2017Gohap475(combined)(b) third-party brain delivery

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

E. Violation of the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Act

(f) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

2. D. B

3. e. C

4. (f) D.

5. E.

Attorney I, J, K, L (Defendant A and E)

Law Firm M, Attorney N (Defendant B)

Attorney Park Do-young (Law Firm C, Attorney Park W-young)

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three years and six months.

Seized evidence Nos. 1 and 5 shall be confiscated by Defendant A.

2,449,804,350 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid to Defendant A.

[Defendant B]

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant B to provide community service for 80 hours.

18,300,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant B.

Defendant B shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

[Defendant C]

Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Where Defendant C fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for 70 days.

To order the defendant C to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

[Defendant D]

Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of eight months.

However, with respect to Defendant D, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant E]

Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant E, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[2017Gohap344] - Defendants

Defendant C is a person who works as a certified labor attorney in Q of the labor law firm from October 13, 2010 to December 2015, and from January 2016 to October 13, 2016, Defendant C is a person who works as a certified labor attorney in P of the labor law firm from October 13, 2010 to July 2015, and from August 1, 2015 to August 1, 2015, Defendant D is a person who works as a certified labor attorney in the R labor law office from April 2015 to December 2015.

Although Defendant A is not an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney, Defendant A is a person who has registered himself/herself, T, U, etc. in labor law firms P, R labor law offices, law firms, etc. operated by the above Defendants as an employee and operated an office acting as an agent in applying for industrial accident compensation

Defendant B is a person who works as the chief of the original affairs division in charge of industrial accident compensation in the W Hospital, which is an industrial accident designated hospital in Mapo-gu Seoul, 5 and 606 from June 2009.

Defendant A introduced patients from the Director of the Office of Home Affairs of the hospital in the process of the industrial accident compensation insurance, with the worker's application for industrial accident compensation on behalf of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation, and received fees.

On the other hand, X is a person who served as a deputy head from February 9, 201 to February 15, 2014 as the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation Y branch.

1. No certified public labor attorney shall allow another person to perform the duties of a certified public labor attorney, using his/her name or the name of his/her office, nor lend his/her qualification certificate or registration certificate to another person;

On July 1, 2009, A, who is not a certified public labor attorney, was registered as an employee in the Z registered with the Korea Certified Public Labor Attorney Association, and the Defendant C, who is a certified public labor attorney, was acting as an agent in the affairs of applying for industrial accident compensation along with T as well as T. A proposed that, upon Defendant E, who was a dynamic, passed the Certified Public Labor Attorney Examination, establishing a labor law firm for the Defendants around August 2010, thereby allowing the Defendants to employ and engage in industrial accident compensation business. The Defendants established PP (Representative C and certified public labor attorney E) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, 108 and 1009 and registered with the Korea Certified Public Labor Attorney Association.

From October 13, 2010 to May 1, 2015, the Defendants employed a business employee who is not qualified as a certified labor attorney in P of the labor law firm as an employee, and registered as a P of the labor law firm by using the name of "P of the labor law firm", thereby soliciting patients to apply for industrial accident compensation, allowing them to prepare an application for industrial accident compensation and submit it to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and in return, paid 10 to 10 to 20% of the disability compensation paid by the patients from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation as the fee.

Accordingly, Defendants used the name of "P of labor law firm" and "Defendant E" to perform the duties of certified labor affairs consultant by using the name of "P labor law firm E".

2. Defendant D

No attorney-at-law or his/her office staff shall receive money and other valuables from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and acts as an agent, legal counsel, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs, and allow such person to use his/her name. An industrial accident hub A intends to expand the scope of affairs to the scope of affairs as an agent for applying insurance money, in addition to an industrial accident compensation as an agent for applying insurance money, but a certified public labor attorney could not act as an agent for applying insurance money, so he/she was willing to register himself/herself and his/her employees as a law firm employee and to act as an agent for applying insurance money, and was introduced to the defendant through AB, the secretary of the law firm S

A had the employees registered in the name of Law Firm S and applied for industrial accident compensation and individual insurance money to the defendant under the name of Law Firm S, and had the case introduced to the defendant in the case of related litigation cases, and had the defendant act as an agent for the application of individual insurance money and gained financial benefits as follows.

On June 2015, the Defendant: (a) was allowed to use the name of “law firm S” in the Seocho-gu Seoul Building and Law Firm S in the 11th floor as above; (b) was introduced in the damages lawsuit against Defendant AE by Plaintiff D; and (c) was paid KRW 3,300,000 as a commission fee; and (d) was introduced four times from that time until April 2016 as shown in [Attachment Table 1] through 3, and 5].

