[1] Whether a lawyer's referral of a case from a police officer in charge constitutes a bribe related to the police officer's duties (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of an attorney-at-law to accept a legal case from a person who is not an attorney-at-law after receiving a referral of the number of legal cases and to pay the case fees to such person is prohibited by Article 27 (2) and Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-law Act (negative)

[1] The act of an attorney-at-law receiving referral of a case from a police officer in charge of investigating a case and providing money and valuables on the pretext of the referral fee constitutes a bribe given to a police officer in relation to the duties of the police officer.

[2] The contents of the act prohibited by Article 27 (2) and Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act are "a referral of the number of legal cases, etc. from the person prescribed by Article 90 (2) and Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act knowing the fact that the lawyer is aware of the fact that Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-law is " knowingly," and Article 27 (2) of the Attorney-at-law is " knowingly," it shall not include "an act of receiving fees from the parties to the case, etc. and paying the fees for mediation to the person who has arranged the case," and "an act of receiving money from the attorney-at-law is punished by Article 90 (3) and Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-law is not prohibited by Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-law, while an act of receiving money from the attorney-at-law is not prohibited from the person prescribed by Article 90 (2) of the Act."

[1] Articles 133, 129, and 129 of the Criminal Code / [2] Articles 27(2), 90 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Attorney Han Ho-hun et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

One hundred and twenty-eight days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act committed in collusion with Nonindicted 1 is acquitted.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, in collusion with the above non-indicted 2, employed a non-indicted 2, who was a police officer of the Namyang Police Station, as the head of the case, and received the case referral from the police officer in charge of investigating the case through the Dong, and provided 30% of the fee as the referral fee in return;

around August 22, 1997, Nonindicted 3 and 4, etc., the police officer, who belongs to one half of the criminal case, are aware of the fact that the vehicle registration document related to the vehicle was modified and that the emergency arrest of 5, etc., who sold used cars in a foreign country, was suspected of violating the Automobile Management Act and altering official documents, etc., and that the case was accepted on September 19:0 of the same year, the above Nonindicted 2 delivered 10,000 cashier's checks 5,00,000 won to Nonindicted 3, a police officer in charge of the above case, through Nonindicted 4, as stated in the list of crimes on April 1997, to October 13 of the same year, and delivered 30,000 won to the police officer in charge of the investigation of the case and delivered 1,000 won in consideration of the fact that 5,000 won in the old viewing parking lot near the Namyang-gu Police Station around September 19, 1997.

Summary of Evidence

Each fact in the ruling,

1. Statement to the effect that the defendant delivered the money as stated in the judgment of the court of this case to the police officers in charge of this case through Nonindicted 2 at each date, time, and place in this court

1. Statement to the above purport in this Court by the witness non-indicted 2

1. The statement to the same effect among the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the prosecutor;

1. Each copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 2 and 1 prepared by the prosecutor's assistant prosecutor's office of the government branch office of the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office, and each copy of the protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's office prepared by the assistant prosecutor's office

1. Records corresponding thereto, among certified copies of criminal case acceptance registers prepared by the executive branch of the Office of Government Branch of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, which are compiled in the records;

1. A statement corresponding thereto among investigation reports (in investigation records No. 315 pages of investigation records) on the preparation of police reports by Grade VI prosecution officials in the Government Branch of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office;

1. Each statement to the effect that each copy of the protocol of seizure prepared by the senior executive officer of the Office of Government Branch of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office is seized from the defendant, one copy of the criminal case acceptance lease and one copy of the accepted book, and one copy of the book from Nonindicted Party 1;

The facts of the judgment can be recognized by taking full account of all the facts are proved.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act.

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for the Bribery related to the Bribery of Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 4 other than that of Non-Indicted 5, with the largest judgment of the court below)

3. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of facts charged against violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

The defendant, an attorney-at-law, in collusion with the non-indicted 2, the chief of the office of the police officer of the Namyang Police Station, in order to attract the case by providing money and valuables equivalent to 30% of the commission fees to his/her members and providing them with 20% of the commission fees in collusion with the non-indicted 1, the chief of the law office of the defendant, and the judicial scrivener in collusion with the non-indicted 1, who was aware that the police officer of the Namyangyang Police Station would arrange the investigation case for the purpose of receiving money and valuables. The defendant, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, the chief of the office of the law office of the defendant's branch, shall be appointed through the non-indicted 1, who was introduced by the non-indicted 6, who was an employee of the government office of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office on April 18, 1996, offered the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to the court or the prosecutor's office on October 198, 197.

2. Review of applicable provisions of Acts;

On the premise that the act of referral by the police officers, who are the brokers of this case, constitutes Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the prosecutor indicted the above facts charged on the ground that it constitutes Article 90 subparagraph 3, Article 27 (2), and Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act.

However, Articles 27 (2) and 90 (2) of the Act do not include "an act of arranging the number of legal cases, etc. from the persons provided for in Article 90 (2) and Article 90 (1) of the Act knowing that "an act of arranging the number of legal cases, etc. from the persons provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 90". In light of Article 90 (2) of the Act, "an act of arranging the number of legal cases, etc. from a person who is not an attorney-at-law," and "an act of receiving money from the attorney-at-law" does not include "an act of receiving fees from the persons provided for in subparagraph 3 of Article 90 and Article 27 (1) of the Act, and "an act of receiving money and valuables from the attorney-at-law" does not constitute a separate punishment under Article 90 (2) and Article 90 (2) of the Act, and Article 27 (1) of the Act prohibits the case from the persons provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 90 (2) of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged against the defendant does not fall under Article 27(2) and Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Act, and thus should be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in the case of each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act committed in collusion with the non-indicted 2, each crime of offering of a bribe in a competitive relationship with the non-indicted 2 is found guilty, the decision of

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

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong Jin-jin