(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.9.15. 선고 2017고합653 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Defendant

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Imposition of Judgment

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.9.15. 선고 2017고합653 판결

(분리)가.뇌물수수나.배임수재다.변호사법위반라.공인노무사법위반마.뇌물공여바.배임증재

Cases

2017Gohap653(Separation of bribery).

(b) Property in breach of trust;

D. Violation of the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Act

(e) Bribery;

(f) Property in breach of trust;

Defendant

1. A.

2. B

3. b. C

4. D. D. D.

5. (c)(d) E.

6.(c)(d)F

7. (a) G.

8. D. D. H.

9.(d) I

Prosecutor

Red pets and Kim Jae-heats trial

Defense Counsel

Law Firm J, Attorneys K, L (for Defendant A)

Attorney M (Defendant B, Defendant C)

Attorney N (for the defendant C)

Attorney (Defendant D, H)

P Law Firm, Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant E and F

Attorney R (Korean National Assembly for Defendant G)

Attorney S (the national election for Defendant 1)

Imposition of Judgment

September 15, 2017

Text

[Defendant AI]

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of 80,000,000 won.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for 800 days.

5,069,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

A shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge to Defendant A.

[Defendant B]

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

43,500,000 won shall be collected from Defendant B.

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

[Defendant CI]

Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

35,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant C.

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

[Defendant D]

Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.

475,660,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant D.

To order the defendant D to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

[Defendant C]

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

241,590,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant E.

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

[Defendant FI]

Defendant F shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

292,115,855 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant F.

To order the defendant F to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

[Defendant GI]

Defendant G shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of 8,000,000 won.

When the defendant G does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for 80 days.

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

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

5,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant G.

Defendant G shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge.

[Defendant H]

Defendant H is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant H’s KRW 23,900,000 shall be additionally collected.

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

[Defendant]

Defendant I shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

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

To order Defendant I to provide community service for 120 hours.

63,100,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant I.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid to Defendant 1.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

1. 피고인 |

The defendant, who is not an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney, is delegated to workers or patients with the authority to receive a large amount of industrial accident compensation insurance money through the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's employees, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's advisory doctors, etc., and submitted the application documents

No person, other than an attorney-at-law, 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. A person who is not a certified public labor attorney, shall not perform the duties of a certified public labor attorney as a business, such as on behalf of, on behalf of,

On December 2011, the Defendant informed the patient V who wants to receive industrial accident compensation insurance in U-type U-type branch located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, of the claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the state of disability, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving more benefits, and submitted the claim for disability benefits to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

In December 201, the Defendant received KRW 4.7 million, equivalent to 3.5% of the total amount of an industrial accident compensation insurance disability amounting to 13,939,100, which V received from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, as commission fees, and received KRW 63.1 million in total over 14 times from October 201 to March 2014 in the same manner, as shown in attached Table 1.

As a result, the defendant received money from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and handled agency, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs concerning legal cases, and at the same time, he/she received money from a certified public labor attorney, and performed the duties of certified public labor attorney such as proxy, proxy, preparation of related documents, etc.

2. Defendant F.

On April 2012, the Defendant informed the patient Y of the claim for benefits, disability status, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving a larger amount of benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and submitted the claim for disability benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service.

On April 19, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 8 million equivalent to 30% of the lump sum amount of an industrial accident compensation insurance disability amounting to 28,185,300, which Y received from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, from the bank account in the name of the Defendant, under the name of the Defendant, as shown in attached Table 2, from October 13, 201 to July 15, 2014 in the same manner, and received KRW 292,112,855 in total over 61 times from October 13, 2011 to July 15, 2014.

3. Defendant E

The defendant, who is not an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney, ordered workers or patients to receive a large amount of industrial accident compensation insurance money through the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's employees, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's advisory opinion, etc., and submitted the application documents, etc. to the

On May 2012, the Defendant informed the Z of the claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the state of disability, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving larger benefits to the patient who wants to receive industrial accident compensation insurance in the X-type department located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and submitted the claim for disability benefits to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

On May 24, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 7 million equivalent to 20% of the total amount of an industrial accident compensation insurance disability amounting to 32,521,500 won, which the Z received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, as a fee, from May 25, 2012 to September 3, 2013, and received KRW 241,590,000 in total from May 25, 2012 to September 3, 2013 by the same method.

