Attorney D, E

Seized Emers No. 10(No. 10) shall be confiscated.

2.60 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On April 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Seoul Central District Court on January 30, 2014, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Seoul Central District Court on January 30, 2014. On January 11, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year of imprisonment for forgery of private documents, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on January 2015, 1, 30.

On February 3, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and one year of suspended execution for the crimes of fabrication and fabrication, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

1. Joint offenses with F;

On May 2015, through around June 1, 2015, the Defendant was aware of the fact that G was under investigation of ‘H’ in Suwon District Court, ‘I’ in Seoul Central District Court, and ‘K’ in Seoul Gangnam Police Station AU in Seoul Gangnam Police Station, on the ground that he was an attorney-at-law from the FI L judge who became aware of around that time, conspired with F and F to receive large amount of fees under the pretext of this case on the ground that he was a lawyer from the FI L judge.

On June 2015, the Defendant received KRW 2 billion from G as a solicitation related to the suspended sentence, around June 26, 2015, to the effect that “the Defendant must pay to G to the full bench in order to avoid the statutory detention in the Military Court H case,” and F will receive a suspended sentence in response to G’s solicitation to the full bench. As there are many criminal convictions, the Defendant received KRW 2 billion from G as a solicitation related to the suspended sentence.

After that, on August 12, 2015, G was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance court of the above "H" case and was detained in court, the defendant is making every effort to distribute dividends to G to the appellate court in relation to F attorney-at-law. The purport of the F attorney-at-law is that if only dividends are distributed to the appellate court that the F attorney wants, it is possible to release it as bail, and the F is so far as the presiding judge in the appellate court of the appellate court of the first instance.

It stated to the effect that "the discharge of KRW 2 billion as bail is changed by solicitation of the presiding judge", and received KRW 300 million from G in total from September 2, 2015, around September 7, 2015, KRW 700 million around September 7, 2015, and KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015.

After that, on October 7, 2015, G received KRW 1 billion in cash from October 30, 2015 under the pretext of the teaching and solicitation related to M investigation and trial, on the ground that the emergency arrest was conducted on the day when G was sentenced to a suspended sentence in the appellate court of the above case, and that the Defendant and F again request G to the effect that “M investigation agencies and courts to refrain from spreading the case or punishing it with a heavy amount of KRW 1 billion.”

In collusion with F, the Defendant received KRW 5 billion in total from G in collusion with F, on the pretext that he/she provides or associates with a judge, prosecutor, or other public officials of a trial investigation agency, and on the case handled by a public official.

2. The defendant's sole criminal conduct2);

Around April 17, 2015, the Defendant received a cash of KRW 100,000 and KRW 10,000,000 from around that time to May 22, 2015, as indicated in [Attachment Table 4,7, and 10,000,00 won in total three times during the period from around that time to around May 2, 2015, the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 14,40,000,00 from G's Suwon District Court's trial case, the Central District Court's I-J trial case, the Gangnam Police Station's investigation case, etc. as described in [Attachment Table 4,7, and 10,000,00 won.]

Accordingly, the defendant received a total of KRW 140 million under the pretext of solicitation about the affairs handled by the public officials of the trial investigation agency.

Summary of Evidence

【Paragraph 1 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness N, G,0, P, Q, R and S;

1. Statement made by the witness G in the protocol of the trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2016Gohap505 case;

1. Of the fourth interrogation protocol of the Defendant’s prosecution against the Defendant, the statement to the effect that “Around September 10, 2015, G sent KRW 1 billion to F through Q to T and exchanged in cash.” “On April 15, 2015, the Gangnam Police Station received KRW 20 million in cash from G and 0 at the time when the ceremony is completed, and delivered KRW 10 million to T, respectively.”

1. Of the 7th suspect examination protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant, the written statement to the effect that “The head of the World War Team at the introduction of V chief on October 2015, 2015, sent KRW 5 million in cash each at the interview with him/her. The director of the World War Team at the last time notified him/her of the phone number of the W Team leader at the call, but the director of V sent him/her well the “X theft incident” to the head of the W Team at the end of December 31, 2015,” and that “The money that he/she provided to the police officers of Gangnam, including V and W, etc. around December 31, 2015, he/she received from F most of the money that he/she was the head of G and received from F at the time, and that the case pending in Gangnam, such as the “X theft case at the time,” was maintained a good relationship.”

1. Among the 8th suspect examination protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant, the statement to the effect that “The police officer from April 2015 to July 2015, 2015, during the time when the police officer transferred the case to the police, while the police was in the time when the police was in force to keep the case of G in the instant case, and the police officer provided the necessary waterway funds without embling them.”

1. Examination protocol of suspect about Y by the prosecution (M records, No. 19);

1. Each prosecutor's statement (including the AI statement part of the AH statement and the part of the AF statement of the AH statement) concerning N, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AH, S, and T;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of G (including the parts contained in the statement of the AK, AL, AM, N,O, Q, respectively);

1. Each police statement with respect to the defendant and F (No. 83,97)

1. A petition prepared by P (part of the records of X thief case, No. 197 of the evidence list);

1. Recording notes of each G meeting (No. 31 through 60, No. 443 through 466 of the evidence list), recording notes of each currency (No. 221, 223, 227, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247 of the evidence list), recording notes of each conversation (No. 251, 253, 255, 257, 257-230 of the evidence list);

1. 수사보고(M 대표 G 형사사건 진행 경과, 증거목록 8, 10 내지 16번), 법조인 검색 결과(증거목록 22번), 수사보고('M' 대표 G 보석청구서 사본 첨부, 증거목록 23 내지 24번), 수사보고('M' 사건 관련 F 변호사가 선임계를 제출하지 않은 사실 확인, 증거목록 27, 29번), 수사보고(2015. 9. 10. F 변호사가 G를 접견한 시간 확인, 증거목록 137번), 수사보고(M 대표 G의 형사재판 중 피의자 F 변호인 선임계 제출여부 확인, 증거목록 155 내지 157, 159, 160, 162번), 수사보고(피의자 F, 금감원 직원 상대 민형사소송 주도 사실 확인, 증거목록 163 내지 169번), 수사보고(피의자 F으로부터 압수한 휴대전화 문자 내용 등 분석 보고, 증거목록 173번), 수사보고(A 주거지 압수 집행 과정 보고, 증거목록 181번), F 변호사가 AB 변호사 명의를 빌려 제출한 의견서(증거목록 191번), X, AA을 모함하는 내용이 적혀있는 찢어진 메모지(증거목록 195번), X에 대한 강남경찰서의 구속영장신청서(증거목록 196번), 2015. 5. 1. ~ 2016. 5. 2.간 F - A 통화내역(증거목록 204번), 수사보고(피의자 F이 G를 접견한 내역 첨부, 증거목록 205 내지 206번), 수사보고(Q 휴대폰 포렌직 결과 첨부 - 10억 수표, G 메모 등, 증거목록 207 내지 209번), 검찰사건요약정보조회(서울중앙지검 2015형제 37218, 63080호, 2016형 제20077호, 증거목록 224번), 대법원 사건검색(서울 중앙지법 2016고합152, 증거목록 225번), 검찰사건요약정보조회(서울중앙지검 2011 형제57389, 59848호, 2012형제 56622호, 증거목록 228번), 대법원 사건검색(서울중앙지법 GQ, GS, GT, GR, 대법원 GU, 증거목록 229번), 각 F 수임자료 및 처리결과 (증거목록 261, 262번), 수사보고(서울지방변호사회 압수수색 집행 결과, 증거목록 263 내지 266번), 수사보고(F-A의 통화내역 분석, 증거목록 267번), 수사보고(피의자 F 관련 대여금고 압수수색 영장 집행결과, 증거목록 282 내지 283번), 수사보고 (A 주거지 화장품 케이스에 대한 지문 감식 결과 보고, 증거목록 288 내지 290번), 수사보고(A 주거지 채취 지문 확인 결과 F 지문 확인 보고, 증거목록 305 내지 309번), 수사보고(AN가 F에게 지급한 20억원 수표 사용처 확인, 증거목록 319 내지 322번), 수사보고(Q이 F에게 건넨 수표 10억 원 사용처 추적 결과보고, 증거목록 324 내지 325번), 접견노트 4권(증거목록 329-1번), 수사보고[강남경찰서 'K 사건' 수사기록 분석, 증거목록 333 내지 355번(첨부된 각 조서 포함)], G 일반인 접견부 (증거목록 381번), G 변호인 접견부(증거목록 382번), 수사보고(F 지급 수표 20억 중 사용처 확인 보고 - A의 모 AO 집 구입대금으로 사용한 정황 확인, 증거목록 400 내지 403번), 수사보고(A 모친 A0 명의 범죄수익 은닉 재산 확인, 증거목록 405 내지 412번), 수사보고(AO 명의 AP 주택의 A 차명 주택관련 · 주택매입자금 원천, 증거목록 429번), 각 등기부등본(증거목록 431번), 수사보고(N 휴대폰에 저장된 A 등과의 녹음파일 CD 첨부, 증거목록 436 내지 437번), 수사보고(G 접견부 및 녹음파일 CD 첨부, 증거목록 438 내지 441번), 수사보고(A, F 전체 통화내역 CD 첨부, 증거목록 471 내지 472번), 'AQ 유사수신 사건(피고인 AR) 1심 판결문(서울중앙지법 2014고합1130, 증거목록 473번), 수사보고(F과 수원지법 AS L판사 통화내역 분석, 증거목록 475 내지 481번), 수사보고(G 관련 형사사건 진행 상황, 증거목록 482, 493 내지 495, 502번), 수사보고(A이 취득한 범죄수익 및 부당이득 - 약 30억 원, 증거목록 503 내지 522번), 수사보고(G의 수원지법 「H」 사건 합의 과정 정리, 증거목록 523 내지 573, 575 내지 579번), 항소이유서(2015. 9. 9., 증거목록 574번), N 공금 계좌 거래내역(국민은행 AT, 증거목록 646번)

1. Each protocol of seizure (No. 310, 330 No. 310);

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness N, G, R,O and S;

1. On March 11, 2015, G made a statement to the Defendant at the fourth interrogation protocol of the prosecution against the Defendant that “The money required for G to consider N as N at the first 100 million won for the first check,” and “N Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine,” and “Bctrine Doctrine Doctrine and AV Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Guctrine Y Y, while resolving the K case, the amount received from N is 350 million won for resolving the case,” and “on April 15, 2015, Doctrine 10 million won from G and 00 million won for the first check.”

1. Among the 7th protocol of interrogation of the Defendant by the Prosecution against the Defendant, the statement to the effect that “Gangnam-wester Singk's 5 million won of the street funds received through N from N in April 2015 was placed to V as the resolution title of the K case.”

1. Among the 8th suspect examination protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant, the statement to the effect that “G was asked to a policeman in the middle of July 2015 to deduct the part concerning the receipt of the similar receipt of G”, and that “G was the time when G was provided with the electric slots to the police during the period from April 2015 to July 2015, 2015, and G was the time when G was provided with the necessary street funds without embling it.”

