

1. On July 2007, the Defendant received the documents containing tobacco sent by New 00,00 from Man-man to the Defendant’s parcel in Seoul detention center at the request of the Defendant, and around the 27th of the same month, he received 2 million won as the price for tobacco delivery from the new 000,000 won to the bank account used by the Defendant. At around that time, the Defendant received documents containing approximately 100,000 of the documents related to the case, which were bound to keep the new 00 as the litigation documents, left part of the upper and lower parts of the documents, removed the gate from the space created in which the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

On August 8, 2007, the Defendant prepared an application for interview with the above 00 under the pretext of preparing for trial with the head of the Seoul detention center, and submitted an application for interview with the defense counsel in the Dong-dong Seoul detention center, and opened the documents containing the above tobacco inside the damaged documents envelope to monitor the prohibition of bringing into the meeting room so that the prohibited items may not be brought into the meeting room. The Defendant met with the above 00, put the documents containing the tobacco back to the meeting room. The Defendant had the documents containing the documents containing the tobacco, put 00 on the outside of the meeting room. The Defendant had the documents containing the documents containing the documents prepared in advance with the defense counsel as if necessary for counseling with the above 00 days, put the documents containing the documents containing the documents in front, put them on the meeting room, put the documents containing the documents containing the above tobacco back to 00 bags, bringing about 100 cigarette which the Defendant had the custody of the above documents, and brought about 100 cigarette again to the above 60 days.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with prison officers' legitimate execution of duties on surveillance of acceptance of prohibited goods as a deceptive scheme.

2. On September 1, 2007, the Defendant received the same request from the regular00, and on October 16, 2009 and 10.

19. Two times of transfer of 2 million won in consideration of tobacco delivery to the bank account used by the Defendant from New00, and then issued approximately 18 A. (360 pieces) to the above 00 persons in the above Seoul detention center in the same manner as the preceding paragraph at the attorney-at-law meeting room in the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with prison officers' legitimate execution of duties on surveillance of acceptance of prohibited goods as a deceptive scheme.

3. On January 1, 2008, the Defendant received 2 million won as the price for tobacco delivery from 7th of the same month to the bank account used by the Defendant, with a Korean language advance case containing tobacco from 00,000, which had been sent to the Defendant’s parcel from 100 to 100,000 from 10, and received 2 million won as the price for tobacco delivery from 7th of the same month. At that time, the Defendant received 30,000 tobacco bags (60,000 pieces) containing a Korean language advance case containing 30,000 pieces (60,000 pieces) using the same method as the above 1.

On January 1, 2008, the Defendant entered the above Seoul detention center as a building having an interview room, and kept a view that the prohibited article could not be brought into the interview room, and entered the Korean language advance case containing the above tobacco, which is damaged by the correctional officer’s snow, into the room. At the end of the stairs going into the interview room on the second floor of the above building, the Defendant delivered to 00 tobacco by way of sending out the Korean language advance case containing the above tobacco to the Kim 00, who was waiting in advance upon the request of static00, and then delivered approximately 30 grams (600 pieces) of tobacco to 100 by way of hiding the above tobacco advance case into the clothes.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with prison officers' legitimate execution of duties on surveillance of acceptance of prohibited goods as a deceptive scheme.

[2012 Highest 1005]

On November 5, 2008, the Defendant: (a) at the office of Seoul 00-Gu 000 - 0000 - 00000 00000, the Defendant: (b) “A vehicle operating within the country is a vehicle leased within the name of an advisory lawyer at the company of 000, which is in charge of an advisory lawyer; (c) at 000, the lease contract will be terminated due to overdue payment due to the rent from the company of 000; (d) if an attorney-at-law is installed as a joint and several surety, the lessee would enter into a new lease contract at 000,000,000 won per month to ensure that there is no problem by paying the lease fee of KRW 7 million per month; and (d) at the end of each month, there is no intention or ability to pay the rent for joint and several surety.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim take advantage of property benefits by having the victim jointly and severally surety the lease contract with the amount of 202,829, and 286 won at the above time and place (acquisition cost) to deposit 50,000,000 won, and 25 months during the lease period, with the lease contract with the amount of 50,000,000 won, 7,011, and 562 won per annum for delayed payment of lease fees and 25% per annum for delayed payment of lease fees.

Summary of Evidence

[2012 Highest 69]

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement concerning 00, Kim00, and Shin00;

1. The details of each bank transaction statement, personal identification/ confinement status, inquiry into the current status of meetings of each prisoner, copies of the interview sheet, the current status of meetings of each counsel, records of recording, photographs and criminal investigation reports (verification of whether an attorney-at-law withdraws and has an interview with counsel);

[2012 Highest 1005]

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police about 00 police officers;

1. Motor vehicle lease contract, investigation report (Attachment to judgment), and mediation protocol;

【Prior Records of Judgment】

1. Each judgment (2012 highest 69 highest 824 evidence records - 844 pages);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 137 of each Criminal Code (U.S. Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code (Crime of Fraud)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act