4. Defendant H

In addition, the Defendant received money and valuables from AA, I, E, F, etc. upon the request of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Advisory Council from other industrial accident slabers, and upon the request of the workers who received it to receive well the disaster rating.

(a) No person, other than an attorney-at-law who has violated the Attorney-at-Law Act or the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, shall provide legal services, such as representation, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, etc. concerning legal cases, in return for receiving or promising

No person, other than a certified public labor attorney, shall engage in the duties of a certified public labor attorney as a business, such as on behalf of or on behalf of remedies for infringement of rights, preparation of related documents.

On June 2012, the Defendant informed the patient AC et al. who wants to receive industrial accident compensation insurance money in the AC branch located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, of the claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the state of disability, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving larger benefits, and submitted the claim for disability benefits for AD to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.

On June 18, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 9.5 million equivalent to 32,521,500,000 from AD’s lump sum of industrial accident compensation insurance benefits received from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service as a fee, and received KRW 23.9 million in total eight times from February 20, 2012 to November 21, 2013, as shown in attached Table 4, from February 20, 2012 to November 21, 2013.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

(1) evidence of breach of trust against advisory doctor B

In August 2012, the defendant knew that the opinion of the advisory doctor of the Corporation directly selected by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation at the time of the decision on insurance benefits in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and asked the patients who applied for industrial accident compensation at AF Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AE to undergo the examination of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's disability with respect to the patients who applied for industrial accident compensation.

Around August 2012, the Defendant issued money and valuables of KRW 100,000,000 to B in the same way from August 2012 to July 2014, as indicated in the attached Table 5, as well as the amount of money and valuables of KRW 23,00,000,000 from August 2012 to July 2014.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties to the advisory doctor B who deals with the entrusted affairs of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

(ii) evidence of breach of trust against advisory doctors C

In November 2012, the defendant knew that the opinion of the advisory doctor of the Corporation directly selected by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation at the time of the decision on insurance benefits in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and asked C, the advisory doctor of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, in the AJ entertainment tavern located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul AI, to ensure that the examination of the disability of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation can be conducted well with respect to the patients who applied for industrial accident compensation.

On September 2013, the Defendant issued money and valuables of KRW 2.5 million in total 12 times from November 2012 to July 2014 to 12, 2014 to C in the same manner as shown in the attached crime sight table 6, as well as 2.5 million won as an honorarium for the disability grade review of industrial accident patients N., which he accepted by AA with industrial accident hub, from an entertainment drinking house in the world of AM hotel underground in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation and provided property to the advisory doctor C in charge of entrusted affairs by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

The defendant, who works as the employee of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, requested that the patient himself or other industrial accident supporters assist in the examination of the disability grade in relation to the request for the examination of the industrial accident disability grade of the patient.

On October 201, the Defendant, at an entertainment drinking house where the trade name in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City New-dong is unknown, provided that “A shall assist the patient BC, etc. who received the certificate of delegation without submitting a certificate of delegation in order to receive a disability grade well, notify the results of disposal and payment date, etc. in advance, and at the request of “the convenience to receive the date of the request for advisory review”, the Defendant, at least 1,00,000 won in cash, was maintained up to July 201, as shown in attached Table 7, from that time, up to 10,00 won in total under the same name as shown in attached Table 7.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a bribe of 26 million won in total to A who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

5. Defendant D

In addition, the defendant has received money and other valuables from AA upon the request of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Advisory Council by another industrial accident huber A, and upon receiving the request of the workers who received them to receive well the disaster rating.

On February 2012, the Defendant informed patients Q Q Q of the claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, disability status, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving a larger amount of benefits, and submitted a written claim for disability benefits for Q to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

On February 17, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 14 million equivalent to 30% of the lump sum amount of industrial accident compensation insurance received by Q Q from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service as a fee at KRW 49,245,270, and received KRW 47,566 million in total from February 7, 2011 to December 12, 2013 in the same way from February 7, 2011 to December 12, 2013, as shown in attached Table 8.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

(1) evidence of breach of trust against advisory doctor B

In December 201, the defendant knew that the opinion of the advisory doctor of the Corporation directly selected by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation at the time of the decision on insurance benefits in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and asked the patients who applied for industrial accident compensation from the AJ entertainment tavern located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AG branch of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation to be able to conduct the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's review well.