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G and P;

1. Recording notes of each currency (No. 221, 223, 227, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, and 247 of the evidence list) and recording notes of each conversation (No. 251, 253, 255, 257, 257-24 of the evidence list);

1. Investigation report (M representative G criminal case progress, No. 8,10 through 16), results of search by legal professionals (Evidence List 22), investigation report (Evidence List 62 or 63), investigation report (Evidence List 62 or 63), evidence list (Evidence List 138 or 140, Evidence List 138 or 140), case summary agreement assistant (Seoul Central Prosecutor No. 2015, No. 37218, 630, No. 207, No. 2016, No. 2247, No. 205, No. 205, No. 375, No. 2016, No. 2045, No. 375, Evidence List 333 or 355, Evidence List 46, 476, 476, 47, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 64, 6, 6, 6, 6, and 6.

1. Protocol of seizure (No. 404 No. 404 of the evidence);

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. To investigate crimes and investigation records (No. 385 of the evidence list);

1. Investigative into the personal confinement status (386 No. 386 of the evidence list);

1. Investigative case information of each prosecution case (387 No. 387 on the evidence list);

1. Each written judgment (No. 601 through 603, No. 605 through 607, No. 609, 610 in list of evidence); and

Application of Statutes

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 110 of the Attorney-at-Law Act relevant to facts constituting an offense, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the receipt of money and valuables in the name of a public official of the investigation agency under paragraph (1) of this Article), Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the receipt of money and valuables in the name of a solicitation under paragraph (1) of this Article at the time of sale); Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act (including the receipt of

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 50 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, each of the violations of paragraph (1) shall be judged more severe.

Punishment prescribed by the Act on the Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on Provision and Education of Public Officials

[Article 110 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a provision newly established by Law No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 2001 as a measure against legal corruption, and it is a concept that is distinguished from the name of ‘title' in that it does not necessarily require specific solicitation (5). The money received from G includes the name of ‘intersection' that contacts with the full bench by using a friendly relationship with the G, and ‘comforcing' that request the release of G.

Since it appears that the crime of violation of Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the pretext of the teaching system to a trial investigation agency is all established, and the relation of the number of crimes is a regular concurrent relationship.

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Criminal Records of Offense of Violating Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Forgery of Private Document)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes of forgery of an official seal for which each crime and judgment has become final, and the crimes of forgery of an official seal)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than that provided for in paragraph (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act)

1. Confiscation;

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[Additional Collection Amounting to KRW 2.63 billion = 2.5 billion = 2.5 billion (the amount received under paragraph (1) at the market in the market in the market in the market in the above market in x 1/2) + KRW 134 billion + (the amount received under paragraph (2) at the market in the above market in 1.4 billion - the amount of KRW 1.44 billion in the face of the Emers bank in which the confiscation is declared). On the other hand, the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the additional collection shall not be declared because there is no amount received among five billions in the judgment of the defendant in paragraph (1) above. However, as seen below, the defendant cannot be deemed to have earned profits due to the crime under paragraph (1) above, but the specific amount cannot be calculated, and thus, the additional collection shall be made equally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do170, Feb. 23, 2007).

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Violation of Paragraph (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The money that F received from G is the sum of KRW 1 billion on June 26, 2015, ② KRW 300 million on September 2, 2015, ③ KRW 700 million on September 7, 2015, ④ KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015, ⑤ KRW 3.2 billion on October 30, 2015, including KRW 3.2 billion on September 30, 2015.

2) Money that F received from G is not received as a solicitation to the full bench or an investigative agency. It is paid as a commission fee that comprehensively accepts G-related civil and criminal cases, and as a agreed amount or deposit money for AW cases. The amount of KRW 1.7 billion received as the agreed amount of AW case was returned to G.

3) The Defendant received KRW 300 million from G to F on September 2, 2015, and KRW 700 million on September 7, 2015. Since N was excluded from G after the Defendant disclosed the recording file to G, the Defendant did not participate in determining the amount received from G, and the Defendant did not divide the amount received from F. Therefore, the Defendant and F did not receive money under the pretext of teaching and solicitation.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or mediation for cases or affairs handled by public officials, or any person who causes or promises to give them to a third party, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won." Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the attorney-at-law shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 million won or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won." Article 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the attorney-at-law shall perform his/her duties independently and freely as a legal professional of public nature." In relation to his/her duties, Article 3 provides that "the attorney-at-law

In light of the public nature of the attorney-at-law and the universality of the scope of duties, Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-law Act cannot be deemed as a provision that is subject to punishment for lawful solicitation or arrangement performed by an attorney-at-law in accordance with the purport of delegation. In the case of an attorney-at-law who has been commissioned legal cases, it is difficult to regard it as a normal activity as a legal professional of public nature, such as entertainment, offer of bribe, private relationship, or friendly relationship, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a normal activity of a legal professional of public nature, such as transfer of the client’s solicitation to a public official or promise to receive money or valuables on behalf of the client as a pretext of soliciting a public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3600, Jun. 28, 2007; 2010Do31381, Oct. 14, 2010).

Article 110 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that an attorney-at-law shall be punished with "an act of receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, or other benefits under the pretext of offering them to or associating with a public official of a public prosecutor or other judicial investigation agency." Considering that an attorney-at-law is in the status of performing his duties independently and freely as a legal professional with public nature (Article 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act). It is interpreted that an attorney-at-law means a direct or indirect contact with a public official in a way that it is difficult to view it as a normal activity as a legal professional with public nature, such as entertainment as well as private relationship or friendly relationship, for resolution of a case requested by the above penal provision as a legal professional with public nature. Whether the money, valuables, etc. received by an attorney-at-law is not a price or remuneration for legitimate defense activities, but a school system should be determined after considering the details

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3255 Decided November 23, 2006, etc.)

In a case where the nature of a public official simply provides labor or convenience in connection with a case or affairs handled by the public official and the nature of the consideration thereof is indivisiblely combined and receives money or valuables, it shall have the nature of solicitation for the case or affairs handled by the public official inseparably (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005514, Apr. 29, 2005; 2005Do7771, Feb. 22, 2006; 2007Do3044, Apr. 10, 2008).

C. Determination on the amount of money received

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant and F may be recognized as having received a total of KRW 5 billion from G as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

1) June 26, 2015 2 billion won

Defendant also recognized the fact that F received KRW 1 billion out of the above money. G stated in the investigation agency and this court that the cash amount of KRW 1 billion withdrawn from AK GN branch at a new bank GN branch at AK, and that the cash amount of KRW 1 billion stored in the office was delivered to F. G.

On June 26, 2015, the details of KRW 1 billion released from the AK account (1453 pages of investigation records) and the statements of AK investigative agencies and 0 investigation agencies and legal statements are supported by the said G’s above statements. G and 0 each statement of KRW 1 billion in the AK account was partially modified or inconsistent with the detailed contents, but it is consistent with the key part that the sum of KRW 1 billion and KRW 1 billion in the office withdrawn from the AK account was brought to the F’s office.

According to the F’s husband AE’s statement at the investigative agency, the F had never been established with a loan premium prior to the date of the transfer (3505 pages). It can be said that the F was planned to receive a considerable amount of money from G, in light of the fact that the F was established with a loan premium prior to the receipt and use of the loan premium (354-3355 pages) on June 29, 2015, at the branch of the New Bank Telecommunication on June 25, 2015, and the said loan premium (3354-35 pages) on June 29, 2015.

G In operating M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”), it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no credibility in G’s statement that kept cash in the office by either directly receiving a considerable amount of investment money or returning an investment refund in cash, inasmuch as G was engaged in a fraud or a crime of receiving approximately KRW 138 billion from March 11, 2015 to August 24, 2015.

In addition, the call recording on May 16, 2015 between the defendant and N appeared that "10, 10, 10, 10, 10,000 won in Seoul" (the Investigation Record 2662 pages), and on June 18, 2015, the conversation between "the head of the station, Seoul, and obtained by FC)" (the Investigation Record 2858 pages) is also a conversation that "the head of the station, Seoul, and obtained by FC)" (the Investigation Record 2858 pages). In light of the fact that G gave to F, it is consistent with the two billion won, and it is difficult to conclude that such amount is mutually consistent.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the F is sufficiently recognized that the G received KRW 2 billion from G.

2) On September 2, 2015, KRW 300 million

The facts that the defendant delivered to F with the above money are recognized. G stated in the investigative agency and this court that the defendant ordered him to give KRW 300 million to the defendant, and 0 and P also stated in accordance with the investigation agency and this court) G,O, and P are part of the changes or inconsistency with the detailed contents, but it is consistent with the core part that delivered KRW 300 million to the defendant.

Examining the Defendant’s telephone content 10 on September 2, 2015, there exists a telephone content between the Defendant and 0 as follows, and the first telephone is 0 to the Defendant’s telephone. This is consistent with the Defendant’s statement.

A person shall be appointed.

G’s meeting recording is 11) a conversation that enables the Defendant to know that 300 million won had been paid to G. On September 2, 2015, the meeting recording is made by the interview recording that “A is a set of three sets: “A is a set of 12 so far, so far as she has cut off and cut off” (647 pages of investigation records). On September 3, 2015, the meeting recording was also made by the interview recording “3 b above, but there was three sets,” but the director low class of A was 30 million won.” In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant could fully recognize that the Defendant was paid KRW 300 million from G.

3) September 7, 2015, KRW 700 million

The defendant also stated that he received the above money and delivered it to F. G was given KRW 700,000 to the defendant in the investigative agency and this court, and the defendant stated in accordance with the investigation agency and Q also in accordance with this court. The statements made by G,0, and Q are consistent with the core part of G,00,000 won in delivery to the defendant under the direction of G.

Examining the Defendant’s monetary content on September 7, 2015, the following is the delivery of this call and message to the Defendant, and the initial call is zero calls from the Defendant. These calls are consistent with the Defendant’s statement.

A person shall be appointed.

G’s meeting recording is a conversation that enables the Defendant to know that the Defendant gave KRW 700 million to Q. On September 2, 2015, the phrase “where there is any shortage of money,” the phrase “The Government Security Service (Investigation Records 647-648 pages)” gives 00 million won to Q by receiving approximately KRW 500 million from Q. In addition, on September 7, 2015, the interview recording “and, on September 7, 2015, there is a conversation that “and, on the other hand, today A’s director? 700 million?” and on September 8, 2015, the following day, “the attorney’s expense control system”, “the interview recording” is called “the interview recording” (681 pages), and “the interview recording” (686.686 pages).

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Defendant may fully recognize that he received KRW 70 million from G.

4) On September 10, 2015, the Defendant also received the check, and he was recognized to exchange the check in cash by F. G with the investigative agency and this court. G stated that Q was demanded by F, and the investigative agency and this court stated that Q was sent the check of KRW 1 billion to Q, and that F was paid a check of KRW 1 billion. The investigation agency and the court’s statement of Q are consistent with the G’s aforementioned statement. F and Q’s statement of the investigation agency and the court were made on September 14, 2015, as follows. Q was marked on a cell phone of KRW 14:27 on the same day after Q was made twice, and that Q received the message and received KRW 1 billion on December 15, 2015.

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, the interview recording book of G shows a conversation that would have known that the F would have given KRW 1 billion to the F. On September 11, 2015, the following day, the interview recording "Wol Qfs would have given her a pule," "I would have given her a pule? I would have given her a pule?" and "I would have given her a pule?" (e.g., 718 pages of investigation record) also supported the G's statement.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the F is sufficiently recognized that the G received KRW 1 billion from G.

5) On October 30, 2015, KRW 1 billion

Recognizing that the Defendant was in receipt of KRW 1 billion from GIST and received a bank from Q itself, the Defendant asserts that the cash, which was included in Q, was 200 million won by opening a bank last and confirming the bank. On the other hand, G stated that investigative agencies and Q would transfer KRW 1 billion to F in this court, and Q’s investigative agencies and court statements also conform to this. Although the respective statements of Q were partially modified or inconsistent with the detailed contents, they correspond to the core parts.