As a result, the defendant received money from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and arranged to receive legal cases or legal affairs from a person who deals with agency, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents and other legal affairs, and let such person use the name of S law firm.

3. Defendant E

A. Violation of the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Act

The defendant wanting to expand the scope of work from A in addition to the agency work for the application for industrial accident compensation in addition to the agency work for the application for insurance, but it is not possible to engage in a business ordering a certified labor affairs consultant. The "person moving to a law firm Sc office" was proposed on August 1, 2015, and transferred the office to the Seocho-gu Seoul building and the law firm Sc office in the 11th floor, and registered the Korea Certified Public Labor Attorney Association (Certified Public Labor Attorney E).

From August 1, 2015 to December 6, 2016, the Defendant employed AF as an employee who is not a certified labor attorney at the R labor law office, and registered it as the employee of the R labor law office, using the name of the R labor law office to recruit patients who apply for industrial accident compensation, prepare an application for industrial accident compensation, and submit it to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and, in return, paid 10-20% of the disability compensation paid by the patients from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation as fees.

As a result, the defendant had A who is not qualified as a certified labor affairs consultant perform the duties of certified labor affairs consultant using the name of "R labor law office".

B. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

No person, other than an attorney-at-law, shall indicate or describe that he/she deals with legal counseling or other legal affairs for the purpose of indicating or indicating an attorney-at-law or law office or obtaining profits therefrom.

Defendant and A established a RP office as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) and around September 14, 2015, the fact at the RP office is not a law firm S. employee, the Defendant and A received KRW 9,760,000,000 in total from July 27, 2016, under the same name as indicated in the attached Table 2, from that time, 9,760,000,000, in total from July 27, 2016, as shown in the attached Table 2, after consulting with the methods of applying insurance proceeds in relation to the case of applying for insurance proceeds by patients AI as an authorized labor employee of the law firm S.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with A, expressed or stated that he will deal with legal counseling or other legal affairs for the purpose of indicating or indicating the law office or obtaining profits.

4. Defendant A

(a) Bribery;

1) Around August 2011, the Defendant requested that X provide various conveniences, such as aiding and abetting the applicant for disability benefits who applied for industrial accident compensation insurance on behalf of the Defendant, notifying him/her of the results of disposal (the degree of disability, the number of payments, the payment date, etc., and allowing him/her to undergo an advisory review, so that his/her disability grade can be determined well.

On August 21, 201, the Defendant, at the king City AG apartment parking lot, X’s residence, issued money and valuables of KRW 2,00,000,00 as a honorarium for various convenience in relation to disability rating assessment, from around August 21, 201, and opened up KRW 6,642,590, in total over 12 times under the same name as shown in attached Table 3, from February 21, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant granted a bribe of KRW 6,642,590 to a person who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

2) On August 2014, the Defendant, while working as an industrial accident hub, requested the AJ division and the chief of the AJ division working in the rehabilitation compensation department of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation AH branch of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service to provide assistance in relation to the 'san Review', and the AJ did not grasp the Defendant's tendency of advisory doctors or the atmosphere of examination. The Defendant told that he would help the Defendant understand the atmosphere. From September 2014 to September 2014, the Defendant: (a) requested the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service branch of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to apply for disability benefits to the patients; and (b) requested the AJ to the effect that even if the Defendant did not submit a letter of delegation, she would assist the determination of the received disability grade; (c) would give prior notice of the results of disposal (the amount of disability, the payment date, and so on; and (d) would cause various convenience

On September 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the restaurant near the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seodong, the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service (Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service); (b) opened money and valuables of KRW 3,000,000,000 as a reward for the payment of the industrial accident compensation insurance money received by the Defendant to AK and AL, from that time until July 15, 2016; and (c) opened up KRW 18,00,000,000 in total on nine occasions under the same name as shown in attached Table 4, from that time until July 15, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant granted a bribe of 18,000,000 won to a person who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(b) Delivery of third-party brain;

On June 201, the defendant requested X to examine whether there is a patient who is subject to examination of the disability grade in the father's branch of the Labor Welfare Corporation, and whether there is an employee who is requested by the father's branch.