On May 2013, the Defendant provided KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000 to B through the same method from December 1, 2011 to July 1, 2014, as indicated in the attached Table 9, as well as the money and valuables of KRW 9 million, and entertainment equivalent to KRW 17,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000,00,000,000,000,000 won, to B, under the pretext of honorarium AS, AT, and AU’s disability grade review.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties to the advisory doctor B who deals with the entrusted affairs of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

(ii) evidence of breach of trust against advisory doctors C

In December 201, the defendant knew that the opinion of the advisory doctor of the Corporation directly selected by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation at the time of the decision on insurance benefits in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and asked that the above AJ branch AV branch office AV branch office of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, "AV branch office of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, the advisory doctor of the AV branch office, can conduct an industrial accident compensation well."

On August 2013, the Defendant provided C with money and valuables of KRW 9 million over 21 times from December 2011 to July 2014 in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table 10, as well as money and valuables of KRW 17 million over KRW 21,00,00,000, including entertainment equivalent to KRW 8 million, which have been accepted by AA to the said AJ entertainment tavern.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties to the advisory doctors dealing with the entrusted affairs of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation and provided property or financial benefits.

The defendant was asked for â€˜the assistance in the examination of a disability grade' in relation to the patient's request for the examination of the industrial accident grade which he or other industrial accident slabs accepted to A.

On February 2011, the Defendant, at a entertainment station where it is impossible to know the trade name in Gangnam-gu Seoul Newdong, the Defendant: (a) requested that “A be able to receive the disability grade for the patient AX, etc. received without submitting a letter of delegation; (b) be informed in advance of the result of disposal, payment date, etc.; and (c) be given convenience to receive a consultation review date; and (d) delivered cash KRW 2,00,000 from July 201 to July 201, the Defendant 21 as shown in the attached Table 11 of the daily list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant granted a bribe of KRW 29,069,00 to a person who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

6. Defendant B

(a) Acceptance of property in breach of trust from industrial accident slab H;

As a doctor outside the AF Hospital, the defendant is a person in charge of consultation and examination on the state of disability of patients who have been commissioned as an advisory doctor from June 13, 201 as the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's branch office from June 13, 201.

The accused, as an advisory doctor commissioned with the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, is obliged to examine all applicants equally and fairly in examining the obstacles related to industrial accidents in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and shall not receive money and valuables upon receiving the request for an examination on obstacles by a specific person in connection with

Nevertheless, on June 2010, the Defendant accepted the request from the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service to the effect that the Defendant came to know of H, which is a professional hub for industrial accident compensation, and that the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's disability examination may be conducted well for the patients upon request from H.

around August 2012, the Defendant received KRW 1 million in total from August 2012 to July 2014 as an honorarium for the disability grade AH of industrial accident patients AH, which he accepted from AF Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an industrial accident hub, and received money and valuables of KRW 23,000,000 from August 2012 to July 2014.

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

(b) Acceptance of property in breach of trust from industrial accident slab D;

On June 2010, the defendant accepted the introduction of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation employees A, upon receiving a solicitation to the effect that it became aware of D, which is an industrial accident compensation professional hub, and that it would make it possible to conduct the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Examination well for the patients upon request from D.

In May 2013, the Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 as a honorarium for disability grade review from AJ entertainment bars located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul AI and received KRW 1,00,000 from D as an industrial accident patient AS, T, etc., which he accepted from D, and received KRW 1,00,000 from December 1, 201 to July 1, 2014, as shown in attached Table 9, money and valuables of KRW 9,000,000,000 from December 21, 2011 and entertainment equivalent to KRW 17,000,000 from July 201.

As a result, the defendant, who is in charge of another person's business, acquired property or financial benefits in return for an illegal request from industrial accident hub D with regard to his duties.

At early November 2014, the Defendant accepted the request from AF Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AE to the effect that it would make it possible for the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to conduct the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's disability examination for the patients requested by the Defendant.