F’s currency content 17 October 30, 2015) contains a record of exchanging Q, message, and telephone as follows. Accordingly, it conforms to Q’s statement. Moreover, F used the loan loan No. 2015, Oct. 30, 2015, following the month following the 2015th day of the day on which money was received (Fday), the New PWM Center No. 20353, Nov. 2, 2015 (Investigation Record 3353).

A person shall be appointed.

G’s conference record on October 31, 2015, stating that “WR, which is the dynamics of G, ought to be seen as “I have come to know about the future, any pressing, and it would be good if I have come to know about it.” The above conversation may be viewed as a conversation that G listens to the payment of a large amount of money to F and is divided.

The Defendant asserts that the F would have been aware of the cause of KRW 200 million later. However, in light of the structure of the bank that Q would have delivered money, the Defendant appears to be able to easily confirm that Q would have KRW 10,000 won right on the following floor even if Q opened a bridge. However, it is difficult to understand that the bank received cash around October 30, 2015 would have opened and set it late around February 2016.

As seen earlier, ① the F used the loan on June 29, 2015, which was received KRW 2 billion on June 26, 2015, a gold day, and was used on June 29, 2015. The loan was used on November 2, 2015, immediately after the receipt of the money in this part; ② the 1 billion won received as a check on September 10, 2015 was exchanged in cash from September 25, 2015 to October 2, 2015, before the lapse of one month; ③ the interview record of G’s meeting on September 2, 2015, the Defendant’s reply was given to “the person who was sent to her place of water, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s reply to the late delivery of the money.” On September 2, 2015, the Defendant’s reply to this part was made to the late delivery of the money.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the F is sufficiently recognized that the G received KRW 1 billion from G.

6) Claims based on prosecutorial statements

On September 17, 2015, the Defendant stated that the amount paid to F by the Company was KRW 2.7 billion in the prosecution investigation of the M case, and that the amount delivered by September 17, 2015 was KRW 1 billion on June 26, 2015, KRW 3 billion on September 26, 2015, KRW 7 billion on September 7, 2015, KRW 3 billion on September 7, 2015, KRW 2.7 billion on September 10, 2015, and KRW 2.7 billion on September 10, 2015, the Defendant asserted that there is no credibility in G’s statement.

However, Y is merely a representative in the name of M, and even based on one’s statement, Y appears to have not been directly involved in preparing and delivering money to the Defendant and F. 4 billion won recognized as being delivered by September 17, 201, 4 billion won, 6.2 billion won, 9.2 billion won, and 2.5 billion won (200 million won, 70 million won, 9.7.5 billion won, 9.5 billion won, 9.5 billion won, and 9.1 billion won, which were withdrawn from or kept in the M’s account, and 2.5 billion won, were known to the public prosecutor’s office on September 5, 2015, and 19.5 billion won, and 2.5 billion won, Y is not sufficiently aware of the credibility of the check. Thus, there is insufficient possibility that Q’s statement was made.

D. Determination on the pretext of the received money

1) G et al.’s statement

A) On June 26, 2015, G made a statement to the effect that, with respect to the first instance judgment in relation to the case of Suwon District Court H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) (the first instance court: the Suwon District Court BS19), the appellate court: the same court BT; hereinafter referred to as “H case”), G made a statement to the effect that: (a) September 2, 2015; (b) KRW 700,000,000 won on September 7, 2015; and (c) KRW 2 billion on September 10, 2015 to release release on bail at H appellate court; (d) KRW 1 billion on October 30, 2015; and (e) said expenses were paid to the Defendant and F in relation to the case; and (e) said expenses were so-called “expenses that would have been requested by the full bench and would have been obtained by having contact with the case.”

B) On June 26, 2015, G stated that “F will prepare for the cash of KRW 2 billion by the F, even if there are many and several military expenses at an investigative agency,” and that “F will prepare for the cash of KRW 2 billion by the F by the F,” respectively.

C) G made a statement at an investigative agency that “F will release the money paid for release on bail by claiming for release on bail,” “I will drink with the appellate court of today’s appellate trial,” “I will see that the horse is well known.” G also stated in this court that “F will go to the full bench with documents if the agreement is reached, and show show the show. He will go to the full bench. He will go to go to the release on bail.” “N will go to the full end. He will go to the full end. He will go to the release on bail. He will go to the NA. He will go to the full end.”, “Ned judges and G, we will go to go to the full end.”, “I will go to the judge?” “I will go to the full end, you will go to the release on bail.”

D) On October 30, 2015, G made a statement to the effect that G would have paid money as a school agenda solicitation in relation to M M case. Q stated that Q would have made a statement to the investigative agency and this court that “F would appear as much as the fee would have been, but it would not be said that money would have been entered,” and “this money would not have been written.”

Although G made a statement in the investigative agency as M on September 10, 2015 and KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015, and KRW 1 billion on October 30, 2015, the defense counsel asserts that G’s statement is not trustable since it changed the statement in the name of H on bail in this court. Unlike the defense counsel’s assertion, G made a statement that KRW 1 billion was paid at the initial investigative agency on September 10, 2015 at the first investigative agency. However, G made a statement that “F would have provided for release on bail and suspended execution on a daily basis” in the sixth written statement of the prosecution, requesting money from September 2, 2015 to October 10, 2015, it is difficult to readily reverse the Defendant’s statement in a criminal case as to KRW 2 billion (one billion on a cash, one billion on a check) and one billion on a different basis from that of his/her defense counsel’s statement in the same criminal case as his/her new statement made.

E) The F’s meeting is in line with the G statement to the effect that “this is likely to cause danger to central law and central examination,” and that “The fixed number of visitors to the National Assembly may be delayed, and the location may be narrow and narrow, at the same time.” The circumstances where all are faced with “the situation where the F is likely to be reinstated” (Article 4001 of the Investigation Record). This statement is consistent with the G’s statement to the effect that the Defendant said that F is an expected to be reinstated to a court, or that “the Defendant has committed an act of hiding the title.”

(2) Status of G at the time of the issuance of the money, reasons why the money was given.

A) G Criminal Trial and Investigation Case G is pending in the trial on October 18, 2013 after being detained and tried for the H on the grounds of the H case on October 18, 2013, and on February 20, 2014

The first instance court (the first instance court: Q20), and the appellate court (the same court GR) appealed from the first instance court to two years and six months of imprisonment, and was released on bail on February 24, 2014). Under the above circumstances, the Gangnam Police Station commenced an investigation into the K operated by G, and was under the BU, P and G investigation into the K. H. From January 2015. H case was concluded on April 17, 2015 and was scheduled to be sentenced on May 13, 2015. After the date of sentence was changed on June 3, 2015, the argument was resumed on June 22, 2015, and the argument was concluded on February 24, 2014, and the I and J case was also concluded, and it was concluded on June 13, 2015.

B) Before the issuance of money, N and the Defendant came to know through R, paid approximately KRW 1.64 billion in total as expenses for the establishment of an investment advisory company from March to 4, 2015, and street expenses for the above criminal cases of G, and “BV L judge from the Defendant (the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, belongs to G to the current L judge)” (the Defendant, the attorney-at-law, belongs to G), hearing the speech that H, I and J cases would go to G. In addition, on April 15, 2015, G gave the Defendant a reply to KRW 20 million to deliver to the police officer of the Gangnam Police Station at the Gangnam Police Station, and it appears that the Defendant was sufficiently informed of the results of the investigation by the Gangnam Police Station at the Gangnam Police Station at the time of the investigation by the Defendant at the time of G police station at the time of the investigation by the Gangnam Police Station at the time of the investigation by the Defendant at the time of G police station at the time of the investigation.

In light of this point, when the "BV L judge" around May 22, 2015 came to know that it is not a L judge but a F lawyer, the defendant was converted to the defendant. However, the defendant ordered F to be a former L judge and to be reinstated in the past year. Although it is not an incumbent L judge, the defendant's statement that it continued to be applied to the defendant and F, considering that it is difficult for F to seek another person who is a former L judge, it is acceptable to accept the G's statement that it is a former L judge.

C) The reasons why the money was given on June 26, 2015

From May 2015, the Defendant has to collect money from G for the purpose of street funds while making N or dialogue with N (Investigation Records 2662, 2698, 2703, 2785, 2795, 285, and 2858) or has to transfer a judge’s house (Investigation Records 2838, 2860-23).

In addition, the defendant made N on June 18, 2015 to 19. N and operated another similar receiving company with force from him/herself and F on June 18, 2015 to make it a statutory restraint, G is also a statutory restraint, and "I saw from the next week," and "F reports once I am aware of the fact that I am," (the investigation record 2787, 2794, 2839, 286 pages), and the defendant appears to have been planning to obtain more than two billion won from G along with N as above.

However, N disclosure of the recording file with the Defendant to G, and G rather than hear the recording file. According to the G’s legal statement, F around that time, stated that “F was in a relationship with the Defendant and will not help him/her,” and that “I will no longer help him/her,” thereby giving KRW 2 billion to F. F due to the lack of stopping of the street expenses already in progress. He/she appears to have been made after the detention of G. The F’s meeting note that “G scl will be seen as being true.” The mind means that “G scl will be seen as being true” (402 pages), and this statement is similar to that of “F.”

In full view of the following circumstances such as the relationship between the Defendant and F, the situation and tendency of G at the time, the method of issuing money, and the F’s oral argument activities, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant and F, the Defendant and F, the Defendant and F, the video recording files with N, made it difficult for them to be carried out due to their disclosure, and whether F, the Defendant and F, who were receiving the funds from G, was not directly receiving the funds.

G was aware of the fact that “BV L judge” issued N’s visa funds to be used by the Defendant, and “BV L judge” was directly engaged in the street activity, and there were other defense counsel accepted for the criminal cases of the Defendant at the time, but it is difficult to conclude a contract of appointment that comprehensively entrusts a advisory contract or criminal case with a large amount of KRW 2 billion without any intention. Ultimately, G’s statement that this part of the funds was given as the pretext of a solicitation for teaching agenda is acceptable.

D) Conditions from September 2, 2015 to 9.10, at the time of delivery of money

G was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the H on August 12, 2015, and appealed by being detained in court for four years. In this situation, the argument of the IJ case was concluded on August 20, 2015, and was scheduled to be sentenced to the judgment of the appellate court on September 17, 2015. From the beginning of August 2015, the gold reduction documents inspection was conducted in relation to the M case, and on August 31, 2015, the gold reduction documents inspection was conducted.

In this situation, G was released as bail in H case and was planned to inform this fact to the Tribunal of the IJ case, and according to the sentence of sentence in H case, G seems to have been concerned about whether there is an adverse effect on the trial of the IJ case or the investigation of M and K case.

E) Status at the time of issuance of money, 1.10, 30.

G is released on October 7, 2015 by being sentenced to three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution at the appellate court of the H case. On the same day, M is subject to emergency arrest due to the same day M. G’s release in H case. G appears to have been difficult to set aside a plan to escape from a foreign country upon release in the case of H. G’s release in the case of M. Moreover, in the event that the route was continuously damaged, it seems that she had been induced to pay back the route

F) The tendency of G to resolve at the expense

G was subject to further investigation due to the prosecutor's investigation direction in relation to the K case. At the request of the police officer BW who received a solicitation from the Defendant, G deposited KRW 10 billion directly with the securities company working at BW around June 10, 2015. G seems to have no focus on resolving the case.