1) On June 201, the Defendant, along with a solicitation to the effect that “AM received from X at the front parking lot of the AG apartment at Y, AG apartment, X, requested the competent staff to receive class 10 of the disability grade”, the Defendant sent 3,00,000 won in cash to the employees of the AG apartment, along with a solicitation to the effect that “AM andN may request the competent staff to receive class 10 of the disability grade.”

2) On September 201, the Defendant sent 1,200,000 won in cash to the employees of the subsidiary branch, along with a solicitation to the effect that “AO received at the AG apartment front parking lot of the Guang-si, X may request the officer in charge to receive the disability grade so that AO may receive the higher disability grade.”

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a total of KRW 4,200,00 to X for the purpose of providing a bribe to a person who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(c) Property in breach of trust;

The Defendant promised to introduce patients who wanting to claim industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to the chief of the KLWA and to pay the consideration for various convenience on the high seas so that a medical certificate for receiving a high degree of disability can be issued.

At W Hospital around December 2015, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation to B from W Hospital to request various convenience in the process of patient introduction and issuance of a medical certificate as described in paragraph (5) below, and opened cash of KRW 1,800,000 in terms of patient AP and Q's introduction fees around December 2015, and up to August 2016, the Defendant 18,30,000 won in total on six occasions under the same name as shown in attached Table 5 of the daily list of crimes until August 2016.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation to B who deals with another person's business and provided property.

5. Defendant B

When dealing with W Hospital industrial accident compensation insurance services, the defendant has a duty to restrain outside persons from doing business for patients at a hospital, and there is a person who intends to receive industrial accident compensation insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, the defendant has a duty to restrain him from doing so.

Nevertheless, the defendant introduced W Hospital patients so that it can substitute for the application for industrial accident compensation insurance benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which has been found in W Hospital, and accepted the proposal to provide money and valuables for the purpose of Doing, face-to-face introduction fees, diagnosis fees, etc. so that the patients want to be issued.

around December 2015, the Defendant introduced AP and Q to A, and received cash of KRW 1,80,000 from A in the same manner from around August 2016 through the same manner from around six times under the same name as shown in the attached crime list 5, as in the same manner, from around August 2016.

As a result, the Defendant, who is in charge of another’s business, acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation from an industrial accident hub AC with regard to his duties.

[2017Gohap475] - No person, other than a defendant A-at-law or certified public labor attorney, shall handle legal affairs, such as representation, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, etc. concerning legal cases, in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, etc.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was not an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney, the Defendant was a person who had been employed from October 13, 201 to August 1, 201, and from December 2, 2013 to May 1, 2015, from June 1, 2015, the labor law firm P, Gangnam-gu Seoul AA building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2015, the Seocho-gu AC building, the law firm S, the 11th floor of the Seoul, and the 11th floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul, and operated an office that actually represents the application for industrial accident compensation insurance money and the application for insurance money in the name of the said labor law firm, law firm, etc. as an employee to arrange industrial accident patients.

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant consulted with AR on the condition of disability and the method of claiming disability benefits in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and submitted a written claim for disability benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.

The patient R received 15,782,600 won for disability benefits from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 340 on February 28, 201. From March 3, 2011 to October 1, 2015, the Defendant received 2,300,000 won for a national bank account in the name of the Defendant from the above AR as a fee from the above AR to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant in Seoul around March 3, 2011 and received 2,49,804,350 won in total over 676 times as shown in the attached Table 6 of the List of Crimes.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and dealt with agency, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs, and even if he is not a certified public labor attorney, he/she performed the duties of certified public labor attorney such as agency or agent for remedy for infringement of rights, preparation of related documents, etc.

Summary of Evidence

[2017Gohap344]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and E;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant C and D

1. Each of the legal statements of the witness A, T, and AB (the witness A’s legal statement is limited to the defendants except the defendant A)

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant A, B, and E by the prosecution;

1. Some statements in each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant C and D

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol of AJ and X;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning T;

1. Investigation report (No. 8), investigation report (No. 38) (No. 1) (No. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

[2017Gohap475]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of the witness T and AB;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning U and T;

1. AS statements;

1. In the investigation report (No. 1), further confirmation report (No. 1), investigation report (report on the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation report (No. 14), investigation report (report on the confirmation of industrial accident-related account books prepared by the wife AT), investigation report (No. 26 or 28), investigation report (netly, No. 29,47), investigation report (report on the confirmation of industrial accident compensation fees deposited in the A-related account), investigation report (No. 29,47), investigation report (report on the results of mobile cell phone analysis), investigation report (No. 38,43), investigation report (report on the settlement of industrial accident compensation fees) (Report on the settlement method of industrial accident compensation fees).