At the early November 2014, the Defendant received money and valuables of KRW 500,000,000 from November 2014 to June 2015, in total, seven times from November 2014 to June 2015, as indicated in the attached Table 12, from the industrial accident patients’ disability grade assessment.

As a result, the defendant, who is in charge of another person's business, acquired property in return for illegal solicitation from the industrial accident hub AY.

7. Defendant C

(a) Acceptance of property in breach of trust from industrial accident slab H;

As a doctor outside the AF Hospital, the defendant is a person in charge of consultation and examination on the state of disability of the patient who has been commissioned as an advisory doctor from May 14, 2009 by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service AK branch, and has applied for industrial accident compensation insurance.

Nevertheless, on June 2010, the Defendant accepted the request from the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service (Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service) to the effect that the Defendant came to know of H, which is a professional hub for industrial accident compensation, and that the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service)'s disability examination may be conducted well.

In September 2013, the Defendant received money of KRW 2.5 million in total from November 2012 to July 2014, 12 times as shown in the attached crime sight table 6, as well as money and valuables of KRW 18.5 million in total from July 2012 to July 1, 2014, from the entertainment bars in the world of AM hotel underground in Gangnam-gu, which he accepted from H to industrial accident hub, as a honorarium for the disability grade examination of the industrial accident patient N.

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

(b) Acceptance of property in breach of trust from industrial accident slab D;

On June 2010, the defendant accepted the above A's introduction to the effect that it became aware of D, which is an industrial accident compensation professional hub, and that it would be able to easily conduct the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Examination for the patients requested by D.

In August 2013, the Defendant received KRW 3 million in total from December 2011 to July 21, 2014, including money and valuables of KRW 9 million, and KRW 17 million in total, as indicated in the attached Table 10, from December 201 to July 201, as shown in the attached Table 10, from an industrial accident patient AW’s disability grade review, from the above AJ entertainment drinking house: (a) the Defendant received KRW 3 million as a honorarium for the industrial accident patient AW’s disability grade review from D; and (b) the Defendant received money and valuables of KRW 9 million in total from December 201 to July 201.

8. Defendant A

Defendant is a person who was enrolled in the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation in February 4, 2009 and served as an employee at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s branch from February 4, 2009 to July 15, 2012; from July 16, 2012 to July 23, 2015, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s branch from July 16, 2012 to July 23, 2015.

The Defendant received money and valuables from industrial accident patients applied by the above-mentioned persons from industrial accident victims D, H, etc. under the pretext of helping them receive well a disability grade.

A. The industrial accident victim D, who received money from the industrial accident victim D, requested that the defendant assist in the examination of the disability grade in relation to the patient's request for the examination of the industrial accident disability grade of the patient he or other industrial accident victim, which he or she accepted.

On February 201, the Defendant received KRW 29,069,000,00 from July 201, 201, totaling KRW 21 times as shown in attached Table 11, from the time when he was issued a request to the effect that “the patient AX, etc. who received without submitting a delegation letter, may receive a disability grade well, shall be informed of the result of disposal, payment date, etc., and convenience to receive a consultation review,” in an entertainment drinking house where it is difficult to know the trade name in Gangnam-gu Seoul Newdong, Seoul, without submitting a delegation letter, by requesting that “the patient AX, etc. who received it be given convenience to receive a consultation review.”

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, received a bribe of 29,069,000 won in total from D in connection with his duties.

B. The industrial accident hub H’s money and valuables received from the industrial accident hub H was asked by the Defendant that he/she would help the patient himself/herself or other industrial accident hub in the examination of the disability grade in relation to the patient’s request for the examination of the industrial accident disability grade.

The Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 from July 2012, 200,000,000 from the time, as shown in attached Table 7, from around 2012, a total of 10,000 won as shown in attached Table 7, upon request from H to the effect that “the patient BC, etc., who received without submitting a delegation letter, is able to receive a disability grade well, and the result of disposal, payment date, etc., is notified in advance, so that he may receive convenience on the date he/she wants to undergo an advisory review.”

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, received a bribe of 26 million won in total from H in relation to his duties.

9. Defendant G.

The Defendant is a person who was enrolled in the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service in 199 and served as an employee at the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service branch from February 14, 2013 to February 22, 2017.

