Defendant

Lee Jong-sik (Court) (Court of Second Instance) (Court of Second Instance)

Law Firm Cheong Law, Attorney Kim Yong-sub

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Non-Indicted 1

(a) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in real estate business under the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 8.

On July 2010, the Defendant borrowed 100 million won from Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 4, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 3 Co., Ltd., and set up a collateral equivalent to KRW 90,000,000 for real estate in the Chungcheongbuk-gun ( Address 1 omitted) as a security, and it is different to inquire into whether the Defendant may receive dividends because of the progress of auction.”

The Defendant told Nonindicted 1 to the effect that “On request from a legal expert, the expenses will be delegated to Na, and if the Defendant received dividends later, the amount of the expenses would vary, and if the Defendant transferred the above claim and the right to collateral security to Na, it would be able to receive dividends for the case of direct auction.”

On April 12, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract on the transfer and takeover of the claim against Nonindicted Co. 1 and the said Nonindicted Co. 3 to the Defendant at the office of management of Nonindicted Co. 2 located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun ( Address 2 omitted).

After that, on May 20, 201, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the ground that the claim against the second mortgagee was already repaid at the Cheongju District Court located in the 70 U.S. Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu., Chungcheongnam-gu., and received a favorable judgment on June 30 of the same year.

On July 22, 2011, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 90,000,00 from the Cheongju District Court as a mortgagee.

As a result, the defendant promised to receive money and valuables from a person who is not an attorney-at-law.

(b) Embezzlement;

The Defendant, like paragraph (a) of Article 1, was delegated by Nonindicted Party 1 to receive dividends and process legal affairs, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. On or around June 30, 201, the Defendant won the said lawsuit and received dividends of KRW 90,000,00 as collateral-mortgage from the Cheongju District Court located on July 22, 201 of the same year, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu.

The Defendant, on July 22, 2011, kept the said dividends of KRW 90,00,000 for the victim Nonindicted Party 1, and embezzled by arbitrarily using the said dividends around that time.

2. Nonindicted 2-related

(a) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

Around July 2009, the Defendant issued from Nonindicted 2, to Nonindicted 2, “Around the 2006, it is difficult to find out whether or not the Defendant would receive money when the construction of the factory site was carried out, because he did not receive the payment after the construction of the factory site in the vicinity of the non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the vicinity of the non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and the Defendant stated to Nonindicted 2, “B would delegate the said dividend duties to B and then receive dividends.”

On December 10, 209, the Defendant submitted an application for demand for distribution to Nonindicted Party 10 with respect to the case of the auction of real estate rent and the claim for distribution as a collection right holder of Nonindicted Party 10 with respect to the case of Nonindicted Party 10 with Nonindicted Party 2’s monthly support in Yongcheon District Court in Young-gu, Young-do, Gangwon-do, which was delegated by Nonindicted Party 2, around December 10, 2009, and transferred KRW 7,052,60,000 to the account of Nonindicted Party 2’s corporate bank on the same day, and received KRW 2,00,000 on the same day as the money and other expenses.

As a result, the defendant was not an attorney-at-law and represented on auction and dividend-related litigation cases and other legal cases.

(b) Embezzlement;

As set forth in paragraph 2(a), the Defendant was delegated by Nonindicted Party 2 to receive dividends and process legal affairs with respect to the case of the auction of real estate rent (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Tacheon District Court Decision 2676, Dec. 10, 2009, and submitted an application for demand for distribution to Nonindicted Party 10 as the right holder of the right to claim distribution with the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch’s Young-gu Branch Nonindicted Party 10, which was located in the interest of Young-gu, Gangwon-do. and received dividends of KRW 13,572,603 from the Youngcheon District Court

On December 24, 2009, while the Defendant kept dividends of KRW 13,572,603 on behalf of the victim, he remitted KRW 7,052,60 to the corporate bank account of the victim, and the remaining KRW 6,520,324 was embezzled by arbitrarily using cash withdrawal.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 4’s legal statement

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 and 2 in the second trial record;

1. Each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 1 and 2

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 1, 2, 7, 11, and 4

1. Written judgment (201 Ghana 3470);

1. Report of investigation (Submission of the original written agreement to the complainant);

1. Investigation report (to submit Nonindicted 2 materials)

1. Each investigation report (a response to a request for appraisal with a State);

1. Request for cooperation in investigation (request for delivery of documents related to deposits);

1. Investigation report (Investigation of suspect's dividend-using sources);

1. Attachment-criminal agreement;

1. Details of Nonindicted 2’s account transactions

1. Proxy letter, contract for transfer and takeover of bonds, and written confirmation;

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

Article 109 (A) of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 355 (1) of each Criminal Act (Determination of Imprisonment with labor);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. The assertion;