On August 31, 2015, G talks with other attorneys-at-law who are selected or appointed as a teacher in accordance with the relation and relationship among them appear. On August 31, 2015, G divides conversations with respect to other attorneys-at-law who are aware of other locations at the meeting on September 2, 2015 (Investigation Records 627-628 pages), and divides conversations with respect to other interview attorneys-at-law (Investigation Records 643-647 pages), and G calls to the effect that on September 18, 2015, the number of attorneys-at-law should be appointed in compliance with the warrant practical examination (Investigation Records 643-647 pages), 2015, 2015, 9, and 222.

Based on this point, the Defendant and the defense counsel are attorneys-at-law engaged in legitimate arguments, not in the name of the teaching and solicitation, and there are other attorneys-at-law engaged in entertainment activities separately from G. However, solely on the fact that G found another attorney-at-law, it cannot be readily concluded that G either rejected G’s statement that he appointed F as a school agenda or that F did not have any pretext of solicitation for school agenda. This is because there is room for interpreting the statement that G was dependent on entertainment, as such, by means of reinforcement of the statement that he provided money to Defendant and F for a non-commercial purpose.

G) Although G, such as the Defendant and F’s trust, is likely to doubt or criticize the Defendant and F in the middle, it appears that the Defendant and F, instead, believed that the Defendant and F, were able to teach and listen to (in accordance with the expression of the G meeting recording, hereinafter referred to as “day”). G, on August 19, 2015, the Defendant, at the meeting, stated that “the Defendant is one day which is certain to ensure the work” (540 pages) and the F, upon issuance of a provisional attachment order with respect to the claim for damages against M on-the-spot employees in a civil case seeking compensation for damages, the F, on October 6, 2015, stated that “I am the best way to know about the original provisional attachment.” It appears that “I am the Defendant’s ability to know about the investigation record 565,565,” and that “I am the Defendant’s 16th day of the suspension of execution,” and that “I am the Defendant’s 10.5th day of execution”.

h) G, including G’s attitude, that the release will be made by release on bail from the Defendant who had an interview with the detention center, and that he seems to have heard the horses for release from the Defendant and F, and convictions about the release. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant appears to be “I see that our two weeks have passed since now, I see that I am able to appeal, and if I am able to hold a separate hearing for release on bail, I am able to do so by opening a separate meeting on August 14, 2015.” In addition, G seems to be “I am 10 days before 10 days before 20 days after 10 days after 20 days after 10 days after 20 days after 20 days after 10 days after 20 days after 20 days after 10 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 20 days after 3 days after 20.5 days after 3 days after 20 days after 20 days after 3 days after 20.5 days after the final.

G at a meeting on September 10, 2015, the day prior to the date of the release on bail, it appears that “I will be the person who believed to be, and will be the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, and the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, or the person to be, the person to be, the person to be, the person to be.

(iii) the method and time of the issuance of money;

A) On September 10, 2015, G delivered money to the Defendant and F was entirely delivered in cash except for KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015. Even if there is a tendency to arrange for payment in cash even in the case of lawful attorney appointment fees, the payment in cash instead of a small amount is considerably exceptional. Even if G has taken into account that a large amount of fraud was committed, it is doubtful whether it was necessary to pay in cash without using a method of account transfer, etc., if it is not a pretext of solicitation, as alleged by the Defendant, unless it is the attorney appointment fees or agreement payments, not a pretext of solicitation. Moreover, G made a withdrawal of KRW 1 billion to deliver KRW 1 billion on June 26, 2015, and it appears that it would not have been easy to withdraw cash that is one billion won in cash at one time, and considering that the F would have received the aforementioned loan immediately before the loan was made, G is required to first make a statement in cash.

B) On September 2, 2015, G sent to the Defendant on the same day on the same day on September 2, 2015, G stated that “W” was “W. The photograph stamped is stamped, and the file is left in the USB.” (U.S.C. 651 pages) and “B,” and that “W, at the time of delivery of KRW 300 million to the Defendant in this court, was placed with a photograph of KRW 1 billion in the check delivered to F. Q, as seen earlier, was an attorney fee for a lawyer who did not intervene in the teaching or solicitation. However, it is doubtful whether G might have been difficult to receive a cash storage certificate or receipt from F if it was the above fee for a lawyer who did not intervene in the teaching or solicitation.”

C) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s mother entered into a contract to purchase a house of Gangnam-gu AP and paid the remainder of KRW 400 million that the Defendant’s mother borrowed on June 17, 2015, following the disclosure of the recording file, and as seen below, immediately after paying the remainder of KRW 400,000,000,000. Moreover, G had already been appointed as a defense counsel with respect to the H and IJ cases, and was at the end of the trial. The Defendant was planned to receive money from G. On this premise, there is room to view that the Defendant and F paid the purchase price of a house on June 17, 2015, and on this premise, there is room to deem that the Defendant and F paid the purchase price of a house. In particular, at the stage of no need to appoint a defense counsel, the Defendant’s statement reinforcement is that the Defendant’s mother was paid a large amount of money and that F was paid with a cost-of-law.

D) The total amount of KRW 30 million on September 2, 2015, KRW 700 million on September 7, 2015, KRW 100 million on September 10, 2015, and KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015 was distributed to the appellate court on August 31, 2015, and the F applied for release on bail on September 9, 2015, and was paid before and after the opening of the date of release on bail on September 11, 2015. This conforms with the G’s statement that F and the Defendant demanded money on the pretext of the full bench system and solicitation.

4) The argument that AW was paid as the agreed amount

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts that, as the Suwon District Court BX case (hereinafter referred to as the “AW case”) which was consolidated into the H case was not recovered from damage and was detained in the first instance court, G was detained in the first instance court. As such, the Defendant asserted that the sum of KRW 2 billion in the sum of KRW 300 million on September 2, 2015, KRW 700 billion on September 7, 2015, and KRW 2 billion on September 10, 2015, was deposited or stored in the G for the agreement of the AW case.

B) Contents of the AW case and reasons for the judgment of the first instance court

AW case is a case that: (a) in collusion with BY, AM, P, and BZ, established W, an enterprise investing in an overseas futures in Daegu from November 11, 2013 to August 11, 2014, and received a total of KRW 1,548,787,977 from 158 to 158, and that BY acquired a total of KRW 25,00,000 from 8 victims of total investments.

In light of the above facts constituting the crime in the first instance judgment, G is clear that the Defendant was not prosecuted, and that it was not punished as the Defendant. However, the first instance judgment states that, in relation to “AW in favorable circumstances in relation to all the Defendant’s grounds for sentencing”, approximately KRW 20% of the deposit was returned, and approximately KRW 200 million was paid with the payment, etc.

In the calculation according to the above written judgment, the deposit which was not returned at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance seems to have been approximately KRW 1.24 billion if the amount of the deposit which was not returned at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance is not considered. However, since the Defendant’s assertion that he received as the agreed amount of AW case is KRW 2 billion, and KRW 1.7 billion is excluded even if he/she excluded the amount of the deposit which was cashed as the Defendant’s assertion, and KRW 300 million is KRW 1.4 billion, the amount of the deposit which was not returned exceeds the above amount of KRW 400 million.

C) On August 13, 2015, G’s meeting recording referred to in the Agreement of W case, "I would like to make a fluent fluent fe, a farite, a farite farite, a farite farite farite farite farite farite farite farite farite farite farite fear far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far f. f. f. f.

In addition, the meeting labor union, prepared by F, carries out by G, etc., stating that “AW - the part within which the right of defense was exercised (the investigation record 3932 pages).” 5. AW agreement includes: (a) the circumstantial report was made later; (b) the preparation for money was made; and (c) the agreement or deposit expenses was made at the full bench; and (d) the “AB attorney-at-law today on the ground of the failure” in paragraph (1) of the same Article 1. According to G’s statement, F criticizes AB attorney who provided G on the ground of the statutory detention immediately after the court was detained in the first instance court; and (b) the same side’s “the central and several appointment limits” appears to have been discussed as to the H case and the IJ case as planning to prepare and submit the appointment system. In full view of all the above, it appears that there was a discussion as to whether the decision was made immediately after the judgment of the court of first instance.

D) Whether G agreed to enter into an agreement between F and AW

G stated in the investigative agency and this court that the F was refused to mention the enemy in relation to the AW case. In fact, it appears that G refuses to request cash under the name of deposit in the recording book of G’s meeting. On August 18, 2015, the interview record “A shall be flickly flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flicking flick flicking flicking flick fl

It is necessary to why money in cash is needed to be deposited? (The investigation record 527 pages).

위 다)항에서 살펴본 AW 사건 합의에 관한 언급은 H 1심 선고 직후 시점부터 2015. 8. 19.경까지 나온 것이고, 그 후 G가 돈을 지급한 2015. 9. 10.까지는 접견부 녹취서에 AW 사건에 관한 언급이 등장하지 않는듯하다. F의 접견노트에는 2015. 8. 25.자로 'AW 떼어내고☆'라는 기재가 있는데(수사기록 3948쪽), 위와 같은 기재만으로는 단정할 수 없지만, G의 입장에서 피고인으로 되어있지도 않은 사건에 관하여 양형 이유에 기재되어 있다는 이유만으로 20억 원이라는 돈을 낼 필요가 있었는지 의문인 점 및 아래에서 보는 사정들을 종합해보면, G의 진술대로 AW 사건은 진행하지 않기로 결정하였을 가능성이 높아 보인다.

E) On September 9, 2015, the statement of reasons for appeal and the statement of the decision regarding the agreement on the case in question in the statement of reasons for appeal, submitted on the statement of reasons for appeal as to the case in question, F states that “The act of establishing AW shall be completely distinguishable from the Defendant’s act of violation, such as the Act on the Receipt of Criminal Claims, as a fraud,” and that “The act of establishing AW shall be completely and completely distinguishable from the Defendant’s act of violation” (in addition, “H deposit was returned by 100%, and CA case 26), three benefits, such as seven persons whose identity cannot be confirmed in the Labor Standards Act, whose total amount of investment deposit, 140,000,000 won, which is known within the identity of H, are deposited with each attorney during the period of keeping the case in question (the investigation record, 7517-717-719, F. 99, 2015).”

In the judgment of the appellate court of the H case, the reasons for the sentencing of the BY are as follows: "AW has not been restored to a considerable part of the received amount"; however, the judgment of the appellate court agreed on the AW case and decided to deposit the AW case as alleged by the defendant.

It is difficult to explain why this circumstance is not reflected in the appellate court's judgment.

F) As seen earlier, the time and method of payment of the money was paid in cash and in check. However, while entering into an agreement with H victims for the appellate trial of the H case, G remitted money to the National Bank account of the AL, AK managing G’s funds transferred money to the account of the victims directly from the AL’s account to the account of the victims, and the deposit was also paid directly from the AL account (Investigation Record 6564-65 pages).

As such, it may be possible to deposit funds by directly transferring the funds to the account of the victims or transferring the funds to the F account. It is natural that a large amount of KRW 1 billion out of KRW 2 billion has been paid in cash, and that KRW 1 billion received as a check has been changed to cash at the time of paying a high fee. At the time, there was a field investigation on M on August 31, 2015, but it seems that there was no significant investigation, but it was still a situation where M was arrested on September 17, 2015, Y, the representative of M office, was arrested on October 15, 2015, and the seizure and seizure of M office was conducted on October 15, 2015. At that time, 00 and AM continued to have been arrested on October 16, 2015, and there was no need to exchange the funds with G from around 10 to 25, 2015 to around 10, 2015.