The defendant received money and valuables from industrial accident patients applied by the above people from industrial accident victims D, AY, etc. under the name of help them receive well a disability grade.

A. An industrial accident Y caused money and valuables received from the industrial accident Yer AY, upon the Defendant’s request, 'a request to assist in examining the grade of disability' in relation to the patient’s request for examination of the industrial accident grade of the patient he has accepted.

On November 10, 2014, at the first floor parking lot located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant received KRW 500,000,000 from June 2016, in total, four times as shown in the daily list of crimes, from around 2016, upon receipt of a request from the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant, without submitting a letter of delegation, shall be able to receive the disability grade well, shall be informed in advance of the result of disposal, payment date, etc., and shall be given convenience to receive an advisory review.”

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, received a bribe of 2 million won in total from AY in relation to his duties.

B. The industrial accident victim D, who received money from the industrial accident victim D, requested that the patient himself/herself assist in examining the disability grade in relation to the patient's request for the examination of the industrial accident grade of the patient he/she accepted.

On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) received cash worth KRW 1 million from around the Defendant’s home located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 2016, upon receiving a request from D to the effect that “The Defendant shall assist patients who received the certificate of delegation without submitting the certificate of delegation, shall be informed of the results of disposal, payment date, etc., so that they may receive convenience on the date they want to receive advisory review,” and (b) received cash worth KRW 2 million from the same purport in the vicinity of the Defendant’s home located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the defendant, who is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, received a bribe of KRW 3 million in total from D in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol (Duplicate), AY, and AA against the Defendants;

1. The prosecutor's statement of the defendant D;

1. Defendant D’s statement and spot payment statement, inquiry of past transaction details, Defendant H’s respective statements and spot payment statement, and inquiry of past transaction details of passbooks;

1. The details of the accusation and misconduct, the details of questions and answers (Preparation, February 2, 2017), written answers (Preparation, February 17, 2017), AY G calls and text messages, and the details of the wage account;

1. A copy of the investigation report (report on the current status of industrial accident patients processed by industrial accident hybrids), a copy of the details of DNA industrial accident patients, a copy of the details of Hindustrial accident patients, a copy of the details of the F industrial accident patients, a copy of the details of E industrial accident patients, and a copy

1. A copy of a A personnel record card, investigation report (report accompanied by an official document related to advisory doctors of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation), and copy of the official document of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to AY Decisions), Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 103 High Court Decision, 191 (Joint) and 192 (Joint) Court Decision, 192 (Adjustment of Details of Confirmation of G Financial Account), printed out of the details of G cash deposits, printed out of the entire financial account, output of G, investigation report (Attachment to the Business Regulations of the Korea Workers’ Welfare Corporation), rules on medical care for the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare

1. Investigation report (report on the currency with BG deposited into the account in the name of BF), investigation report (report on accompanying the details of transactions with H and BF account), copy of account transactions, investigation report (report on the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure of H account);

1. A copy of investigation report (attached to the details of account transactions in industrial accident hybrids, such as D) and D, a copy of account transactions in the name of BH, a copy of account transactions in the name of a new bank in the name of BI, a copy of account transactions in the name of Korea bank in the name of BJ, and a copy of account

1. A copy of investigation report (B, C honorariums, and entertainment expenses specified reporting), and B, a copy of the details of patients with industrial accident dealt with C, a copy of the Kakakao Stockholm messages (A and H), and text messages (A, H, and D);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant I, F, and E: Subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of each Attorney-at-Law Act (including the handling of legal affairs by a person who is not an attorney-at-law, and the handling of legal affairs by a person who is not an attorney-at-law), Article 28 (1) 2, the main sentence of Article 27, and Article 2 (1) 1 and 2 (1) 1 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (including

B. Defendant H and D: Subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 201; hereinafter referred to as the “former Criminal Act”), Article 28(1)2, the main sentence of Article 27, Article 2(1)1, and Article 2(2)2 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (including a violation of the restriction on the services of a person who is not a certified public labor attorney); Articles 133(1), and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (including the offering of services, and including the offering of services, and the offering of services) of each former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 201); Article 357(2) and (1) of the former Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the “former Criminal Act”).

