A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The defense violation C (former summary on the same day) is an attorney-at-law who operated the law firm E in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D from April 2012 to September 2014, and the defendant is a chief secretary working for the law firm.

No person shall receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return for introducing, arranging or inducing any party to a legal case or other interested person to a specific attorney-at-law or his/her office staff member, with respect to the acceptance of the case or the attorney-at-law.

Nevertheless, around April 2012, the Defendant agreed to receive 30% of the fee on the face of the week to introduce or arrange to accept a legal case between the above law firm E Office and C, an attorney-at-law.

On December 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) arranged an attorney-at-law to accept a legal case of “F” as a delegating attorney-at-law; (b) received KRW 5 million in return for introducing and arranging the acceptance of the instant case from an attorney-at-law C around December 24, 2013.

2. Fraud;

A. On January 27, 2014, the Defendant stated that “Around January 27, 2014, the Defendant was suffering from the conflict due to the conflict between I, the representative director of H, the company operation of the deceased Sim G, and the victim F, who was suffering from the conflict, in the trade name in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant was in bad credit standing from around 2007 and received money from the injured party due to the situation where his personal debt reaches KRW 150 million, it was thought that he would use it as living expenses or personal debt repayment, etc., and did not have any ability to either strike the company's interest or investigate the other party's financial status, so there was no intention or ability to use the injured party's money as investigation expenses.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 20 million won as the same day guard from the injured party.

B. The Defendant is the victim on March 7, 2014.