208Gohap584 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A(65 years old, South) and non-permanent (the director of the office of full-time attorney-at-law)

Jin-sicking

January 16, 2009

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

20,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal facts

The defendant has been working as the head of the B legal office located in the 1st Dong Dong-gu, Busan from February 18, 2008 (on a substantial basis, January 2008) to April 30, 2008.

On February 19, 2008, the defendant at the above B's office, at the Busan East District Office during the period of suspension of execution, and at the situation under which he will be detained due to criminal fraud, etc., "The D judge in charge of the examination of the quality of the same support warrant is the child of the defendant, who is in charge of the examination of the quality of the same support warrant by telephone. Even if he is detained, he must be deducted from the legality, and even until he is released from the bail. Since the Korean lawyer has been dead due to all of the judges in the Busan District Office, he would have been well aware of the fact that he has been dead at the same time, so he would have to unfolded in the judgment of the legality of detention." In addition, he believed to believe the above V by taking his cell phone from his place to the above D judge by doing so.

Around February 25, 2008, the Defendant received money and valuables on the pretext of solicitation or good offices in connection with the cases handled by public officials at the Busan Bank's point where the Busan Bank's Law Korea was located in the same Dong under the above name from V2 to 20 million won. Accordingly, the Defendant received money and valuables on the pretext of solicitation or good offices in connection with the cases handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the Defendant received remittance of KRW 20 million from V, the wife, from V2, it is not accepted as the secretary of the office of the attorney-at-law in the office of the attorney-at-law, who was a suspect of a criminal case at the time and received counseling with V, as his attorney’s fee and contingent fee, or as a solicitation for a case handled by a public official.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by a member of the party, the following facts are acknowledged (the defendant's statements in the investigation agency of V and V2 and in this court, and the statements in the case report of the preparation of B include the chief or false facts in his actions and actions made by V and V2 at the time, and V continued to report to B as to the above V cases even after the fact was found in the attorney's office, and they contain the different contents, and thus, they are not reliable. However, each evidence is consistent with the contents of the evidence, and it is consistent with the circumstances recognized by other evidence, and thus, it can be trusted).

A. The Defendant is a person who had worked as a manager of the B legal office from January 2008.

B. On June 10, 2005, V was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months for the crime of rape and injury by rape in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch, and the judgment was finalized around that time. From January 2008, V filed a false complaint with the head of Busan District Prosecutors' Office in advance in the year 2007 that "V was a business owner who did not pay wages to workers and claimed substitute payment on the ground that he did not actually work."

다. 이에 V는 변호인을 선임하고자 부산지방검창철 앞 몇 군데 변호사 사무실을 방문하여 상담을 하였으나 그 사무실 변호사가 바쁘다거나 해결하기 어렵겠다는 등 자신이 원하는 대답을 듣지 못하였고, 그러다가 2008. 2. 중순경 변호사 B 법률사무소를세 차례 방문하고, 그때마다 사무장인 피고인과 상담을 하였다. 상담을 하던 당시 V는 피고인에게 자신의 상황을 설명하고, 검찰이 영장을 청구하면 어떻게 되느냐고 물었고, 피고인은 "영장실질심사를 담당하는 판사가 자기 친구인데 지금 전화 한번 해볼까" 하면서 전화기를 들고 전화를 하는 시늉까지 하면서 2008. 2. 20.경 있을 법원의 인사이동 때 위 D 판사가 영장실질심사를 계속하여 담당하면 자신이 부탁하여 구속이 되지 않게 해 주겠다는 취지로 말을 하는 한편, 자신이 P대학교를 졸업하고 이 지역 판사들을 많이 알고 있을 뿐 아니라, B 변호사가 법원에서 이번에 사직하고 개업을 하여 판사들을 잘 알고 있다면서 혹시 영장이 발부되더라도 구속적부심에서 석방될 수 있고, 보석 청구까지는 생각하지도 않는다는 취지로 말을 하고는, 변호사 선임비용과 성공사례비 명목으로 2,000만 원을 요구하였고, 피고인으로부터 위와 같은 취지의 말을 들은 V는 구속이 되지 않거나 조기석방될 것으로 믿고 이에 응하기로 하였다.

D. However, the above consultation between the Defendant and V was made in spite of the fact that the attorney-at-law, who received a report on the above V's criminal case from the Defendant, was under the period of suspended execution, and that it was difficult to exempt the Defendant from detention due to the lack of the quality of the crime of suspicion, and that he did not accept the above case. At that time, V did not directly talk or consult with B attorney-at-law.