C. Defendant B and C: each of the former Criminal Code Article 357(1) (including each of the persons who have suffered the misappropriation)

(d) Defendant A and G: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (including the offering of a bribe for each person)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant I, F, E, H, and D: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act, between the violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act and the violation of each Act, and the punishment imposed on the violation of each Act with heavier punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor; Provided, That with respect to Defendants A and G, fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the sentence of each subparagraph shall be the most severe punishment; (1) the punishment of the Defendant’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act stated in the attached Table 1, 7 against the Defendant; (2) the punishment of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act stated in the attached Table 2, 28 against the Defendant F; (3) the punishment of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act stated in the attached Table 3, 13 against the Defendant E; (4) the punishment of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act stated in the attached Table 4, 2, 38 against the Defendant D; (5) the punishment of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act stated in the attached Table 8, 38; and (6) the punishment of breach of trust against the Defendant B and C; and

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A, G: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant G, I: each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following circumstances are considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Social service order;

Defendant G and I: each criminal law Article 62-2

1. Additional collection:

(a) Defendant I, F, E, H, and D: The latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

B. Defendant B and C: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

A. Defendant A

Imprisonment for not more than seven years and six months, and a fine not less than 58,138,00 won but not more than 218,017,50 won (2)

(b) Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months for Defendant B and C, respectively;

D. Defendant G

Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months, and a fine of not less than 6,00,000 won but not more than 22,50,000 won

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 4 (50 million won or more and less than 100 million won) imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 3 years and not more than 8 years in the aggravated area (3 years and 4 years)

[Special Person in Charge] Improper Action Related to Acceptance of Bribe

B. Defendant B and C

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 2 (30 million won or more but less than 50 million won) increased area (a person shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 8 months but not more than 2 years and less than 6 months)

[Special Persons in Charge] In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water;

C. Defendant D

1. Basic crime: Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 5 (at least KRW 100,00) (at least KRW 100,00) (at least 2 years, but not more than 7 years, in the aggravated area) of a person who is not a lawyer;

[Special Persons] Cases where multiple clients have committed repeatedly or systematically or have committed a crime;

(b) Class 1 concurrent crimes: the offering of a bribe;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (30 million won or less) Special Leave Area ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months but not more than 2 years and 3 months)

【Where active mines of persons under special control, or the details of solicitation are illegal or illegal;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (less than 50 million won) active evidence (a person under special circumstances) in the aggravated area (a person under special circumstances)

(d) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than two years but not more than five years and not more than 15 days);

(d) Defendant E and F (the scope of recommendations) imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 2 years but not more than 7 years in the aggregate area of Type 5 (not less than KRW 100 million) (not less than 2 years but not more than 8).

[Special Persons] Cases where multiple clients have committed repeatedly or systematically or have committed a crime;

E. Defendant G

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (less than 10 million won) basic area (the imprisonment of not less than 4 months but not more than 1 year)

【Special Person without Legal Capacity】

F. Defendant H

(a) Basic crime: Bribery;

[Scope of Recommendation Form 1 (less than 30 million won) shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years and 3 months.

【Where active mines of persons under special control, or the details of solicitation are illegal or illegal;

2. Second concurrent crimes: Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

[Recommendation Form II (not less than 10 million won but less than 30 million won) increased area (not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years), including partnership business, etc. of persons who are not attorneys-at-law.

[Special Persons] Cases where multiple clients have committed repeatedly or systematically or have committed a crime;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (less than 50 million won) increased area (the imprisonment of not less than 6 months but not more than 1 year)

【Specially Ineligible Persons】 Positive Materials

(iv) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 20 days but not more than 3 years and not more than 7 months);

G. Defendant 1

[Recommendation Form] 4 (at least 50 million won and less than 100 million won) increased area (at least 1 year and 3 months 11) to 5 years, such as partnership business, etc. of non-legal persons

[Special Persons] Cases where multiple clients have committed repeatedly or systematically or have committed a crime;

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors shown in the trial process of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

A. Common reasons for sentencing

Defendant D, E, F, H, and I committed each of the instant offenses involving industrial accident compensation insurance by repeatedly receiving money and valuables from many unspecified persons who suffered industrial accident and handling them instead of handling the legal affairs related to the claim for industrial accident compensation insurance, and then providing money and valuables and entertainment to employees of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service or advisory doctors directly or through the intermediary in the course of handling such affairs. As such, the Defendants’ “business-based crimes involving offering of money and valuables” are detrimental to the fairness and reliability of the industrial accident compensation system, and is highly harmful to society. The aforementioned Defendants received money in return for providing legal affairs, such as claiming industrial accident insurance benefits, without qualification as an attorney-at-law and certified labor affairs consultant, by proxy, without giving rise to such solicitation.

