변호사법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal between the defendant and F, the defendant is only to take charge of resolving the approval of use of reservoirs and building permission, etc., which are the premise for the business of the outdoor golf driving range, and it is reasonable to deem that the agreement between the defendant and F is merely in the form, and the above business is F's business. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant was fully aware of the facts charged of the case where he accepted money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or good offices for "cases or affairs for others", is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting
2. Determination
A. On July 30, 2008, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant at the “E coffee shop” located in D on July 30, 2008, the Defendant stated to the effect that “B is almost authorized to use a reservoir in close relation to the employees of the rural and fishing village corporation, and it is possible to grant a building permit to the public officials who know well. Any other person who is not difficult within the same day is not allowed to obtain the approval of the use of a reservoir for the rural and fishing village corporation, or the authorization and permission for the viewing of leisure. To obtain the approval of the rural and fishing village corporation and the permission for the viewing of leisure. Accordingly, it is necessary to obtain a 150 million won as activity expenses.”
After that, the Defendant received from F a delivery of KRW 50 million on July 30, 2008, KRW 50 million on July 31, 2008, KRW 50 million on July 31, 2008, KRW 30 million on October 7, 2008, and KRW 20 million on April 7, 2009, respectively.
As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation and mediation on the affairs handled by public officials.
B. The judgment of the court below 1) The case or affairs handled by a public official under Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to the case or affairs for others, and does not constitute the case or affairs for the defendant himself. 2) The court adopted and investigated.