2018 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Fraud, embezzlement

A

Iron iron (prosecution) and type of prosecution (public trial)

Law Firm Pyeongtaeksan

Attorney Lee Jong-su, Attorneys Lee Jong-su, Kim Jong-chul,

February 21, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

30 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Criminal 1)

1. Embezzlement;

On November 2016, the Defendant received cash KRW 500,000 (hereinafter “the primary payment”) from a victim D, E, F, G, or H who was under investigation by the police due to the suspicion of opening and operating the Internet gambling site at the time, and stored for the victims, he/she used KRW 20,000,000 as attorney fees and 11,750,000 as additional charges, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 360,8250,00 for personal use at his/her own discretion.

2. Fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

On December 12, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “K under the jurisdiction of the branch of the party branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the D, E, and F.

On December 17, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received cash of KRW 2.60 million from the victim Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul around December 17, 2016, and received cash of KRW 40 million from the victim, and received KRW 300 million in total (hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary payment”) from the police officer on the front side of the Gangnam-gu P Apartment, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on December 2, 2016, and at the same time, received money from the public official on the pretext of soliciting the case in which the public official handles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of D, M, L, and I;

1. Partial legal statement of G;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and M;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning I in relation to D, E, F, G, H, Q, R, M, S, and 4;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Protocol of seizure (Evidence 21), Digital Analysis Request, - Two CDs of electronic information;

1. Photographs, internal report (report on the analysis of records), investigation report (verification of this case), case delegation contract (criminal) - case delegation contract (criminal), receipt - receipt, case delegation contract (criminal), receipt - receipt

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Report on Relevant Witnesses G Account and Details of Additional Collection Charges), investigation report (Attachment of Data submitted after an investigation by the panel R of D), investigation report (referring to the opening of gambling spaces, etc.), investigation report (report on the progress of the case related to the victims of this case (including the opening of gambling spaces), written judgments, etc.), investigation report (report on the results of tracking the financial account), investigation report (Attachment of the suspect A and the witness's family relation certificate, etc.), investigation report (verification of the details of the payment of additional collection charges according to the judgment of the Suwon District Court 2016 High-Ma8304), investigation report (examination report on the amount received by the suspect A and the suspected details of transactions following the statement

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (hereafter, “Fraud”), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (hereafter, “Embezzlement”) and Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereafter, “Law-at-Law”)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment between Fraudulent Offenses and Violations of Attorney-at-Law Act, and Punishment provided for more severe frauds)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in more severe fraud)

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

① The amount of the first payment of this case is KRW 50 million, not KRW 515 million, and the amount of the second payment of this case is KRW 300 million, not only KRW 330 million. ② Of the first payment of this case, the amount of the second payment of this case is not KRW 20 million,000,000,000,000 won, but also KRW 11750,000,000,000,000. In addition to using the first payment of the amount of the first payment of this case as attorney fees and additional charges, the Defendant granted KRW 300,000,000,000,000 to the victim through Q of the victim H, G and U. The second payment of KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

2. Basic facts5)

① Around 2016 when the Defendant participated in the criminal case of D, etc., D, G, E, F, and H were investigated by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on the charge of opening and operating a private Internet gambling site. On October 2016, V was first detained, and V asked D, etc. to identify the attorney-at-law. On November 201, 2016, G asked D, etc. to find out the fact that he/she could help the Defendant in a de facto marital relationship with his/her mother Q. On the first hand, at the W attorney-at-law office introduced by the Defendant on the first day of the first day, and then appointed W attorney-at-law as the defense counsel in the case of V. The Defendant requested by an investigative agency, etc. that many legal professionals know about the pro-friendly S construction business, and made a statement that he/she became aware of prior to W.

② Circumstances leading up to detention, such as the payment of the first installment and D

On December 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a detention warrant on December 7, 2016 on the instant case to D, etc., and gave D, etc. the Defendant the first payment of D, etc. to D, etc. Around November 2016. Upon the Defendant’s recommendation, G, H, and U first voluntarily surrendered to the police, and returned to the police on the day of investigation. However, upon the Defendant’s request for a detention warrant on December 6, 2016, D, E, and F arrested an attorney-at-law for the warrant case, the Defendant appointed the attorney-at-law for the warrant case in KRW 20 million and the contingent fee amount in KRW 50,00,00,000,000 for D, etc.

③ The details of the appointment of M Attorney-at-Law and the payment of the second payment

After that, the Defendant decided to request for a review of legality of detention of D, etc., introduced Ma Attorney-at-law who is pro-Japanese to the Incheon District Court N, and appointed a counsel for a request for a review of legality of detention. However, on December 20, 2016, the review of legality of detention was dismissed. After that, the Defendant appointed Ma Attorney-at-law as a counsel for the public trial of X added to D, E, F, and new suspects. Meanwhile, on the other hand, D, E, F, H, and X were indicted with Suwon District Court Decision 2016Hun-Ma8304 on December 29, 2016 due to the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.) (gambling, etc.), separately from the first payment of this case, the Defendant demanded D’s pro-Japanese L and G to pay a large amount of money, and the Defendant claimed that the Defendant’s success of the instant case should be dismissed through the instant investigation agency and the instant judgment.

(4) The payment of additional collection charges such as D

On December 19, 2016, the Defendant delivered KRW 117 million out of the instant first payment amount from the victims to their families, such as D, and had them withdraw as a check, and kept the check on February 10, 2017.

