logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.05.15 2018고정63
변호사법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 10, 2014, the Defendant applied for a new product (NEP) of “E” to the National Technical Standard Institute in D Co., Ltd. in the management of the victim from the victim C at a restaurant in which the trade name in the water king water reservoir at Sinsi-si, Singu, Singu, was unknown, and the Defendant requested the public official to receive certification.

Accordingly, the Defendant: “F has a connection with an industrial trade ledger and a public official due to the friendship of the head of G3 tea; thus, the Defendant would make a public official to solicit him to be certified as a new product by soliciting him.

If it is intended to proceed with an unclaimed day without any difference, the expenses and living expenses for the relevant period are required to be changed to KRW 10 million.” The injured party received from the injured party a total of KRW 5 million on March 11, 2014, and KRW 5 million on April 30, 2014 on the pretext of solicitation expenses, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the affairs handled by the public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made to the prosecution or the police concerning the accused in the suspect interrogation protocol;

1. Statement of H in the protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Each recording recording (the defendant and defense counsel did not receive a request from the public official to make a request for the authentication of the above new product from the injured party, and the facts charged in the instant case that the defendant and defense counsel merely received wages as the vice president of the company operated by the injured party.

(1) However, the victim consistently made statements that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case at an investigative agency to the present court, and ② H also submitted to the police a written statement to the effect that the Defendant appeared to witness the victim as stated in the facts charged, ③ the Defendant also made a statement to the same effect in the prosecution, ③ the investigative agency requested the victim to obtain a new product certification, and the said new product is certified.

arrow