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

On September 9, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “D” office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, would make the victim E deal with the case well by soliciting the head of the Seoul Northern Site Inspection Division, which is an internal and external third village. The appointment of an attorney-at-law is a lot of money and the case should not be well handled well.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any relative relationship with the Seoul Northern District Inspection Division and did not know at all, and even if having received money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to make the victim deal with the case as intended by the victim.

On September 14, 2012, the Defendant received from the victim a total of KRW 50 million, including a copy of the KRW 30 million check and a copy of the KRW 20 million check around October 23, 2012.

As a result, the defendant received money under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public official at the same time by deceiving another person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning E and F;

1. A criminal investigation report (report on tracking a check issued by the complainant to the suspect), a criminal investigation report, a criminal investigation report (report on tracking a check issued by the complainant to the suspect), and a criminal investigation report (report on tracking a check issued by the complainant to the suspect-3);

1. Each statement of performance (in the case of investigative records No. 7, 9, 15), application of a statute of conduct (in the case of investigative records No. 11);

1. Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the point of receipt of money and valuables under the name of trust) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the provisional payment order lies in the criminal justice function of the country.