E. Since then, V was detained on or around February 21, 2008. Before that time, V saw that "I would know whether he will be detained within the country, and if he is detained, I would like to go to go to the B's office and talk." V2 visited B's office with documents related to detention on February 25, 2008 after the phone call to the defendant, and the lawyer visited B's office with documents related to detention, and the lawyer could be released from the defendant in the face of detention, and the cost problem was different from V and talk, and then remitted KRW 20 million to the head of the Tong on the same day.

F. However, V did not release but was prosecuted on February 29, 2008, and V2 did not request the trial of legality of detention on the wind that the Defendant brought a prosecution without the prosecutor's prior notice, thereby returning V2 to the court for release on bail. However, the court did not receive the request for release on bail thereafter, and the public defender continued to defend on the date of V's trial.

G. Around March 2008, the Defendant continued to seek release on bail to V2, who is a judge or a person who already claimed for release on bail. In particular, the Defendant sent a return to V2 while talking to the effect that F judge, who is the presiding judge of V criminal defendant case, is waiting to know and tell himself/herself, and that V2 wants to directly talk or talk with the attorney, the attorney did not need to do so, because he/she is more likely to know himself/herself, and it does not need to do so. On April 208, 2008, the Defendant continued to ask the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Busan District Court for the fact that he/she did not request release on bail to the court, and the Defendant was not present to the court by the public defender at the time that he/she was not present to the court by the public defender at that time, and the Defendant was released on bail ex officio by 2018.

H. On April 11, 2008, the Defendant had been working in relation to the release document to the attorney office, and the Defendant stated to the effect that he would not be well-known, and that he would appoint another attorney-at-law while attending a coffee shop. The Defendant would make it notarized by allowing the attorney-at-law to talk with the end of 52, who would directly talk with the attorney-at-law in the amount of KRW 20 million paid to 52,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000 won. In accordance with the purport of this, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of a loan for consumption with the debtor and V2 as the creditor under the Act No. 50 of 2008,000,000 won as of the same day.

I. Meanwhile, V2 visited G attorney-at-law office and explained this situation. They explained that G attorney-at-law called B to provide his own call, thereby identifying that B attorney-at-law was in progress.

3. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts: (a) the Defendant received money from the clients, i.e., to the effect that he would not be detained on the ground of personal friendship with the relevant judge even though he/she would not be an attorney-at-law even though he/she would not be appointed as an attorney-at-law; (b) the attorney-at-law would in fact hold an interview, request for review of legality of detention, release on bail, etc.; and (c) the Defendant did not submit a written appointment of a counsel; and (d) up to twice the amount received after the problem occurred (if he/she received a legally appointed counsel fee, there is no reason to do so). However, in substance, the Defendant would have received money under the pretext of the appointment of a counsel, etc., regardless of the attorney-at-law’s activities. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that he/she received money under the pretext of soliciting a judge as a public official.

1. The reason for sentencing 1. The defendant, as the head of the office of the attorney-at-law office, was the attorney-at-law's statement that he would not accept the case because he would be exempted from detention or could not be released from detention in the criminal suspect case at issue during the period of probation. The above attorney-at-law, who was aware of the fact that he would not be subject to detention, is a prior attorney-at-law who was retired from the court and started on the side, and the judge in charge of the warrant of the competent court received KRW 20 million as he would be able to be released immediately upon the request of the judge at his relative or even after the request of the judge. Since the defendant used the correctional situation of the criminal suspect who was old or his family members, his behavior cannot be said to be extremely poor.

2. After receiving the above money, not only did there were no finites of detention or a request for release on bail, which are believed to give money to an attorney’s office, but also when a public defender appeared and present at the trial date, and reported the situation in which the public defender askeds about the process of the case, but also when finites and turns out time, the circumstances following the crime of returning the money received thereafter to V et al. by withdrawing or remitting it from the attorney’s account, not his money.

3. In addition, these crimes are highly likely to be subject to criticism by promoting the confidence of the judiciary and impairing the fairness of the trial. If the State exercises its penal authority, and if it is impossible to believe the judicial authority that makes a final judgment on a dispute between the people, it would result in harm to the people, which would soon result in such harm to the people. Even though the circumstances indicate that the Defendant did not have any error, no evidence exists, such as where the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he did not have any error. The Defendant ought to be subject to punishment corresponding thereto.

4. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, occupation, motive for committing the instant crime, means and consequence thereof, the sentence shall be determined and sentenced as ordered by the Defendant’s order for the instant crime, and at the same time, the Defendant’s believers shall be detained for the smooth progress thereafter and the realization of punishment corresponding to the relevant crime.

Chief Judge, Senior Judge and Senior Judge

Judges Kim Gin-ok

Judge No. Doingk