[No. 52], investigation report (Confirmation of personnel expenses recorded in A’s books), investigation report (No. 55), investigation report (No. 57), confirmation of the details of A’s health insurance coverage [No. 57], investigation report (A’s power of attorney) (A’s submission of industrial accident application).

c) No. 59

1. Each protocol of seizure (No. 21,69) ;

1. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Regulations, the Regulations on Management of Integrated Examinations for Determination of Disability Grades, copies of the entire certificates of articles, such as P, labor law firms, copies of the register of urgency in the office of labor law, judgment of Suwon District Court No. 262 and 349, and relevant account details;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the provision of a bribe, including the provision of a bribe, and the provision of a bribe to the other party), Articles 133(2) and (1), 129(1) (the provision of a third-party bribery) of the Criminal Act, Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the provision of a crime of breach of trust, including the provision of a crime of breach of trust, a person who is not an attorney-at-law), Article 28(1)2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, Article 27(1)1 and 2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, Article 28(1)2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, Article 27(1)2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, and Article 2(1)2

B. Defendant B

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 357(1) (in all respect of taking property in breach of trust)

C. Defendant C

Articles 28(2)3, 20-3, and 7-10(2) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in all cases, the violation of the prohibition of lending qualification, etc., and the selection of fines);

D. Defendant D

Article 109 Subparag. 2, Article 34(3), Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (a comprehensive provision of an arrangement for the number of legal cases by a person who is not an attorney-at-law), Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(3), Article 109 subparag. 1, and Article 57 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (a comprehensive provision of an arrangement for the number of legal cases by a person who is not an attorney-at-law); a person

E. Defendant E

Articles 28(2)3, 20-3, and 7-10(2) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive violation of the prohibition of lending qualifications, etc. to a labor law firm P), Article 28(2)3, and Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (a comprehensive violation of the prohibition of lending qualifications, etc. to a labor law firm P), Article 28(2)3, and Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (a comprehensive violation of the prohibition of lending qualifications, etc. to a labor law office), Article 112 subparag. 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive violation

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant A

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, between violations of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act and the punishment on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

B. Defendant E

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed on the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act concerning P of Labor Law and the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act concerning his/her name, and the punishment prescribed on the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act concerning P of Labor Law Firms with heavier

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant A

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act with the largest punishment)

B. Defendant D

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act concerning the receipt of referral of legal cases by a person who is not an attorney-at-law with heavier penalty) under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant E

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act with the largest punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B, D, and E: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Social service order;

Defendant B: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant A

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, or Defendant B

The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

[A prosecutor is seeking additional collection of KRW 9,760,00 against Defendant D. In light of the above amount of additional collection, the prosecutor seems to have sought additional collection of KRW 9,760,000 from Defendant E with respect to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, even if the prosecutor acted to seek additional collection with respect to Defendant D’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it shall not be deemed that Defendant D’s acceptance of legal case and the fees received from Defendant D’s acceptance of legal case are illegal profits derived from the violation of Article 34(3) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, since it is not a legally effective delegation contract and the fees received from Defendant E’s acceptance of legal case, and thus, it is not a subject of additional collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5069, Jul. 24, 201). Furthermore, this part of the claim is not acceptable. Furthermore, even if the prosecutor seeks additional collection of KRW 160,160,07, etc.

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant C, D, and their defense counsel’s assertion (grounded in the crime of oil)

1. Determination as to Defendant C and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant was aware that A, he employed by himself, used the name of labor law firm P, did not permit A to perform the duties of certified labor affairs consultant using the name of labor law firm P, and there is no fact that A conspired with E.

B. Relevant legal principles

In the establishment of co-offenders, a public offering does not require any legal penalty, and is sufficient if there is an implied communication with each other regarding the joint execution of a crime directly or indirectly, and it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3169, Mar. 9, 199).

C. Determination

1) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.

① A, separate from the Defendant, used the name "P of labor law firm" to take charge of industrial accident compensation affairs from the first phase of entrustment to the final treatment, and managed employees, such as T related to the above industrial accident compensation affairs, and managed the revenues of the office, etc., without actually under the direction and supervision of the Defendant who is a certified labor attorney, and handled the application affairs for industrial accident compensation insurance

② At the prosecution, A made a statement to the effect that “A was aware of the fact that the Defendant used the official seal of “P” in the power of representation prepared by the client and the labor law firm P. The Defendant was aware that A was aware that the Defendant was performing the duties of a certified labor affairs consultant using the name of “P” labor law firm P and the name of “P” of “P” of the labor law firm as if it had been from the ‘Z”.

