Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is the chief of the attorney-at-law office.

Around July 11, 2012, the Defendant provided counseling to the victim E who is under investigation by fraud at the office of the vice-branch office of the law firm B in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul and gave money to the police as soon as possible before being investigated. Even if being investigated, money can be settled well. The Defendant provided money to the police officer. If there is a police officer, he/she would be free from paying money to the remaining accident and envelope. He/she does not know about it.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim as a street, he did not have the intention or ability to resolve the case by solicitation of the police officer.

At around 15:00 on the same day, the Defendant received KRW 8 million in cash from the victim under the pretext of school expenses, etc. for police officers.

Accordingly, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of deceiving the victim, deceiving the above cash, and making solicitation about the affairs handled by the public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the suspect examination protocol of prosecution E;

1. The point of fraud of relevant legal provisions on criminal facts: Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment provided for more severe fraud);

1. Selection of a selective fine for punishment (including the fact that the defendant has no same criminal record and has no record of punishment except for the previous criminal record for about 20 years, most of the cash that the defendant has received as attorney fees for E, and that E does not want the punishment of the defendant under an agreement with E which he/she is a defrauded);

1. The defendant under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act paid 7.7 million won among 8 million won in cash received from E as the attorney's fees for E;

Even if the defendant is a public official E.