If it is not yet decided whether or not to reach an agreement with respect to AW case, it was accepted from G for the purpose of agreement, and if it is necessary to view the agreement in contact with the full bench, it was made for the purpose of agreement. However, if it is not necessary to reach an agreement, it is returned to G because it is not necessary to reach an agreement, it is difficult to explain the KRW 1 billion on September 10, 2015, which was received after submitting the statement of grounds of appeal that G is unrelated to AW case.

G) G’s attitude and at the time, speechG shows a difficult attitude to explain the agreement amount of the AW case in relation to the payment of this portion, and dialogues that correspond to the fact that it is the LW’s funds. G was made on August 25, 2015, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, the breabbbbbbing cen in 11 months and 12 months, and on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, the preparation is not made, on the other, on the other, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the other’s contribution.

In addition, 100 million won and 100 million won can be seen as being the case in which they can be seen as soon as soon as possible." In light of these dialogues, it is sufficient to see that this part of the money is a so-called "cost," which is different from that of the AW agreement that the F first mentioned, i.e., the so-called "cost," i.e., the cost of which is deemed to be a cost according to the G's statement. If the agreed money is deposited, it is difficult to understand the words of G, i.e., "I will make the damage recovery", "I can see it as an essential content in the release on bail," and "I can see it with only 584 pages."

G answers on August 28, 2015, to the effect that “Isn't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl', fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl't fl' fl't fl't fl't fl't f. 8.

In addition, on September 11, 2015, G's meeting record shows that "F is, A, and AV does not have any her work," or "IV do not have any her fly, if her fly.10 won," and it is difficult to explain if her agreement is reached.

H) The assertion that the return was made through X, etc.

The defendant asserts to the effect that he returned KRW 1.7 billion to G through X or 0, a driver of G, with the exception of moneted fees, by receiving moneted fees as agreed gold in AW case.

There is no statement or other objective evidence that can recognize this point.

As seen earlier, this part of the money was paid by 0 or Q, and it is doubtful whether X was necessary to return to X since X was not involved in the delivery of the money. G and F made solicitation to the Gangnam Police Station to punish X as a charge of larceny, etc. on the ground that X stolened cash revenues from G around September 2015 and attempted to discover concealed properties of G.

G의 2015. 9. 25. 접견 녹취서에는 "그리고 X 과장28) 있지? 그 새끼 내가 차에 5천만 원 있거든? 신분증하고 걔가 다 가져간거야, 그러면? ... 니가 뭐 하기 그러면은 AV 상무한테 얘기를 해서 좀 그런 거 잘하잖아. '상무님이 해결해 달랜다고 G 대표가 그러더라' 그렇게 해."라는 대화가 있으므로(수사기록 5535쪽), 2015. 9. 25. 전에는 X가 G의 차량에서 현금을 절취하였고, G가 이를 알고 AV 상무에게 해결을 요청한 것으로 보인다. H 사건 선고일 전에 작성된 것으로 보이는 F의 접견노트에는 '중요 선고일 앞두고 체크중 : 정보 새나가면 안됨 누가 간첩인지 모름, X, AA 변호사 등'이라고 기재되어 있는바(수사기록 3999쪽), F도 G로부터 X가 절도를 하고 피해자측 변호사인 AA 변호사에게 협조하고 있다는 내용을 들어서 알고 있었으리라 추측할 수 있다.

On October 14, 2015, G’s meeting record: “A shall be put into the CD and X, as soon as possible, and at the same time, a more fluence shall be made. At the same time, I am see that it now shows that, “I am, I am, I am, I am? I am? I am am? I am am am? I am am am am? I am am am? I am am am? I am am am? I am am am? I am am am? I am am? I am am am? I am am am, I am am am am, I am am, I am am, I am am, I am am, I am am, I am am am am at this time, I am am. I am am am. I am am am. I am am. I am am..

The Defendant stated that he had given cash to the police officer Gangnam-gu, including V and W, for the purpose of soliciting punishment against X at an investigative agency. However, the criminal facts of the instant application for detention warrant on X prepared on March 24, 2016 are as follows: 60 million won, which were being mab from August 20, 2015 to September 17, 2015; Mabro from August 20, 2015; Mabro, Madro, Madro, and Madro, operated a car with a total of KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was 30,000,000 won, were not included in the amount of damage (hereinafter referred to as “the instant agreement”); 1.70,000,000 won, which was written by the Defendant, together with A3A on August 28, 2016.

In the end, after the 'AW agreement amount was sentenced, X theft was known and returned.

There is no reason to return to X suspected of larceny. On the other hand, even if the thief was returned prior to, or after, a sentence of larceny, F met G from time to time, and therefore, F did not receive proper refund from G. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the part of “AW agreement amount” that is much larger than the amount when soliciting X for the larceny case ( even if X was returned to 0 et al., F and G communicate with each other, and if the fact of embezzlement is confirmed, it appears that the legal measure was taken). Accordingly, the argument that X returned AW agreement amount through X is difficult to accept.

5) Whether a contract for appointment has been prepared and submitted, whether oral proceedings have been conducted, etc.

A) June 26, 2015, KRW 2 billion

The Defendant asserts to the effect that F was charged with the overall handling of all cases of G, including financial advice and H, on June 26, 2015. However, the appointment contract was not submitted in this court, and it is unclear whether it was actually prepared or not. F did not submit an appointment contract in the first instance court with respect to the case of H, and on August 12, 2015, G was detained in court by the judgment of the first instance court, and submitted an appeal to the appointment system. F did not submit an appointment system even in the IJ case, and L submitted an appointment system on August 17, 2015, which was after G was detained as the above H case. At the time, H1 case and I case of the first instance court and the first case of the military court were selected and presented as a counsel of G. In addition, with respect to the case of the Gangnam Police Station, H did not submit an appointment system and did not appear to have been appointed to CB, around 30,015 through 300,700).

B) Total sum of KRW 2 billion from September 2, 2015 to September 10, 2015

(1) In relation to this part of the money, it appears that the FUH appellate court submitted an appointment system, submission of documents, etc. It is difficult to conclude that only the acceptance amount of a criminal case is the pretext of the solicitation of school affairs. However, as seen earlier, this part of the money cannot be deemed as the acceptance amount of a criminal case, and the payment for release on bail or for release on bail appears to have been made at the cost of release on bail. At the time, H case is deemed to have been the main issue at the appellate court, and considering the fact that the case was decided immediately on the first trial date, it cannot be denied that the amount of KRW 2 billion received by the F is a considerable amount.

(2) F. The appellate court’s telephone call is between H. H. and H. 2. The court below’s 205208 worked in the same court, and F.C. There is friendly relationship between the wife of the presiding judge and H. H. The court below’s 2.5th trial date and the lower court’s cell phone number on two occasions over May and July 2015, 2015. The F sent two messages to the presiding judge’s 20th trial date from 10 to 25th trial date to 10.5th trial date, the following day of G. H. 15 to 20th trial date, and the lower court’s 1.5th trial date from 20th trial date to 20th trial date, and the lower court’s 1.5th trial date from 20th trial date to 20th trial date, and the lower court’s 2.5th trial date from 20th trial date to 19th trial date.

F appears to have frequently contacted the presiding judge from the day after G was detained until the day of the appellate trial judgment, and there is a little time after the working hours or night. These circumstances were to use a friendly relationship with the presiding judge in resolving G's case.It is doubtful that F attempted to use a friendly relationship with the presiding judge.

(3) On the F’s meeting street, there are some statements written under the premise that G is naturally released on the date of the judgment of the appellate court rendered at the H appellate court (the investigation record 399 pages), and in light of the above statements, F is likely to divide the dialogue on the premise that G and G are to be released.

C) On October 30, 2015, F, at the investigation stage, submitted the appointment system on September 30, 2015 with respect to MM cases, but submitted the resignation system on October 23, 2015, and did not submit the appointment system that received the money even after the completion of the public trial. According to the AB attorney’s statement, F, in response to the AB attorney’s statement, required that he/she submit his/her written opinion in the name of AB attorney.

D) The F reported to the Legal Ethics Council that all cases related to G are free of charge and reported to that effect, and the amount of KRW 5 billion received from G is deemed not to be included in the amount delegated by the Seoul Bar Association and did not pay taxes.

6) Sub-decisions

A) The F prepared and submitted a document at the first instance court of H in the instant case, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the statement was made, and it appears to have been presented at the appellate court to have held a pleading. Since the case where several defense counsels are appointed, the appointment fee cannot be deemed to be the money under the pretext of the teaching and solicitation merely because other defense counsel was already appointed, the appointment fee cannot be deemed to be the money under the pretext of the teaching and solicitation. However, even if a defense counsel was already appointed, even if a defense counsel paid a large amount of money to F who was aware that he was in charge of the expenses, the fact that no special legal argument was made before detention is included in the money paid to F, not a normal pleading, but a friendly relationship.

B) Article 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that each instance shall submit a document jointly signed by and sealed by a counsel. As such, the effect of appointment of a counsel arises only when a written report on appointment of a counsel is submitted to the court or an investigative agency, and there is no effect of litigation conducted without submitting a written report on appointment of a counsel (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12737, Feb. 26, 2015).

In addition, the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a case pending in a trial without submitting a letter of appointment of counsel or power of attorney to a court or an investigation agency, or a criminal case under investigation or internal investigation may not be defended or represented (Article 29-2), and imposes a fine for negligence not exceeding KRW 10 million on a person who violates it (Article 117(2)3).

Therefore, the fact that an attorney-at-law did not prepare a letter of appointment even when he received a considerable amount of money from a client in connection with a specific criminal case, and that he did not submit a counsel appointment system to the court would be the circumstance that such money was received under the pretext of a solicitation not for legitimate defense activities nor for remuneration. In addition, in addition, in a case where he did not submit a system of appointment and appointment, and he did not pay to another attorney-at-law the expenses he received as a commission for appointment and has had another attorney submit and present it to the investigation agency or court, it can be inferred that he had the other attorney-at-law take charge of the ordinary activities, and he intended to concentrate on the role of the solicitation.

C) The Korean criminal procedure adopts the principle of discretionary prosecution, and the ex officio elements such as ex officio examination of evidence in the trial proceedings are not significant, and the type of punishment and the scope of discretion are relatively broad in the determination of sentence, etc., and the result of investigation or trial belongs to the jurisdiction of a judge or a prosecutor who has considerable authority.

In determining the above discretion, judges shall observe the procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes. Public trials shall be held in court, and the hearings and judgments of trials shall be open to the public.

(Article 56 and 57 of the Court Organization Act (Article 37(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), judgment shall be based on oral arguments (Article 37(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), all statements in the courtroom, examination of evidence, examination of the accused, and final statement of opinion, and the agreement of the trial shall not be disclosed (Article 65 of the Court Organization Act). A judge shall not interview or contact the parties and their agents, etc. in a place other than the court (Article 4(4) of the Code of Ethics of Judges). The Criminal Procedure Act provides that release on bail, revocation of detention, or suspension of execution shall be decided by a ruling, and shall seek the opinion of the public prosecutor before making the decision (Articles 97 and 101 of the Code of Ethics of Judges). Accordingly, in the case of a collegiate panel, a judgment shall be made by an agreement of a collegiate panel in the court after oral arguments in the court, and in making a decision related to the restraint of the

Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the act of a defense counsel's contact with the court in an unofficial manner other than the court and the official ruling in the absence of a request for release on bail is not an ordinary form of pleading as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, even though it can not be readily concluded that the act of a defense counsel's request for a verdict of innocence or a suspended sentence is an associate to the court, and it is difficult to conclude that the act of a defense counsel's request for a ruling of release on bail is an associate to the court under any condition that it is possible to release on bail under any condition other than the court and the official ruling in the Criminal Procedure Act, and inform the client of the possibility of permission on bail or when the release on bail is made under any condition, and that the act of receiving large amounts of money in consideration of the release on a specific date is difficult to view as a legal professional with public nature and beyond the legitimate scope of activities for defense activities.

