However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 3, 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that “E operated by the wife D of the victim C, which had been investigated as a suspicion of embezzlement by the former Police Station at the time, the Defendant acted as if the Defendant had worked as the leader of the F Department of the Busan Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that “The Defendant would not be bound by D by entering into contact with the executive officers of the prosecution office and the head of the criminal department of the female Police Station.”

However, the defendant did not have prosecution investigators, and even if he received money from the injured party, he did not have the ability to affect the disposition of the new illness and the case.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received cash 3,50,000 won from the victim, i.e., from the victim, and from around that time to December 8, 2016, received money and valuables under the pretext of obtaining a total of 25,045,00 won through 14 times, such as the statement in the list of crimes, from around that time to around December 8, 2016, and at the same time receiving money and valuables for the cases handled by the public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 111 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The main sentence of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The late text of Article 116 of the Act;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have much amount of damage on the grounds of the sentencing of the Criminal Procedure Act; the return of all received money; reflects the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances and results of the crime; and other circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account.