A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

15,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

-the applicant for compensation.

Punishment of the crime

On December 19, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the Seoul Central District Court for a crime of fraud, a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 20, 2014.

The Defendant is a person who was in office as a director of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “D”) from November 22, 2012 to April 2013.

1. Around December 6, 2012, the Defendant violated the Attorney-at-Law Act: (a) concluded a rehabilitation application and consultation contract with E in the name of D, stating that he/she would act as an agent for an individual rehabilitation application in order to delegate an application for individual rehabilitation to the said research institute; and (b) had E transfer the total sum of KRW 15 million to the bank account in the name of D on December 14, 2012; and (c) had E transfer the sum of KRW 10 million on January 15, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, the Defendant prepared an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures under the name of E, and submitted the above application to an employee whose name cannot be known at the request of the public service center of the Suwon District Court located in 80, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was located in 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant, not an attorney-at-law, provided money and valuables to D and dealt with legal affairs concerning non-contentious cases.

2. On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant was ordered by the Defendant to pay KRW 15 million for the prepayment of the expenses for rehabilitation proceedings from the Suwon District Court. The Defendant was called as “the Defendant was prepared to pay KRW 15 million at the present time,” and was willing to receive the Defendant’s money by deceiving the victim, and pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant or the Defendant, if he remitted the money to “the Defendant.”

The phrase “the meaning was false.”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he would pay the above KRW 10 million to the F who filed a complaint with him by fraud, etc., so even if he received the above money from the victim, he did not intend to pay it in lieu of the court.

The defendant, from the victim on March 18, 2013, is about KRW 10 million to the new bank account under the name of the defendant.