As seen earlier, G appears to have been granted the money of KRW 2 billion to the Defendant and F, after hearing the horses of conviction in release on bail from the Defendant and F. Even if there was no speech, such as explicit contact to the full bench or offering a bribe, in the process of issuing the money, as alleged by the Defendant, even if there was no statement in the process of issuing the money, it would be sufficiently recognized that it was the premise of the teaching and solicitation of the full bench, and the Defendant and F would have been sufficiently recognizable.

Money received from G may be fully recognized as expenses incurred in relation to the solicitation of teaching out of normal activities as a legal professional with public nature.

D) In addition, even if the Defendant and F contain some of the cost for legitimate oral proceedings or the cost of appointing another counsel on the money received from G, this shall be deemed as an indivisible combination with the money in the name of the teaching and solicitation, and thus, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established on the whole money received.

E. Judgment on the assertion about public offering

1) Parental relationship between the Defendant and F

Around April 17, 2015, the Defendant issued F a cash of KRW 100 million to F, and thus, deemed to have become aware of F prior to that time. On May 8, 2015, the call recording between the Defendant and N, the conversations between the Defendant and N to the effect that the Defendant was closely related to the Defendant’s gifting in sight of F (in the investigation record, between 2600-2602, 2607-2608 pages). Moreover, on May 22, 2015 between the Defendant and N, N in the telephone recording between the Defendant and N, “N in this case, she appears to have been aware of the relationship between F and C? If other people look at, she appears to have been the same as a love relationship? (In the investigation record, 2741-friendly relationship), Defendant 251-201, Defendant 25-21, Defendant 251-2015.

G and N stated in the investigative agency and this court that the defendant obtained the apartment of her life with F, and P entered into a contract with the defendant and F at the investigative agency and this court. In fact, in the recording book between the defendant and N, not only the statement that the defendant and F should obtain the leave of the presiding judge of the H first instance court, but also the statement that the defendant should obtain the F's house. On June 18, 2015, in the recording of conversation, the defendant 's "at once her her fly fly fly fly fested with A's fy," and the defendant her fy fy fys. In addition, the money fy fy fy fy fy, which is now fying, but now fys now."

Defendant stated that the expression “F” or “F” appeared several times in the recording book (hereinafter investigation record 2619, 2655, 2659, 2717, 2721, 2725, 2827, 2827, 2838, etc.) of N and G, and the Defendant and F were petated. AC, an attorney at the F attorney-at-law in the F attorney-law office, made a statement to the effect that the Defendant and F, are aware of the relationship between the Defendant and F, and AD considered de facto marriage or internal relations.

The Defendant received text messages and currencies several times each day with F. According to the P’s legal statement, G opened the N-recording file to the public, and took place with F along with G, the Defendant, at the place of pursuing both the Defendant, N, R, etc. The Defendant’s CF apartment, which appears to be used by F, was also left away. The Defendant’s mother concluded a contract to purchase AP Housing Bonds on May 18, 2015. The Defendant’s mother concluded a contract on the purchase of F-B Housing Bonds on June 17, 2015, which is the remainder payment date of the said house, is used to repay the seller’s loans. The Defendant can be deemed to have been considerably close to the point of borrowing or receiving a donation of the amount of KRW 400 million from F around June 17, 2015.

After the instant crime, although the check received from NN around December 2015 was used as the Defendant’s CF apartment bond and the Defendant’s house purchase price. In addition, when FF files a complaint against NN, the Defendant was his/her spouse and was given a written statement, and FF also entered the Defendant’s apartment address in the address of the written statement.

In full view of these facts, the Defendant and F seem to have been close to the relationship that can receive money from G in the pretext of an educational solicitation from G around June 26, 2015.

2) Specific execution, etc. by the defendant

G made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was in charge of contact with the full bench in the investigative agency and in this court, and that the work related to dividends was the Defendant and AV. On August 17, 2015, G, in the meeting record of G, the Defendant “We have reported to the extent of two weeks from now, to the extent of two weeks, to the extent of two weeks, to the appellate court, to the extent of two weeks, to the extent of the release on bail, and to the extent that the release on bail will be opened separately,” G is the same as “g, to the extent that the greged and the greged, and that the greged number is well known.”

The Defendant, “I would like to see if I am you you you you you you you would see, and I am you will see. I am we will see. I am we will see. I am we will see. I am we will see. I am we see. I am we we we will see.” The above dialogue supports G's statement that the Defendant and AV took charge of the distribution work.

Defendant asserts that an interview with the detained G is only twice. However, an interview is conducted.

On the record, the Defendant visited G is a total of four times from August 17, 2015, September 1, 2015, the same year, September 16, 2016, and September 21 of the same year (around September 16, 2015, G has made a statement that the Defendant had an interview with a place change meeting (hereinafter referred to as “special meeting”). The Defendant had an interview with G on September 1, 2015, and made a telephone call, and notified the desired father, (a) has been distributed, and (b) has been understood as having been understood as having a sembling spirit belonging to F, and the Defendant was also above G (760 pages of investigation record), and the Defendant had an interview with G and used it to explain the position or progress of GF beyond simply transmitting the horses of F, and made it difficult for the Defendant to use it as G.

P는 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 G가 구속된 후, M 사무실에서 피고인, F, AV, 이 등과 함께 G의 항소심 준비를 위한 대책회의를 하였다고 진술하였다. 피고인은 G뿐만 아니라 이에게 일이 진행되는 상황을 알리고, 돈을 더 줄 것을 요구하기도 한 것으로 보인다. G의 2015. 8. 18. 접견 녹취서에서는 피고인이 공탁하는 것에 현금이 필요하다는 말을 하였다는 것을 전제로 대화가 진행된다. G의 2015. 9. 10. 접견 녹취서에서는 0이 "내일 그거랍니다. 내일 오후에 그거, 좌심이 튼다 그랬잖아요. 그거 다 끝났고 요새 완전 자신감 넘쳐서 다 했거든요. 그러니까 BL이 방금 얘기 끝내고 나왔대요..

On September 10, 2015, when the BL end on the first half of the trial, 00 p.m., the first half of the trial, and the first half of the trial, she seems to have been on the 99.99% p.m. on the 99.9% p.m. on the first half of the month, the first half of the trial, and the first half of the trial. The first half of the trial, is on the first half of the trial, and the first half of the trial, are on the first half of the trial, and the first half of the trial, are on the first half of the trial.

As seen earlier, the Defendant directly received a total of KRW 1 billion in cash on September 2, 2015 and September 7, 2015, and delivered it to F. The Defendant served as a key role that makes it difficult to convey money by exchanging the check through his/her own seal and tracking the check.

From April 2015 to June 2015, the criminal facts in this part, the Defendant directly served as a solicitation with regard to the Gangnam Police Station, and the statement to the presiding judge of the first instance court of the H case was closed, and the Defendant appears to have served as a part of the appellate court’s distribution of the H case on the date corresponding to the criminal facts in this part, as well as on the date corresponding to the criminal facts in this part, and the Defendant was responsible for the role of requesting X’s punishment to the Gangnam Police Station from October 2015, which was the criminal facts in this part. However, it is difficult to accept the assertion that the Defendant was excluded from this role in the solicitation related to the H case.

It is unclear how the Defendant and F divides KRW 5 billion acquired through this part of the crime. The Defendant appears to have no special revenue except for those paid monthly salary in M. However, the Defendant acquired a considerable amount of property, such as a house in the name of a parent, an apartment bond, a high visibility, an escape fund held at the time of arrest, a lease vehicle received from F, etc. before and after the instant crime (i.e., the relationship between the Defendant and F, the role of the Defendant shared by the Defendant, and the fact that part of the check was delivered to the Defendant even though the Defendant did not participate significantly in the check, it can be presumed that the Defendant divided the Defendant’s profit in relation to this part of the crime.

3) Ultimately, in collusion with F, the Defendant could fully recognize that he was received KRW 5 billion from G as stated in its reasoning.

2. The violation of paragraph (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the money received from G is expenses for establishing and operating a separate investment advisory company rather than expenses under the pretext of solicitation, so-called “Roviing funds”. Moreover, the Defendant is merely a use of the said money for legal advice, office interior and household collection, etc., or is divided into N, and is not a use for solicitation.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant is fully recognized as having received money in favor of the court, full bench, and police officers in relation to the case of G'H's ‘H' public trial, the Central District Court's ‘IJ' public trial, the Gangnam Police Station's ‘K' criminal investigation case, etc. as stated in its reasoning. The above assertion by the defendant is rejected.

1) The name of G Associated Money

A) The Defendant stated to the effect that G gave more than KRW 1.3 billion to N, and that G provided necessary funds under the name of K case office, etc.

B) From this court, G and N stated in the purport that G were paid KRW 1.64 billion in total, including KRW 1 billion around March 11, 2015, KRW 1 billion around March 24, 2015, KRW 270 million on April 21, 2015, KRW 270 million on April 24, 2015, and KRW 270 million on April 24, 2015, and that the said amount was paid together with G’s expenses for solicitation for a new investment advisory company, such as interior construction cost, deposit money, and cost for household purchase, and KRW 1.64 billion on April 24, 2015.

C) Although the Defendant asserts that the above amount did not include street expenses, it is difficult to easily explain that N and the Defendant, who did not know about G, and who did not have any experience in operating the Investment Advisory Company, paid large amounts exceeding 1.6 billion won. Rather, in the first instance, the Defendant’s statement that he was given the Defendant’s previous consultation about the passage-based experience and that he was given the Defendant’s solicitation for G cases is more persuasive.

D) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant prepared a model for police officers of the Gangnam Police Station, and delivered KRW 20 million directly received from G to police officers. Moreover, G, P, etc. informed the police officers of the investigation details in advance before undergoing an investigation at the Gangnam Police Station (2819-2821 pages), and G deposit KRW 10 billion with securities companies working at BW’s wife who received a request from the Defendant. On May 9, 2015, the Defendant divided the conversations with the Defendant to the effect that he/she solicited the case of the Gangnam Police Station along with N and AV (hereinafter “Investigation Record 2618, 2625-28 pages), and the Defendant and the police officer’s conversation to the effect that he/she received additional money from the Defendant and the police officer on May 16, 2015 (hereinafter “N.265-265-265-265-2665-2665-267-67-6766666-6666-66666).

E) The Defendant asserted to the effect that, on the grounds of dialogue such as “100 Central Central Republic Republic of Korea,” which appeared in the recording book with N, G promised 10 billion won to support the establishment cost of investment advisory companies at the expense of the Defendant and N. However, as seen earlier, in light of the relationship between G and the Defendant, etc., it is doubtful whether G provided the establishment cost of a pure investment advisory company in light of the pure relationship between G and the Defendant, etc., and there is room to interpret that “10 billion won” in the context of a conversation means deposit with the wife of BW, or that G used the investment fund individually. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that such a description alone does not constitute any money paid by G.

