Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

The defendant became aware of the victim C through the introduction of the defendant B, but he became aware of the fact that the victim failed to recover the winning claim even though he/she won a claim for payment order of 50 million won against D through B.

On September 2014, the Defendant heard that, before the end of the week of the operation of the farm container B, the Defendant was accused of the victim’s criminal prosecution against D and the case of the non-prosecution was in charge of the non-prosecution, and the Defendant was the chief prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The inspection test 3 million won can be prosecuted on the face of the main sentence, so it has changed to 3 million won."

However, the defendant did not have a chief of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office, and it was thought that he would use the money for living expenses or for the operation expenses of the same student.

On October 17, 2014, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received money equivalent to three million won from the victim to the defendant's bank account in the name of the defendant on October 17, 2014 under the same pretext as solicitation for the affairs handled by the public officials at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint, the police statement protocol against C;

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

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. An attorney-at-law for additional collection;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;