beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of two years and six months, respectively.
Defendant
A 500,000 won;
Reasons
Criminal facts
Defendant
A is an employee of D, who is a collaborative company with C, and Defendant B was the representative of E, who was in charge of financial consulting for the loan of facility funds of the said union, and Victim F (56) was in office as the head of the said union.
Defendants from April 2014 to the same year.
5. Until the first police officer, when a victim was investigated by the police under suspicion of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, in relation to the raising of union members by cultivating and selling mushrooms, etc. from the said union, he would take part in the profits of 8% per month, and received money and valuables from the public prosecutor in favor of the victim.
Defendant
A, according to the above mothers, around May 2014, after being investigated by the police once in the above case at the Gelhouse at the Gelhouse at the time of the border of North Korea on one occasion, A was released by her hand from the victim who escaped.
In work, the case was cultivated.
An attorney-at-law appointed by a prosecutor shall be appointed.
The Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office stated that the expenses incurred in taking measures to ensure that only a simple investigation is conducted upon solicitation by the public prosecutor of the special department of Seoul Public Prosecutor's Office.
On May 12, 2014, the Defendants received KRW 3.5 million from the victim who believed it to be the J Union deposit account in the name of I, and received KRW 50 million in total, from the Busan District Court located in the Busan District Court on the 26th day of the same month through K, KRW 10 million in the above coffee shop via H at the above 28th day of the same month, and KRW 50 million in the above union's mushroom located in Chungcheongnam-gu in Chungcheongnam-do on the same day, respectively.
However, at the time, the defendants did not have the intention or ability to conclude the above case in response to the solicitation of the prosecutor, etc., and there was no other attorney-at-law designated by the prosecutor.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to deal with the public officials.