Defendant A and G accepted a lot of bribe for a long time from the so-called industrial accident hub, even though it requires high integrity and fairness as an employee of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service who is in charge of performing the industrial accident compensation insurance affairs entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor. Moreover, Defendant B and C received large amount of money and valuables and entertainment over several times from industrial accident slabs for a long time, even though their opinions have considerable influence on the determination of the disability grade of the industrial accident compensation insurance.

As above, the above Defendants seem to have carried out inappropriate tasks, such as accepting money and valuables, entertainment, or providing assistance or providing information related to the disability grade as solicited in the course of industrial accident compensation insurance review. As such, the fact that each of the instant crimes committed by the industrial accident compensation hub seems to have been significantly expanded is due to such inappropriate tasks of the above Defendants. As a result of each of these crimes, the fairness and adequacy of the overall industrial accident compensation insurance review duties and social trust therein have been significantly damaged, as well as the negative impact on the financial stability of the industrial accident compensation insurance fund, it is necessary to impose heavy liability corresponding thereto.

On the other hand, each of the instant crimes was committed over several years, and does not seem to have been continuously continued. The Defendants confession their crimes in this court and reflect their mistakes in depth. It refers to the favorable circumstances to the Defendants.

B. Individual grounds for sentencing

1) A

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, as a person in charge of directly dealing with the industrial accident compensation insurance affairs at the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, was given money and valuables, and entertainment in return for receiving H’s request on a regular basis with H and D, and received money and valuables, and entertainment in return therefor. Of the bribe received by the Defendant, the part of the bribe that is given and received is actively demanded and given in advance. The instant crime is a case that receives a large amount of money and valuables over a period of up to three years, up to KRW 50 million, as a bribe, and requires strict liability in light of the period, frequency, and amount of the crime committed. Meanwhile, the Defendant call to D after the commission of the crime, asked D to demand a speech about himself/herself, or attempted to destroy evidence, such as dumping his/her cell phone with the knowledge of the commencement of the investigation.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant, who is deemed as a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, is clearly aware of the illegality of acceptance of bribe in comparison with the public official. The Defendant appears to have served in good faith for over 30 years at the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation, and has no record of criminal punishment.

(ii) B

The Defendant, from around 2011, was on a regular basis with H, D, and offered money, valuables, and entertainment in return for the request of H, etc., while serving as an advisory doctor of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. The instant crime was committed with a large amount of money, valuables, and entertainment over 43 million won over a prolonged period of up to 3 years, and requires strict liability in light of the period, frequency, and amount of receipt of the instant crime.

A favorable circumstance: A defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to having no criminal record of the same kind and having been subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment once.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: From around 2009, the Defendant was commissioned as the advisory doctor of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation from around 2009 to on a regular basis with H, D, and received money, valuables, and entertainment in return for the request of H, etc. In return for the instant commission. The instant crime is a matter of receiving a large amount of money to KRW 35 million over a period of up to three years, and requires strict liability in light of the period, frequency, and amount of receipt.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant is an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment.

4) D

The Defendant: (a) received money under the pretext of good offices from the employees or advisory doctors of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service in return for a pro rata relationship with the employee or advisory doctor of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service; and (b) provided money and valuables and entertainment of KRW 63 million with other industrial accident supporters. This appears to have contributed significantly to the continuation of the crime of other industrial accident supporters. The Defendant, without the qualification of attorney-at-law and certified public labor attorney, was paid a large amount of money and valuables of KRW 470 million as commission fees.

