Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

With respect to Defendant 1, 95 days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

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

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the charge of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act is acquitted.

Before determining the grounds for appeal as to each of the above grounds for appeal, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained as it is, since the prosecutor examined the above grounds for appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor changed the facts charged against the Defendants, and thus, the judgment below cannot be reversed without determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the defense counsel.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member is again decided.

(Criminal Facts)

Defendant 1 is a person who operates miscellaneous images in his residence, and Defendant 2 was in the office of the Gyeonggi-do Jindong-si Office from December 1, 1970 to June 1, 1972, and was in the Red Sick Station Office of Gyeonggi-do;

1. The defendant 1 notified the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1) to file a complaint with the non-indicted 1 through the non-indicted 3, etc. on August 8, 1951 on the fact that the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, etc., the non-indicted 1's outer accommodation of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 3, etc. reported his death on August 10, 1971, while the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, etc. was dead on June 25, 1971, and the expulsion was known that the defendant was aware of the fact that he had the non-indicted 1 filed a complaint to the non-indicted 1 through the non-indicted 3, etc., and had the non-indicted 1 had the non-indicted 4 who sent the death, received KRW 100,000,000 from the non-indicted 4.

2. Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3, etc. conspired with each other for the purpose of exercising the binding force on Nonindicted 1’s agenda, and Defendant 2, at the time, shall keep the official seal, etc. of the above principal of the above principal of the family register and take charge of arranging the entries in the family register at the office of the Myeon/Dong of the Gyeonggi-do Strengthening Gun on August 11, 1971.

From January 8, 1951 to July 7, 1951, Non-Indicted 3 received a death report stating the fact that Non-Indicted 2 died at 106 Doi-ri, Doi-ri, Doi-ri, and affixed the official seal of the head of the strengthening military unit by entering the true fact in the family register, and making the false fact in the family register of the name of the head of the above Doi-ri, and keeping it at the same time from that time.

(Abstract of Evidence)

The summary of the evidence of the defendants' criminal facts acknowledged by a party member is as shown in the evidence column of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The so-called defendant 1's judgment falls under Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the same defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year within the scope of the term of punishment chosen by imprisonment during the prescribed period of punishment. The so-called "defendant 2"'s judgment falls under Articles 227, 229, and 30 of the Criminal Act as stated in Article 227 and Article 30 of the same Act. Since the above are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, since the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime committed by Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act are the concurrent crimes committed by Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act, within the scope of the term of punishment, 1 year shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendants shall be included in the above punishment for the defendant 1 during the period of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment by Article 57 of the Criminal Act, and since there is a relatively minor reason for the postponement of the above punishment for 2 years from the above two years.

(not guilty Part)

On July 10, 1974, the summary of the charges of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act with respect to Defendant 1 was detained by Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 6 who were living in Dong Ri in the Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri on July 10, 1974, and at the reinforcement police station, it was under investigation at the reinforcement police station to mediate to receive a settlement of KRW 1,50,000 for the complainants of the case, and after Non-Indicted 5 and 6 were released, the case is found to have been delivered KRW 160,000 from Non-Indicted 7 at the defendant's dwelling on February 27, 1975 at the same place around 18:00, and according to the evidence of this case including the statement at the court of the defendant's party branch, the defendant's settlement as stated in the facts charged, and received KRW 20,000 as the aggregate of the charges.

However, according to the purpose of Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the prosecutor's office of the defendant is the complainant of the above adultery case, and according to the defendant's testimony in the court below and the court below and the court below and the court court's testimony as to the non-indicted 7, and the defendant's testimony in the above adultery case, and the defendant's delivery of money to the defendant's mediation or settlement request, and the delivery of money and other valuables to the defendant was never made (the defendant received a request for settlement arbitration from the non-indicted 5) as stated in the above public notice, and the non-indicted 7 received consolation money from the non-indicted 5 to the non-indicted 7 to the non-indicted 7 to the non-indicted 7 to the non-indicted 7 to the court below and the court's ruling and the court's testimony as to the non-indicted 7 to the above defendant's money and other valuables, it cannot be seen that the defendant's money and other valuables were already delivered to the defendant's arbitration after July 25, 19707.

Thus, the above facts charged against Defendant 1 constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime or the facts charged, and thus, it is decided to be acquitted under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)