Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 8, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would not be subject to detention upon request of a police officer, who is well aware of the police officer and an attorney-at-law who is well aware of the area of the Shap Police Station, and would be asked to an attorney-at-law to ask him/her to the police officer so that the case of drunk driving can be resolved well.”

However, the Defendant did not know at all the police officers belonging to the Joint Police Station and attorneys-at-law in the area of the Sincheon-gun, and there was no intention or ability to smoothly resolve a drinking-driving case due to the solicitation of a police officer to make the victim not detained or asking a lawyer to the police officer.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2 million from the Gohap-gun Branch of Gohap-gun, Macheon-gun, Dongcheon-gun, Dongcheon-gun, Macheon-gun, Macheon-gun, Macheon-gun, and received KRW 671-2 as teaching expenses.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the case that public officials handle at the same time by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the second prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (a point of receiving money or valuables from a public official for solicitation of a case)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Considering the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act is committed by deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim to escape arrest by taking advantage of the imminent situation of the victim D, thereby undermining the trust in the transparency of judicial order.