beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of E in the grounds for appeal, it shall be acknowledged that the defendant, around December 9, 2008, received KRW 20 million from E for the purpose of Justice entertainment expenses, or, in preliminary, received KRW 20 million in return for preparing litigation documents, such as a petition of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal, and providing legal counseling in connection with the lawsuit to nullify the appointment of a clan representative filed by E against the clan, and the defendant received KRW 20 million in return for legal counseling.
(A) The prosecutor added the ancillary charge at the trial). Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the prosecutor on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of a crime should be reversed.
2. Summary of the facts charged
(a) No person shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official of the primary facts charged;
Nevertheless, around December 9, 2008, the Defendant, at the “D” office operated by the Defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stated that “The Defendant may have the victim E win a lawsuit, such as confirmation of invalidity of the appointment of the representative of the clan of Seoul High Court 2007Na86404, which lost in the appellate trial because he well-known Justice inside the country, without the framework. Here, if the case is tried, the clan members are not present, and if the case is brought to the trial, the clan members may not come to the largest situation. Accordingly, upon the request of the Justice, the Defendant changed the KRW 20 million for entertainment expenses to come to the trial.”
However, even if the defendant received money from the victim for the purpose of entertainment expenses, he did not have the intention or ability to make a judgment favorable to the victim by visiting the Supreme Court or requesting the Justice to do so.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above.