③ At this court, A asked the prosecutor’s question, “I think that the size is accurately known even if the defendant knows that the witness will use the labor law firm P in conducting industrial accident-related business in relation to the use of the name of the labor law firm P,” and asked the prosecutor’s question, “I think you will know about what is the reason?” and I asked the prosecutor’s question, “I would like to know what is the main business of the low team is industrial accident? I would like to know that it is natural to receive power of representation, I would like to give the above statement to the same effect as the above in the prosecutor’s statement.”

④ The Defendant also used the name "P of labor law firm because it is necessary for A to conduct business." The Defendant stated to the effect that the employee A or A was aware that he/she used the official seal of "P of labor law firm" when he/she requested the case from patients, and that E also stated in the prosecutor's office that "I think it is not known that at least the Defendant is operating a labor law firm P along with the author's house."

⑤ From the standpoint of Defendant appears to have established a labor law firm P with Certified Public Labor Attorney E, who is a partner of the labor law firm, and then came to have been engaged in various flexible and intangible benefits, such as obtaining more trust from clients than operating an individual office as a representative member of the said labor law firm. Furthermore, Defendant leased the P office of the labor law firm P. Furthermore, Defendant was liable only for monthly rent and public charges of KRW 550,000 equivalent to the portion he/she uses (1/4 of the total area), and Defendant was also benefiting from office operating expenses, such as paying lease deposit, remaining monthly rent and public charges. As such, Defendant appears to have been sufficiently enough to establish the labor law firm P along with E and use the office “P” in the name of the labor law firm P.

6) A and the Defendant, who passed the Certified Public Labor Attorney Examination in 2005, served as a certified public labor attorney, had worked together in the Z and labor law firm P from July 2009 to May 2015. During that period, A dealt with industrial accident affairs over at least 600 times from March 201 to November 201, and received a fee of at least 2.4 billion won in compensation therefor. Furthermore, the Defendant introduced A’s birth E who passed the Certified Public Labor Attorney Examination in 2009 from February 2010 to May 2015, the Defendant and the Labor Law Firm P made a statement to the effect that “A” was a labor law firm that the Defendant and E became a labor law firm.

7) The office of the Z used by the Defendant, A, and E, etc. together was a small size of about 6-7 square meters in office books, and the office of the labor law firm P also appears to have been used by the Defendant, A, E, and A (T, U, etc.). In this regard, the prosecutor also stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the Defendant would have known that he/she had prepared external documents by using the name of the labor law firm P.” In order to enter the office, the office room of the industrial accident team should be obstructed, and the office work for 5 years at that office. In the form recommended by the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Association, the Defendant would naturally know that the name of the labor law firm is written.”

2) In full view of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s knowledge or experience as a certified labor affairs consultant, the period of service together with A and E, the method of industrial accident management business and the recovery and size of industrial accident affairs handled by A, the Defendant and E, the background leading up to establishing a labor law firm P, the size of office used by the Defendant, A, and E, and the structure thereof, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant jointly with E used the name “P of labor law firm” to have a certified labor affairs consultant perform the duties of a certified labor affairs consultant.

3) Furthermore, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and the defendant alleged that they did not violate Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act because they did not use the defendant's name like "Certified Public Labor Attorney C". Thus, according to Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, a certified public labor attorney shall not allow another person to perform the duties of certified public labor attorney by using his name or the name of his office. According to Article 7-10 (2) of the same Act, Article 20-3 of the Labor Attorney Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to labor law firms. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant violated Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act as long as he had a third person perform the duties of certified public labor attorney

2. Determination as to Defendant D and defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant only registered A as a law firm S and did not allow A to act as an agent in filing an application for personal insurance money using the name of the law firm S. Even so, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been mediated by A on the ground that there was no quid pro quo relationship between the Defendant introduced a lawsuit from A and the Defendant’s act as an agent in filing an application for personal insurance money using the name of the law firm S.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) In order to determine whether an attorney-at-law violated Article 109 subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act by allowing an attorney-at-law to use his/her name (hereinafter referred to as "non-legal representative") and the office staff to conduct legal affairs under the name of the attorney-at-law by using the name of the attorney-at-law, and thereby doing a violation of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act, it should be examined whether the office staff can conduct legal affairs on their own responsibility and account without actually under consideration of the following: (a) the overall process from the first acceptance of the legal case to the final handling of the case; (b) the type and content of the legal case; (c) the nature of the legal affairs; (d) the level of legal knowledge necessary for legal consultation or preparation of legal documents; (e) the method and frequency of operating the office; (d) the person who manages the income of the office; and (e) the person who manages the office's personal relations between the attorney-at-law and the staff; (d)