F) Ultimately, G shall be deemed to include 1.64 billion won paid to N in the name of solicitation in relation to G’s case. The following points are examined as to whether N paid each of the above amounts to the Defendant for solicitation.

2) Individual determination

A) Attached Table 4 No. 4 No. 17 April 17, 2015, an amount equivalent to KRW 10 million in cash and KRW 100 million in cash

The defendant itself acknowledges that he received it from N under the pretext of delivering this part of the criminal facts to 'BV L judge', and in fact argues that F was given F as advisory contract fee for the establishment of an investment advisory company.

G stated in the investigative agency and this court that the defendant delivered Emers bags containing 100 million won in cash to the "BV L judge". The N also stated in the investigative agency and this court that the defendant would go through the "BV L judge" to the "BV L judge," thereby inserting KRW 100 million in Emers bank.

At the time, the defendant introduced F as 'BV L judge', and introduced F as 'BV L judge', the defendant was working for G's case through 'BV L judge', the amount of N's National Bank AT account (hereinafter referred to as 'public fund account') on April 16, 2015 transferred from N's National Bank AT account to CH legal office on April 16, 2015, and the amount of cash 100 million won which is contained in the bank's advisory expenses for the establishment of the investment advisory company is paid as 'BV L judge' in consideration of these examples. In addition, as long as the defendant receives a request for a public official of Emeras and cash 100 million won on the pretext of solicitation, it does not affect the establishment of a crime.

B) Attached Table 7 No. 7, 2015. 6. 6.14 million won nautical miles tons at the nautical miles

The defendant himself recognizes the fact that he received it from N under the pretext of delivering it to 'BV L judge' on this part of the crime, and asserts that it was for fraud of F, not just for solicitation.

N must pay to the "BV L judge" in investigative agencies and in this court.

On May 8, 2015 between the Defendant and N, the Defendant stated that he was able to see the Defendant’s visibility. In the telephone recording on May 8, 2015 between the Defendant and N, the Defendant: (a) stated that “BV was able not to receive a bribe in sight; (b) “BV was talked about how to see the judge; and (c) “G was her to go back if her was not inside,” and “G was her to go back if her was fluored and her was fluored” (the investigation record 2600-2602, 2607 pages).

In conclusion, N's statements supported by the above recording document, some of the defendant's legal statements or the account details of public funds (a.e., investigation records 8561) are sufficiently reliable.

C) On May 2, 2015, No. 10 No. 10 No. 10, May 22, 2015, 2015, N stated that the Defendant resolved the case of G through AV at the investigative agency and this court. On May 22, 2015 between the Defendant and N, the Defendant stated that “AV-type 34” was given. Accordingly, the Defendant was given a more time and more, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the other, on the one hand, on the other, on the other, on the other, on the other, on the other, on the other, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the one hand, on the 1,000,1500, and on the other, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the 3000.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

2. 35 types of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (at least KRW 100 million) of acceptance of money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation and intermediation of crimes against the Attorney-at-Law Act

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes is very poor, a crime in the form prescribed by Article 110 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is committed. 36)

Reduction element: None

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: In the event of solicitation, evidence after the commission of a crime is discarded, or the factors to reduce recidivisms: None of them.

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Priority: Imprisonment for a period of three years to seven years;

3. Determination of sentence;

The sole crime of this case is a large amount of money when the Defendant gains or delivers to a judge, police officer, etc. from G while receiving a large amount of money. The Defendant was a current L judge who made a solicitation to receive money from G to receive money from G, and received a large amount of money from G. For these crimes, the Defendant introduced F to G, and repeatedly refers to what kind of solicitation and disposal would be made in very concrete and factual context while referring to the real name and relationship with the presiding judge in charge, etc., and the relationship with G, etc., and the Defendant repeatedly refers to what kind of solicitation and disposal would be made. The Defendant obtained the examination of the case of Gangnam Police Station and sent it to G in advance, and solicited to reduce the investigation and trial. The Defendant received money under the pretext of a criminal investigation or punishment to be received by G in an inappropriate manner, and thus, the Defendant was seriously detrimental to the trust in the overall criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the above money was not contrary to the investigation and trial procedure by investigative agencies, construction work costs, refund of the said money, and trust in the entire criminal justice system.

The Defendant, in collusion with F, was released from G as a suspended sentence or release on bail, or was given a total of 5 billion won in consideration of the pretext that the Defendant’s joint criminal act with F after the instant single criminal act was committed. In light of the circumstances where the joint criminal act with F was committed after the instant single criminal act, the Defendant would be deemed to have committed a criminal act with F, an attorney-at-law. The Defendant introduced G to F, demanded money more than once on the pretext of directly contact with G before G, and requested money on several occasions on the pretext of solicitation before G was detained. After being detained, the Defendant made a speech that G was aware of the situation after having been detained, or that he received money directly from G, and played an essential role in this part of the crime, such as directly receiving money from G. The Defendant did not understand that this part of the money was paid as agreed upon, nor did not have any participation in the crime at all, and thus, did not seem to be consistent.

Defendant has been sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment and fine several times, and the Defendant has been sentenced to two times of imprisonment. The Defendant has been punished for committing a crime that has given bribe to public officials of the past customs office. The Defendant committed the instant crime within the repeated crime period of two times. The Defendant and F have concealed evidence in the attorney-at-law office, etc. after the media was known to commit the instant crime.

On the other hand, 5 billion won received by the Defendant together with F includes part of the remuneration for the Defendant’s active activities as a criminal counsel appointed by F, and part of the remuneration appears to have been paid to other attorneys, and since the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as the crime of fabrication of official seal for which the judgment became final and conclusive, the fact that it should be considered at the same time with the judgment and equity is favorable to the Defendant.

However, due to the Defendant’s criminal act, the rule of law has been shaking from ppuri, and the fairness and expectation of criminal procedure and the people’s trust and expectation of judicial system have been collapsed. In order to recover the imperded trust with respect to the overall criminal justice system, it is necessary to open efforts by bones. The Defendant’s wrong desire and behavior restores trust in the judicial system that has broken away due to the Defendant’s wrong desire and behavior, and intends to strictly punish the Defendant by taking the Defendant into punishment for a prolonged period of punishment in order to re-re-conspit him as a honest social person, taking into account various sentencing conditions, and determine the sentence as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is provided by a public official to a trial investigation agency during sole crimes;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On March 26, 2015, the Defendant received cash KRW 100 million from G to G's Suwon District Court case through a judge who served as a "L judge" in the direction of G that the Defendant would pay the street funds required by the Defendant, as well as from around that time to June 1, 2015, the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 100 million in cash as well as from around 351,000 won in total over 13 times, as described in the annexed crime list, from around 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant received a total of KRW 351 million under the pretext of providing a public official of the trial investigation agency.

B. Determination

In light of this part of the facts charged, the prosecutor seems to have been indicted by applying Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act to this part of the facts charged. However, Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the attorney-at-law or his/her office staff shall receive money and valuables under the above name." The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is an attorney-at-law or office staff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in relation to the commercial competition, the decision of acquittal shall not be made

2. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the receipt of money or valuables under the pretext of the remaining solicitation, excluding Nos. 4, 7, and 10 in the list of crimes in attached

A. Summary of the facts charged

Around March 26, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 100 million in cash from G to a judge who served as a "L judge" to pay the street funds required by the Defendant, and received KRW 100 million in cash from G from around that time to June 1, 2015, as shown in the list of crimes (excluding Nos. 4, 7, and 10) in attached Form 10 times in total, the Defendant issued G Suwon District Court case of KRW 2.7 billion in total, as described in the list of crimes (excluding No. 4, 7, and 10), G Suwon District Court case of 'H', ‘I-J-J trial case', ‘K' of Gangnam Police Station, etc. under the pretext of soliciting and arranging the court division and police officers.

As a result, the defendant received a total of KRW 270 million under the pretext of solicitation or mediation with respect to the affairs handled by the public officials of the trial investigation agency.

B. Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, where the defendant denies the receipt of money and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt, the statement by the person who provided the money must have the admissibility of evidence, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined whether not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, but also its human beings, and whether there is an interest in the statement. In particular, in a case where there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her and there is a possibility of the commencement of an investigation, or an investigation is in progress, even if the admissibility of the statement does not reach the extent that the admissibility of the statement is denied, whether the efforts to escape from the imminent position of him/her may affect the statement.

In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the fact that the defendant denies the receipt or payment of money, the examination of whether the defendant can trust the statement of the person who asserts that he/she provided money several times, and where the defendant denies the credibility of the statement on the part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of the statement, the credibility of the statement that he/she provided the money through several times should be deemed to have been considerably weak. Therefore, even if the objective circumstances, etc. that make it difficult to believe that the statement on the remaining part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that part of that money was not revealed have not been revealed, it is not permissible in principle to recognize the remaining part of that part of that part of that part of the statement on several occasions. Unlike the part that rejected the credibility of the remaining part of that part of that part of the statement, there are sufficient grounds to prove (see, 2008.

C. Determination

1) As seen earlier, evidenceG, which correspond to the facts charged, included 1.64 billion won paid to N in the case of G, in the form of money for solicitation. However, some of the above money was already disbursed as expenses for interior works, etc., part of which was divided into N and the Defendant without any particular reason, and part of which was paid as a solicitation to the Defendant, it should be examined as to whether each individual amount was paid as a solicitation.

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, there are ① the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement (the fourth suspect interrogation protocol), ② N’s investigation agency and court statement, ③ G investigation agency and court statement, ④ the call and conversation between the Defendant and N, ⑤ the N’s national bank account (the “AT” hereinafter) and the statement of withdrawal.

However, the Defendant stated in the fourth suspect interrogation that “G grants the amount exceeding KRW 1.3 billion to N, and that “The amount received from N is KRW 350,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is the pretext that AV settles the K case,” but there is no content that recognizes each individual amount. The Defendant denies this part of the crime in this court.

G’s investigative agencies and legal statements provide N with money and give it to N, and the specific contents of which are given for solicitation are known to N. In addition, the account details of public funds and the statement on the withdrawal of money can be evidence that the money was given from N account, but it is insufficient to recognize that the money was given to the Defendant for the fact that it was delivered to the Defendant and solicitation. Ultimately, direct evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged is N’s statement, currency, and conversation.

2) Determination of the credibility of N’s statement

A) N has made a statement by specifying the amount of money paid as a solicitation to the Defendant based on the details of the withdrawal and transfer of the government fund account in an investigative agency and this court. N has stated in detail the withdrawal details by distinguishing the amount divided by the Defendant, N, and R without any special reason.

B) N in relation to the investigation agency and this court’s statement of April 17, 2015 No. 4 Emermers bank and cash portion, 100 million won in cash and 100 million won in checks at a point above the pressure of the National Bank, and settlement of KRW 10 million in checks and KRW 10,100 million in cash at a point above the National Bank’s gals Sgals Sglar Sglar Sglar Sglar Sglass shop, and the Defendant sent 10,010 million in Seocho-dong, and then, the Defendant sent 10,000 won in cash to Emers bank, and 10,000 won in cash, 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 750,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 15,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000.

