logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.11.07 2014고정741
변호사법위반
Text

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

50,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years in the Seoul Eastern District Court for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the judgment was finalized on May 9, 2013.

No person shall receive or request money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return after introducing, arranging or inducing a 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 legal cases or legal affairs.

Nevertheless, on July 18, 2012, the Defendant requested F to introduce an attorney-at-law from the former officer from the E office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an accused agent in order to file a complaint for “G commercial building” in relation to “G commercial building.” On November 2012, the Defendant introduced I and Attorney J to F, an attorney-at-law, who was an attorney-at-law, who was a prosecutor who was known to the general public, and then reduced attorney fees in one million won, and received 500,000 won from F around January 18, 2013.

As a result, the defendant introduced the parties to a legal affairs to a particular attorney-at-law, and received money in return.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each protocol of the police interrogation of the accused (including the F substitute part of the interrogation);

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of the police statement and complaint regarding F;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, investigation reports (Attachment to the judgments, etc. on the accused-related cases), case summary information (Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office No. 2012 type No. 14845), written judgments (Seoul East East District Court Decision No. 2012No. 815, Seoul East District Court Decision No. 2012No. 815, Nov. 1, 201

1. Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act applicable to facts constituting an offense, subparagraph 2 of Article 109 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment, Article 34 (1) 2 of the same Act

1. The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

1. The character, conduct, age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of the defendant, including equity in cases where the crime above the proviso of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in which the judgment became final and conclusive, are concurrently judged.

arrow