The part on embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 2 is recognized, but the other part is denied. In other words, not on behalf of the legal case in return for promising to receive money and valuables, but on behalf of the victim non-indicted 1, the victim received the claim of this case and the right to collateral security without any condition, and received dividends from the defendant's expense and effort. As to the victim non-indicted 2, the victim made pure efforts to help the victim and received dividends.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the victim non-indicted 1

Therefore, as to whether the victim non-indicted 1 transferred the instant claim and the right to collateral security without any condition to the defendant, the victim non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 4 consistently agree with the investigative agency about the payment of dividends from the non-indicted 3's representative director before the non-indicted 1 entrusted the distribution of dividends to the defendant, and the defendant stated that the non-indicted 1 was aware of the circumstances in which the non-indicted 5's debt was repaid, and notified the defendant of the distribution of dividends from the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1'.

B. The victim non-indicted 2

According to each evidence of the court below, even if the defendant did not expressly set the amount in advance with the victim, it is recognized that he agreed to give and receive the dividend, and received 2,000,000 won from the victim for the purpose of receiving the dividend, and the defendant did not accept the allegation that he did not agree to receive the money.

The defendant submitted a false lien report to the court in 2006 and was sentenced to two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment with prison labor, and in 2007, he written a letter of waiver so that the victim may exercise a false lien, and was sentenced to a fine by several intimidations, and has a total of 20 criminal records.

On October 28, 2011, when the agreement with the victim non-indicted 1 was not reached with respect to this case, the defendant voluntarily submitted a self-denunciation statement to the investigative agency and was investigated. However, in the process of the investigation by the prosecution, all of the statements were refused in the process of the investigation by the prosecution, and the crime was denied without being contrary to this law, it is deemed inappropriate to regard it as a favorable cause for sentencing

It is very difficult for the Defendant to commit the same kind of crime to collect dividends after having long-standing victims to receive an amount of money and receive dividends, and to threaten Nonindicted 4 to have recorded the conversation at the time of debt repayment in order to collect dividends, or to have received a written confirmation of debt repayment in one half of the dividends, even though he did not receive dividends after having received the written confirmation of debt repayment, and did not perform the promise.

In addition, there is no agreement between the victims to prepare a "agreement", which is a critical document for the assertion of innocence, rather than faithfully endeavoring to reach an agreement in the place of gathering the victims, rather than making a full effort to reach an agreement, and there is no return of the agreement at all up to the present time, asserting that the dividend is the principal's share since it was transferred to the prosecutor without compensation after submitting the self-denunciation statement to the prosecutor with the above agreement.

Therefore, considering that the defendant agreed with the victim non-indicted 2, the sentence of sentence is inevitable, and all of the sentencing factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act are determined as the sentence.

Judges Maapnor

1) In particular, Nonindicted 4 rejected Nonindicted 1’s demand for the termination of the right to collateral security on the ground that Nonindicted 1 did not consent to the termination of the right to collateral security, and the real estate owned by him was put to an auction, and therefore, it appears that there is no reason to make an appraisal with respect to Nonindicted 1 and particularly favorable statement to Nonindicted 1. However, from this investigation agency to this court, it consistent with this law, even though it appears that “I would like to talk about whether I would be able to receive the money he borrowed from Nonindicted 1 around 2010. I would like to say that I would like to have been able to receive the money that I would have been able to receive. I would like to say that I would like to be able to receive the payment of the money that I would receive from Nonindicted 5, and the Defendant would receive the dividends from Nonindicted 1.”

2) In relation to this, the Defendant asserted that the word “content of the text” and the word “as of April 12, 201,” under the above agreement were printed simultaneously, and applied for a document appraisal. However, according to each appraisal statement and the witness Nonindicted 12’s legal statement, it is possible that this was printed by or prepared en bloc, and that it was possible to have been printed en bloc, and that only the part of the original text was then printed out later, and that it could have been printed out later on April 12, 201. Thus, the result of the said appraisal alone cannot be ruled out that the Defendant could have obtained a signature from Nonindicted 1 and printed out on April 12, 201 after printing the main text of the said agreement, and then receiving a signature from Nonindicted 1, in an important situation, it cannot be ruled out that the agreement would have been written on April 12, 2011 without being signed.