The favorable circumstances: The Defendant provided a certain portion of the money received under the name of the commission to A, etc. and actually acquired the profit therefrom is less than KRW 470 million. The Defendant has contributed to the discovery of substantial truth by cooperating with the investigation of each of the instant crimes and aiding the detection of crimes by other Defendants. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

5) E

The defendant was paid a large amount of money exceeding KRW 240 million as a fee to the attorney-at-law, such as a claim for industrial accident insurance benefits without qualification as an attorney-at-law or certified public labor attorney, and certified public labor attorney.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant provided a certain portion of the money received under the pretext of commission to H, etc. as good offices, and actually acquired profits is less than KRW 240 million. The Defendant is an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment.

6) F

The defendant was paid a large amount of money to KRW 290 million without a lawyer's or certified public labor attorney's license, such as a claim for industrial accident insurance benefits without a lawyer's or certified public labor attorney's license.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant provided a certain portion of the money received under the pretext of commission to H, etc. as good offices, and actually acquired profits is less than KRW 29,000,000,000. The Defendant is an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment.

7) G

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant needs to be held liable corresponding to the crime because of the fact that the Defendant received, for a long period of up to two years, a certain amount of money of five million won via several times as a bribe.

The favorable circumstances for ○: The amount of bribe received by the Defendant is relatively small. The Defendant is deemed a public official under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and it is difficult to view that there is no clear perception of illegality of acceptance of bribe compared with the public official. The Defendant has no criminal record for the same offense and has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine. The Defendant was already dismissed by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare

8) H

0 Unfavorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant received money under the pretext of good offices from the employees or advisory doctors of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service in return for a pro rata relationship with the employees or advisory doctors of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service; and (b) provided money and valuables and entertainment of KRW 67 million with other industrial accident supporters. This appears to have made a considerable contribution to the continuous commission of crimes committed by other industrial accident supporters. The Defendant, without qualification as an attorney-at-law or certified public labor attorney, received KRW 23 million as a fee.

0 favorable circumstances: The Defendant actively cooperated in the investigation of each of the crimes of this case and contributed to the discovery of substantial truth, such as aiding other Defendants to detect the crimes. The Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime and has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

9) I

The defendant was paid a large amount of money exceeding 63 million won as a fee to the attorney-at-law and certified public labor affairs consultant without being qualified as an attorney-at-law or certified public labor attorney.

A favorable circumstance: The amount of profits actually acquired by providing a certain portion of the money received in the name of a commission to H, etc. as a good offices shall be less than KRW 63 million.

The number of crimes committed by a criminal defendant or the amount thereof is relatively larger. The criminal defendant has no criminal record and has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and presiding judge;

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul

Note tin

1) Although the indictment is written as ‘2016.', it is clear that it is a clerical error in the attached Table 12, taking into account the following:

2) Of the amount of acceptance of bribe, the amount calculated by adding more than double and more than five times fines to KRW 29,069,000, the amount received from D, which is a large amount, is the aggregate amount of bribery charges.

3) Of the amount of acceptance of bribe, the amount of concurrent offenses is one more severe than twice to five times as much as the amount received from D, which is a large amount, for a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

4) 1/2 of the minimum sentence shall be mitigated, as a result of the combination of identical competitions increases in two levels.

5) 1/3 of the lowest sentence minimum shall be mitigated, because the aggregate of identical competitions increases in one step.

6) 1/2 of the lowest sentence minimum shall be mitigated, as a result of the combination of identical competitions increases in at least two levels.

7) The scope of sentence (7 years), 1/2 (15 January 15) of the upper limit of the range of sentence for the first concurrent crimes, and 1/3 (4 months) of the upper limit of the range of sentence for the second concurrent crimes shall be added to the upper limit of the range of sentence.

8) 1/2 of the lowest sentence minimum shall be mitigated, as a result of the combination of identical competitions increases in at least two levels.

9) 1/3 of the lowest sentence minimum shall be mitigated, as a result of the combination of identical competitions increases in one-stage category.

10) 1/2 (1 year) and 1/3 (4 months) below the scope of sentence of the basic crime shall be added to the upper limit of sentence (2 years and 3 months), the upper limit of sentence of the first concurrent crime (1/2 year), and the upper limit of sentence of the second concurrent crime (1/4 months). However, the lower limit shall be set by the first concurrent crime of which punishment is the largest.

11) 1/2 of the lowest sentence minimum shall be mitigated because the two-stage increase is made as a result of the addition of identical competitions.