In accordance with N’s above statement, a check withdrawn at around 15:10 on April 17, 2015 should have been used by the Defendant, and the check withdrawn at around 17:49 on the same day should have been used by N. However, according to the result of the tracking of the check, a check of KRW 100 million (100,000 won) on April 17, 2015, KRW 5 million (30,000 from CJ to CK) on the account of N on April 20, 2015, KRW 40,000 (CL-205,000,000 won) on the account of N on April 20, 2015 (CJ, CO-205,000,000 won on April 17, 2015) on the account of the National Bank C&20,000 won (hereinafter “Personal Account”).

Ultimately, according to the result of tracking the check, since all or part of the first withdrawn checks and the last withdrawn checks have been N, the N’s above statements are inconsistent with the outcome of tracking the check.

다) 또한, N와 피고인 사이의 통화 및 대화 녹취록에는, G로부터 받은 금원을 특별한 이유 없이 나눠가졌다는 취지의 대화도 등장한다. 2015. 5. 16. 통화 녹취서에서 피고인은 "아 11억 가지고 씨바 진짜 뭐 판사 쪽으로 간 게 얼마나 돼?"라고 말하기도 하고(수사기록 2665쪽), 2015. 6. 18. 대화 녹취서에서 피고인은 "아니 빠갠거 있잖아, 처음에 1억씩 빼고, 1억 1,000씩 빼고, 그 다음에 판사 갖다 준다 그러고 조금씩 빠갔잖아."(수사기록 2870쪽)라고 말하기도 하였다. 이러한 대화에 비추어 보면, G로부터 받은 돈 중 상당한 금원을 로비 명목으로 출금한 것이 아니라, 피고인과 N가 나누어 가졌을 가능성도 있다.

D) The Defendant’s statement is a strong doubt that the Defendant received money from N for a considerable solicitation. However, in full view of the fact that the N’s statement is inconsistent with the aforementioned objective check tracking results, N is likely to have made a statement in exaggeration with the Defendant with good mind since it thought that the Defendant excluded himself/herself in relation to G and sent a letter of criticism against the Defendant and F after G was detained, and that there is a possibility that he/she made a statement in exaggeration with a good mind against the Defendant, and that there is a possibility that he/she may cause confusion between the cost of solicitation and personal expenses and the cost divided into the cost of solicitation. Unless the N’s statement is sufficiently presented or it is sufficiently supported by other evidence that can reinforce the N’s statement, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest as the Defendant’s interest.

3) Individual determination

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, N’s investigative agency and legal statement that seem to correspond to the facts charged are difficult to believe, and the remainder of the evidence alone cannot be said to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.

A) The direct evidence to acknowledge the charges of KRW 12,00,000,000 exists on March 20, 2015, No. 1 attached Table No. 1, 2015, only the N’s statement exists in the first interrogation of a suspect by the prosecution. The N made a statement in the second interrogation of a suspect by the defense counsel, whether he/she did not make any statement on this part during the second interrogation of a suspect. N was asked by the defense counsel on March 18, 2015 that the said amount is not anti-influent or anti-influence, and transferred the amount of KRW 10,000,000 from the public fund account to the personal account, and transferred the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 from the public fund account.

A. On March 26, 2015, the statement was made to the effect that 2.14,00 won was written at the expense of the company after withdrawing from the public fund account (which is 101-106 pages). However, there is doubt as to whether there was a need to pay the company funds by withdrawing the costs of the company funds in cash in advance and making them more than a week, such as the above statement, and there is no other evidence to reinforce this part of the statement.

B) On March 26, 2015, No. 2 attached Table 2 No. 2, 2015, KRW 100,000,000,000 from this court to the personal account on March 26, 2015, and then deposited KRW 200,000,000 from the personal account, and among them, KRW 100,000 was paid to the Defendant as the personal expense, and KRW 50,000,000 was paid to the Defendant respectively, and the Defendant and the Defendant were divided. However, N stated in the investigation agency that the Defendant would bring KRW 100,000 to the personal expense, and that there was no statement that KRW 50,000,00 was paid to the Defendant or that KRW 25,500,000,00,000,00 was not made. The evidence of this part can not be reinforced.

C) On April 3, 2015, No. 3, 2015, N of the [Attachment 3] No. 5 million won at an investigative agency to resolve the case through AV at the Gangnam Police Station. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant sought five million won at the Seocho National Bank of the Republic of Korea: (a) and (b) made a statement that the date was the first day of the AV. At the end of March 2015 in this court, N first met AV at the Seocho National Bank of the Republic of Korea; and (c) made a statement that the Defendant was the first day after finding five million won at the Seocho National Bank of Korea. However, N responded responded to the cross-examination of the defense counsel, including “AV clothes value, regardless of whether it is a street expense; and (d) “AV Dolululululu,” and “Dolululu,” written a statement to the effect that it is not certain that the cost of the examination of the witness itself is not determined.

D) Attached Table 5 No. 5 million won on April 29, 2015, 5 million won on April 29, 2015, 6 No. 500,000 membership expenses for membership and membership expenses on May 6, 2015, 8 No. 12, 5 million won on May 12, 2015, 2015, 12 No. 2015, 5, 29.5 million won on May 6, 2015

There are only N's investigative agencies and legal statements that can be admitted as evidence to this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence that can be reinforced.In the case of membership fee No. 6, N, Defendant, G, etc., as alleged by the Defendant, are likely to have been disbursed for drinking regardless of solicitation.

E) Attached Table 9 No. 2015, May 2015, 200 won, as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this part, there exist N's investigation agencies and court statements, and the monetary record No. 20, May 20, 2015, and a gold transfer statement. However, the content of the above recording statement is that the defendant would find the expenses that the defendant stated in cash or check, by asking N's whether the defendant would recover KRW 10 million (2708-2709 of investigation record). It can be evidence that the defendant received KRW 10 million. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received KRW 9,00 in solicitation. In addition, it is difficult to view that the N'A's statement was independent of N's statement because it was stated N's statement, and it is difficult to view that the defendant would have sufficient probative value to issue the receipt again, and it is not sufficient to conclude that the above statement and receipt were issued again under the name of N's statement and receipt.

F) Attached Table No. 11 No. 11, 2015. 26, 10 million won as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in part, there are N’s investigative agencies, legal statements, and advance slips of withdrawal; however, it cannot be deemed that advance slips of withdrawal sufficiently reinforce N’s statements.

G) Attached Table No. 13 No. 15, Jun. 1, 2015, there are N’s investigative agencies and court statements as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in part, and the monetary recording and withdrawal slips as of June 1, 2015. However, the above recording may be evidence that the defendant received KRW 50 million (278-2779 pages of investigation records) by dividing the amount of the defendant’s oral expenses into KRW 20 million and KRW 30 million (27 million). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received KRW 50 million in solicitation. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the recording and withdrawal slips are sufficiently reinforced.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a single comprehensive crime, the sentence of innocence

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

Judges Yang Yang-soo

Judges Jeon Jae-chul

2) As examined below, the Defendant rendered a not-guilty verdict on part of the facts constituting the crime, thereby correcting the facts constituting the crime accordingly.

3) Only a conversation, with the exception of a monetary part.

4) Only a conversation, with the exception of a monetary part.

5) The prior meaning is ‘written request'.

6) On June 26, 2015, the day when the said money was received was set aside, and on June 29, 2015, using the loan money was set aside.

7) Ten means one billion won; hereinafter the same shall apply.

8) The recording book is written as "a book-keeping," but seems to be written as "a book-keeping," if taken into account the recording file," and "a book-keeping," respectively.

9) Some of the witness examination records were conducted on the premise that they were on September 3, 2015, but the examination was conducted on the premise that they were on September 2, 2015. However, in light of the following circumstances, the examination appears to have been conducted on September 2, 2015.

10) Evidence lists No. 472 “A and F Currency Details.xlsx files are to move the part corresponding to A monetary content (A.1 to 2015.4.12 to 2016.5.12) of the file. The phone number and correspondence number were deleted for the protection of personal information.

11) There are instances where names such as “BE”, “BF”, “BG”, and “BH” appear in the recording book of each meeting of G, and all of the recording files seem to be written in writing of “F”.

12) G refers to ‘N', ‘BL', which refers to the Defendant as ‘N'.

13) Meanwhile, the defense counsel asserts that “BI Co., Ltd., an executive officer of G, Q, and Q, made a false statement on the premise that “BI Co., Ltd., was another similar receiver and was not punished for such new crime.” However, it is insufficient to deny the credibility of the statements made by G and Q, as well as the grounds for deeming the said company to be a similar receiver. However, the said company’s registration of incorporation was made on January 29, 2016, and Q, etc. to be a director on July 21, 2016, after two months have passed since the first prosecutor’s investigation was conducted in relation to Q, etc. (see, e.g., all the registered matters attached to the record of the examination of witness in Q). This circumstance alone is insufficient.

14) Evidence list No. 472, “A and F currency details.xlsx files, “F currency details (F.4.3 to 2015.5.12) are transferred (in addition to investigation records 1475 pages). The phone number and correspondence number were deleted for personal information protection.

15) Investigation records 2499 pages

16) Investigation records 2501 pages

17) In each note 14 reference, investigation records are also appended to 1479 inner protocol.

18) In the judgment of the court of the first instance of M case, Y states that "Y is relatively low in the degree of fence, and the degree of profit." (Investigation Records 378 pages).

19) The combined number of cases is omitted.

20) The combined number of cases is omitted.

21) Investigation records 1580 pages.

22) Investigation records 1546~1568 pages.

23) The recording of the 2859~2860 pages of investigation records refers to the name of the presiding judge of the H first instance court if "F" appeared several times, and all recording files are taken into account.

24) It is referred to as above in that the crime of 1,548,787,97 X 80% X 1,239,030,381.625) AW was committed in Daegu.

26) In a case merged with H case, G is the name of the other company where G is the defendant of the fraud crime.

27) On the 721st page of the investigation records, “CC is, A,** whether it does not come to know of the work,” and the recording file (8 minutes 42 seconds) is included in the text.

28) X means X.

29) Investigation records 230-2334 pages

30) According to the inquiry results in the F case (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gohap505, 890 (Joint) the amount of KRW 15 million out of the amount of KRW 30 million paid to CE attorney-at-law is considered to have been returned.

31) Investigation records 1868 pages

32) The defendant and N use the expression "I", "Iskin", "Iskin, and "Iskin," and "Iskin, divided," and "Iskin."

33) As seen in Paragraph 2 of the part of the lower judgment that N’s N’s statements are not reliable. However, N’s statements concerning facts constituting an offense in this part are sufficiently supported by G’s statements, Defendant’s partial statement, and the account details of public funds (i.e., investigation records 8560-8561). Thus, it is reliable.

34) The recording form is written by the CI in writing, but if the recording file is taken into account, it seems that it is written in writing in the AV form.

35) The sentencing guidelines do not present the method of dealing with the crimes in the commercial concurrent relationship, and the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, as appropriate, it is necessary to refer the sentencing guidelines to the crimes in the commercial concurrent relationship, the following is examined as reference to the scope of the sentencing guidelines recommended for the serious crimes in the commercial concurrent relationship.

36) The above sentencing factors are limited to the joint criminal conduct with F, but there are most of the above sentencing factors with regard to the total amount of KRW 5 billion in total of KRW 5,14,000,000,000.

37) As seen earlier, the Defendant was guilty of the charge of receiving Emers bags and cash KRW 100 million. The part that the Defendant brought KRW 100 million on the personal guard is not included in the facts charged. However, on the basis of the details of the withdrawal, it is important to determine the credibility of N’s statement specifying the money in the name of solicitation, and this is examined below.