2) Furthermore, if a legal office clerk handles the pertinent legal affairs in the name of an attorney-at-law without actually under the direction and supervision of a certain part of the affairs, not all of the affairs of the legal office, even if an attorney-at-law is engaged in normal activities concerning the remaining affairs, a violation of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-law Act may be established against an attorney-at-law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9571, Feb. 12, 2015).

C. Determination

1) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.

① Without the involvement of the Defendant, A used the name of “law firm S” to take charge of the application for industrial accident compensation or the personal insurance proceeds therefrom from the first acceptance stage to the final treatment, and managed employees, such as T, related to the above duties, and managed the revenues thereof, and performed by proxy the application for the personal insurance proceeds, which are legal affairs for his responsibility and account without the direction and supervision of the Defendant.

A In the prosecutor's office, when he became aware of the fact that patients need to file an application for personal insurance money. In the name of E, it was impossible to perform the work related to the application for personal insurance money, and thus, the fine is imposed to AB working for the law firm on April 2015 when he was found to be a law firm, and AB introduced the defendant as he introduced ‘the fine' by introducing an attorney. After that, he later, he was registered as the employee of ‘law Firm S' operated by the defendant, and made the defendant perform the work using the name of the law firm in the name of the law firm. In the case of personal insurance money claim, which is derived from the case of ‘industrial accident', the defendant will be handled at the office of labor law operated by low-income and E. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant stated that ‘the defendant would transfer the case without compensation to the defendant's oral agreement that the defendant would make him use of ‘law firm name' by arranging the number of legal cases from A.

③ In this court’s statement, A made a statement to the effect that “A, as a witness, made a statement to the effect that “If there is a related case in return for the registration of the Defendant as an employee with employees including T and the Defendant as an employee in S law firm and for the payment of industrial accident compensation and personal insurance claims in the name of law firm S, it is unnecessary to have promised to introduce the case to the Defendant” to the prosecutor’s question that “if there is a related case, the Defendant does not do so in return for the personal insurance, it does not do so.” However, upon examining the contents of A’s prosecutor’s statement, A made a very concrete statement on the motive and circumstance of using “law firm S” in the name of “A” and the process of introducing the case introduced to the Defendant in return, and the time of the statement (A consistently made a statement to the same effect as the above prosecutor’s statement from the time when the first investigation was conducted at the prosecutor’s office), it is difficult to deem A’s above credibility of A’s statement in the prosecutor’s office.

④ The Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “A, etc. only belongs to a labor law firm during the process of accepting the case, it would be impossible to think that the Defendant would not proceed to the case until the litigation stage.” As such, the Defendant registered A, etc. as an employee of the law firm and made it possible to accept the case related to industrial accident by accepting the case in question.” However, in light of the Defendant’s knowledge and experience as an attorney-at-law, and the fact that the Defendant borrowed a name to allow AU to accept the case in his name and process the rehabilitation even before the day of the Defendant’s delivery, and that there was an amount of money received for this, it is difficult to easily understand that the Defendant received the case in question from A without any compensation (the Defendant was convicted of a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act).

⑤ The office of the SP and the R labor law office, which is used by the Defendant, A, and E together with approximately 10 months worth, is about 40 square meters. Employees (AV, AW, etc.) employed by A, E, and A appear to have used approximately 1/4 through 1/3 of these parts.

2) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s knowledge and experience as an attorney-at-law; (b) the background and background leading up to the Defendant and A’s knowledge; (c) the period in which the Defendant, A, and E used the same office space; (d) the Defendant, A, E; (c) the relationship with the Defendant, the Defendant; (d) the size of the office used by the Defendant, A, and E; and (e) the structure thereof, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, other than an attorney-at-law, provided legal services and arranged for the number of legal cases from A

3) Furthermore, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not violate Article 109 subparagraph 2 and Article 34 (3) of the Attorney-at-Law Act since they did not use the attorney's name, they shall not allow a person who is not the attorney-at-law to use his name, according to Article 109 subparagraph 2 and Article 34 (3) of the Attorney-at-law Act, and Article 57 of the Attorney-at-law Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the law firm in accordance with Article 34 (3) of the Attorney-at-law Act, so long as the defendant allowed a person who is not the attorney-at-law to use the name of "law firm S" under Article 109 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act, it is reasonable to deem

