logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.04.24 2013노2257
변호사법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant merely received money to deliver it to D, etc., it is merely a mere fact that he did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition, the defendant merely received money under the pretext of introducing the head of the PPP work team to M, and merely received money under the pretext of introducing a public official in both states who will act as a broker through D, it cannot be recognized as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on this part.

(2) The part of the Defendant offering entertainment is merely a single place to introduce D, G, and J to the extent that the Defendant did not request the issuance of obstacles to the removal of obstacles, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the Attorney-at-Law Act.

(3) Since the Defendant is not recognized to have violated the Attorney-at-Law Act, additional collection cannot be made, and even if the Defendant’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is recognized, the above amount returned by M, which should be excluded from the subject of additional collection.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court below was impossible to maintain the judgment of the court below, since Article 30 of the Criminal Act was omitted in the application of this part of this Act, although the crime under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the records on the assertion that there is no intention to acquire the money, the Defendant: (1) received the money from M and prepared a certificate of borrowing in the name of the Defendant; and (2) the Defendant and D.

arrow