Attorney Kim Jong-soo, and Kim Jong-soo

around October 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the joint legal office operated by the Defendant on the third floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da974, Seoul High Court Decision 2016No961, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16347) of the case of fraud, etc. prosecuted on October 26, 2015 by the clients (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da974, Seoul High Court Decision 2016No961, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16347), the Defendant, upon receiving an agreement with the victims, deposited KRW 1 billion in cash under the name of the victims via E, and kept them for the victims; (b) on the same day, he/she arbitrarily deposited KRW 99,950,000 in the F Bank account under the name of the Defendant; and (c) made use of the Defendant’s personal consumption of the aforementioned amount of cash operation expenses or his/her obligation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on verification, a certificate of confirmation, a statement of transaction in the accounts of H bank, a statement of inquiry into the details of transactions of H bank loan loans, real estate lease agreement, interior contract, integrated case search (defendants No. 2015-type 83421 of the party administration);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the Issues

1. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel;

Since the defendant received KRW 1 billion from the victim and did not have made an explicit agreement on the use of money and ownership ownership between the parties, the defendant recognized it as a lawyer's fee. The above KRW 1 billion as the contingent fee is paid in advance, which is similar to the loan for consumption of money, the defendant cannot be viewed as "the person who keeps another's property" under the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this Court, the following facts or circumstances are revealed.

1) While the victim made efforts to raise funds to agree with the victims of the instant case, such as fraud, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Fraud case”), he/she became aware of the J who was detained in the same detention house on October 2015 and his/her defense counsel.

2) According to the certificate of confirmation (Evidence No. 17 pages) drawn up by the victim and the J on October 27, 2015, the victim shall lend 30 billion won to the J, upon completion of agreement with the victims of the fraud case by providing the victims with a spot claim of KRW 100 billion or real estate equivalent to KRW 50 billion as security.

3) The relationship in which the agreement on the provision of security by J is reached is earlier than a loan of the victim’s money, and the victim granted the J as performance security a part of KRW 1 billion, which is 30 billion. However, in preparation for risks such as the security offered by J as inappropriate for agreement or failure to reach agreement, it appears that the said one billion won was deposited in the Defendant’s law office.

4) In addition, according to the above certificate of confirmation, the defendant provided a collateral held by the J and acting as an agent for the victims of fraud to conclude an agreement with the victims of fraud or to draw a result corresponding to the agreement, and the J shall return the above KRW 1 billion to the victims through the defendant in the event of the failure to perform the above duties.

5) Although the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims of the fraudulent case due to the lack of the claim provided by J as well as the collateral value of real estate, the Defendant used the above KRW 1 billion in total for office operation expenses, personal living expenses, and bank loans from 30,015 to 2016, and from 2,03.

6) In relation to this, the Defendant should keep one billion won in custody in an investigative agency until the victims of the fraud have reached an agreement with the victims of the incident. However, it was anticipated that the agreement would be reached as soon as the J did not know about the collateral and gave a strong trust. At the time, the Defendant stated that the Defendant used one billion won in person as soon as it was very difficult for the financial situation due to the lack of the outcome of the collective action that he accepted.

B. According to the above facts, the above KRW 1 billion was delivered by the victim to the defendant instead of J in order to prepare for risks where the agreement with the J may not be completed. It is reasonable to view that the defendant is in the status of custody of the victim of the fraud until the victims of the fraud reached an agreement with the J and the J paid Sk funds.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Convictd Persons] None

[Scope of Recommendation] Two to Five years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. The crime of this case’s sentencing decision is that the defendant, an attorney-at-law, arbitrarily uses the deposited Sck funds until the agreement with the victims of criminal cases with the victim of the criminal case, and the amount of embezzlement is not small, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good in that the client’s trust as an attorney-at-law has been lost. The defendant has not yet reached a substantial agreement despite being granted a considerable period of time during the trial process, and is absent on the sentencing date without justifiable grounds after the release as bail (the release on bail has been revoked and the deposit has been confiscated).

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant actually performed the duties delegated by the victim, returned 300 million won out of the embezzlement amount to the victim in cash, making efforts to repay the remaining amount of damage, and the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more.

In addition, considering the various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive and consequence of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered within the scope of recommended sentencing criteria shall be determined.

Judges Kim Young-ho

Judgment of the Prosecutor