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than ten years and six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(a) Determination of type: Type V (not less than KRW 100 million) of the Act on Attorney-at-Law, such as a partnership business dealing with legal affairs by persons other than attorneys-at-law

(b) Persons under special circumstances: Where they have committed repeatedly or systematically against many clients, or committed a business offence;

(c) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than seven years (if the type of a single crime is higher than that of a single crime which is the most severe as a result of adding up the amount of profit, two years which are less than that of a single crime shall be reduced by 1/2 of the lowest sentence range (4 years).

2) The crime of offering of a bribe and delivery of a third party acceptance

(a) Determination of type: Type 1 (less than 30 million won) of the offering of a bribe;

(b) Persons under special circumstances: Where the details of solicitation are illegal or illegal;

(c) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months (aggravated area);

3) Crimes of giving property in breach of trust

(a) Determination of type: Type 1 (less than KRW 50 million) capital in breach of trust;

(b) A special person: None of the relevant matters;

(c) the scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months but not more than ten months (basic areas);

4) Setting the sentencing criteria according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes

Since the sentencing guidelines have not been set for the crime of offering a bribe for which the sentencing guidelines are set, the crime of giving a third-party bribery, the crime of giving a third-party bribery, the crime of giving a breach of trust and the crime of violation of public labor law, it shall be subject to two years of imprisonment, which is the lowest limit of the sentencing range

(c) A sentence of imprisonment and imprisonment for not less than three years and six months, additional collection of KRW 2,449,804,350;

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors shown in the trial process of this case.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, without the qualification of attorney-at-law and certified public labor attorney, repeatedly or systematically, handled legal affairs, such as application for industrial accident compensation insurance, and accordingly, committed a crime of obtaining large profits of KRW 2.4 billion over a long-term period of time. In light of the frequency of the crime, period of the crime, method of the crime, profit from the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not very good. Furthermore, the Defendant offered money and valuables to the staff of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and the chief of the Industrial Accident Compensation Hospital to receive industrial accident compensation insurance, etc. as desired. The Defendant accompanied with the offering of bribe and the offering of property in breach of trust, etc., inflicted damage on the fairness and reliability of the industrial accident compensation system, and thus, should be punished strictly.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The Defendant reflects wrong by recognizing all of his criminal acts from an investigative agency to this court. During the investigation process, the Defendant actively cooperatedd in identifying the crimes committed by a labor law firm or a person who used the name of a law firm, etc., or by a person who accepted a bribe, etc. from him/her. The Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of offense and no record

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than five years;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of type: Type 1 (less than 30 million won) taking property in breach of trust; and

2. Special convicts: Where he/she has performed unlawful business affairs in relation to veterinary materials;

(iii) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months (aggravated area);

(c) Determination of sentence (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, 80 hours additionally collected, 18,300,000 won);

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors shown in the trial process of this case.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant received property from A over several times from the industrial accident hub, and provided a patient with the introduction of patients to A so that A may engage in his/her business in return for such property. The above crime committed by the Defendant is detrimental to the fairness and reliability of the industrial accident compensation system, and the quality of the crime is not weak.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant reflects the mistake by recognizing all of his criminal acts from the investigative agency to this court. The Defendant does not seem to have actively demanded money and valuables to A. Although the Defendant was engaged in illegal business to introduce patients to A, it is difficult to view it as a violation of the principal duties of the director of the division of the hospital headquarters.

There is no criminal history against the defendant.

3. Defendant C2

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

A fine of not less than 50,000 won but not more than 10 million won;

B. Determination of sentence (fine 7 million won) takes full account of the following circumstances, Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and determine the sentence as ordered.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, along with E, established a labor law firm and caused A, an industrial accident hub, to perform the duties of a certified public labor attorney by using the name of the said labor law firm. The Defendant’s crime appears to have contributed to expanding the number of crimes by violating the Attorney-at-Law Act and the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act and expanding the scale thereof, and the period of the crime is about four years and six months, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

Although the defendant used the name of P of labor law firm, it seems that there is little benefit that the defendant directly acquired from A by clearly distinguishing between the area in charge and the ownership of fees for labor law firm, and thus, it seems that there is little benefit that the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind and there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine.

4. Defendant D3

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than ten years and six months;

(b) Determination of sentence (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution);

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors shown in the trial process of this case.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant committed a crime of lending the name of a law firm for the purpose of protecting fundamental human rights and realizing social justice with a sense of duty as an attorney-at-law. This is ultimately a serious crime that may cause indiscreet intervention in legal affairs of unqualified persons, and ultimately causes damage to the consumers of judicial services and damages to the foundation of the bar system. Furthermore, while the Defendant under investigation on suspicion of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act that received money from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and made another person use his/her name in connection with legal affairs, such as rehabilitation, etc., he/she was allowed to handle legal affairs by using the name of S law firm and received legal cases from A in return. In light of the circumstances before and after such crime, such crime is not good.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The Defendant recognized and reflected the fact that the Defendant registered A, etc. as the employee of the law firm S with a view to the acceptance of the case. The Defendant appears to be relatively short of the period for committing the crime, and the profits acquired by committing the crime seems to have not been relatively high. The Defendant has no history of punishment exceeding the fine.

5. Defendant E4)

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than four years and five months;

(b) Determination of sentence (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution);

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors shown in the trial process of this case.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: the Defendant established a labor law firm P and R labor law office, and had a worker Gap, an industrial accident hub, perform the duties of a certified public labor attorney by using the name of the above labor law firm and office. The Defendant’s crime appears to have contributed to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the recovery of crimes or the expansion of the size thereof, etc. As seen earlier, the period of the crime is about six years, and the profits acquired from pro-Japanese are also not much significant. Furthermore, the Defendant committed an offense in which the Defendant stated the intent to enter the law office in the capacity of the law firm in the capacity of S in the short period of about ten months, or to provide legal services for the purpose of obtaining profits. In light of the above criminal period, the Defendant’s crime in this case is not less than the nature of the crime.

The favorable circumstances of ○○: The Defendant recognized both the instant crime from an investigative agency to this court, and against his mistake. The Defendant acquired the qualification of a certified labor attorney upon the recommendation of a pro-friendly A, an industrial accident hub, and used the name of a labor law firm P and R legal office, and used the name of a law firm P and R legal office in accordance with A’s proposal, and there are some circumstances to be taken into account in light of the motive and circumstances of the relevant crime. The Defendant has no history of punishment.

Part of Innocence (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by part of Defendant D)

1. Summary of the facts charged (No. 1 No. 4 of the list of offenses attached to the facts charged);

Defendant D had the name of "law firm S" as stated in the facts of the crime in paragraph 2 of the judgment of Defendant D, and as a result, had introduced the case No. 1 No. 4 of the List of Crimes No. 1, and had been arranged for the number of legal cases by a person other than an attorney-at-law who received money and received legal services.

2. Relevant legal principles

The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if there is no such proof, a conviction cannot be rendered against the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006).

3. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, around July 2015, as to the first instance court case related to the lawsuit for revocation of the revocation of the Plaintiff AX’s refusal of medical care approval (attached Form 1 No. 2), A had the guardian of AX, who was subject to the disposition of non-approval of the non-approval of the application for additional medical care by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, visit AX to his office on July 2015, and then introduced AX to the Defendant. After consulting AX, the Defendant concluded a delegation contract for the instant disposition on July 1, 2015.

C. However, the scope of attorney's powers delegated by an attorney-at-law is in principle limited to the corresponding instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da52105, Mar. 8, 1994); the delegation contract (Evidence No. 195, etc.) prepared by the actual defendant and AX entered into the delegation contract of the case in the first instance; and the limitation of delegated affairs delegated by AX to a law firm S (Defendant) is limited to the corresponding instance; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that A introduced the case of revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the approval of medical care in the case of Plaintiff X, even though A introduced the case of the revocation of the revocation of the approval of medical care in the case of Plaintiff X's refusal in the first instance judgment; and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Conclusion

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 there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment regarding the comprehensive crime,

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul

2) As to the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (Article 28(2)3 and Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act) due to the violation of the prohibition of lending qualifications, etc., the sentencing guidelines are not set, and the sentencing guidelines are not applied.

3) Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(3), and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(3), and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act) of which a person, other than an attorney-at-law, has been arranged for the number of legal cases, is not subject to the sentencing guidelines

4) As to the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (Article 28(2)3 and Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act), and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 112 subparag. 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act) due to the indication or entry of legal affairs by a person other than an attorney-at-law, the sentencing guidelines are not set, and the sentencing

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.