⑤ During the trial process of D, E, and F’s parents were unable to believe M attorneys-at-law, and were strongly demanded to leave M attorneys-at-law who were in charge of the warrant case. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant submitted M attorneys-at-law a letter of resignation from D, E, and F, and maintained X’s attorney-at-law appointment. On January 23, 2017, X attorney-at-law was in charge of D, E, and F’s side. D’s trial was terminated on the first day of January 23, 2017, and was sentenced to suspension of execution of one year and six months of imprisonment for X and D, and two years of suspension of execution of one year and two months of imprisonment for F.

(6) After the retroactive preparation of appointment contract, etc. and thereafter, D, etc. and their parents expressed to the Defendant the use of each of the instant payments, and the police investigation was conducted, S requested M attorney-at-law to make a retroactive preparation of a written contract for the appointment of detention and a public trial case and a receipt. On October 12, 2017, M attorney-at-law requested M to make a retroactive preparation of each appointment contract (Evidence 12, 14) and each receipt (Evidence 13, 15) in which M attorney-at-law prepared in advance, and M attorney-at-law affixed his/her seal, and M attorney-at-law affixed his/her seal, and the documents were brought to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. Whether embezzlement related to the first payment of this case is established

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the amount of KRW 300 million out of the instant primary payment is not embezzlement as it was used for the purpose of receiving money from M&A as the retainer of the instant secondary payment claim, which was held on December 20, 2016. However, considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the remainder, excluding the amount of KRW 20 million,1750,000,000, which was settled with Y attorney fees, out of the instant primary payment, was used as additional collection charges, not for the commencement of M&A but for the arbitrary consumption and embezzlement of such amount.

1) Amount of the primary payment of the instant case

① On the other hand, D discussed to raise KRW 50,00,000 to deliver money to the Defendant by investigation agency. Since 150,000, there was a lack of money for each of them, I proposed that I would like to pay more than 140,000 won for each of them, and that I would like to pay more than 40,000 won for 4,000 won for each of them stated 5,00 won for 10,000 won for 4,00 won for each of them stated 5,00 won for 4,000 won for 15,000,000 won for 4,000 won for 15,000,000 won for 4,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 5,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 1,000,000 won for each of them.

On the other hand, G: (a) was asked at the investigative agency to collect money, and (b) decided the amount of money by consulting each other on whether to create KRW 515 million each time by gathering money; (c) the day when D delivers money to the Defendant by taking account of the amount of money in line with each other; (d) the day when D delivers money from the first floor below the Z; (c) did not collect money from the first floor below the Z; (d) the money was collected at the time; (e) the money was collected from each person’s own allocated amount for KRW 515 million; and (e) the money was collected at the time was KRW 515 million; and (e) the money was collected at the time. The amount allocated to him was not accurately memory but was between KRW 6-70 million and KRW 1480,00 (Evidence record 1479, 1480).

③ As such, D, G, etc. offered the amount of money allocated to each of the Zfs before delivering money to the Defendant, but did not pay money on the spot. As to whether D and G did not coincide with D’s statement as to whether G collected money within D’s Kafs and outside D’s Kafs, and D’s statement as to whether G paid money on the vehicle in Kafs, was reversed. Even based on D’s statement, D, E, E, F, H, and H were allocated KRW 140 million, KRW 40 million, KRW 400,000,000, and KRW 515,000,000,000, and KRW 50,000,000 were collected, and it is difficult to conclude that G made a statement that the amount allocated to the Defendant exceeds KRW 150,000,000,000,000, KRW 150,000,00.

2) Whether the Defendant spent KRW 300 million out of the instant primary payment as the retainer.

① D는 수사기관에서 피고인에게 금원을 건네주게 된 경위와 관련하여 "저, G, H, F, E, Q는 피고인과 함께 저희가 운영하는 Z 카페 옆에 있는 AA 카페로 이동하였다. 그곳에서 피고인은 '경찰에서 너희들을 구속하려는데 이건 내가 막았다. 급한 불은껐다. 그런데 너희들 상황이 굉장히 심각하고, 범단으로 엮으려 한다', '경찰이 마음만 먹으면 없는 죄도 만든다. 털어서 먼지 하나 나지 않을 것 같냐. 그런데 그건 중요하지 않고 어차피 내가 다 막을 것이다', '내가 오늘 중요한 사람을 만날 것인데 너희는 그냥 변호사로만 알고 있으면 된다. 너희들이 알면 다친다'고 말하였다. 피고인이 저희에게 아는 사람을 통하여 판사나 검사에게 부탁한다는 말을 한 것은 저희가 구속되고 난 후부터이다"라고 진술하였고(증거기록 801, 802쪽), 돈의 명목과 관련하여 '피고인이 추징금 명목으로 2억 8천만 원과 변호사 선임비 명목으로 2억 3천만 원을 사용할 것이라고 하여 추징금 및 변호사 선임비 명목으로 총 5억 1,500만 원을 주었다'라고 진술하였으며(증거기록 806쪽), "금원을 건네준 후 3일 정도 지나서 피고인이 만나자고 하여 저, G, H, F, E, L, Q가 같이 만났고, 피고인은 그 자리에서 '이제 경찰에 자수하러 갈 것인데, W 변호사를 선임해야 하니 재판까지 가는 조건으로 3천만 원을 달라', '이미 준 5억 원은 다른 돈이고 이 3천만 원은 자수할 때 들어가는 변호사비용이다'고 말하였다. 저희가 왜 말이 다르냐고 따지자, 피고인이 저희에게 '너네들 그 사람이 누구인 줄 알아? 검사보다도 센 사람들이야. 내가 너네들 구속될 거였는데 어떻게 막았겠어. 경찰들은 너희들 다 구속시키려고 했는데 그 윗선에서 지금 구속시키지 말라고 하니까 경찰들이 멘붕이 와 있는 상태다. '그 5억 원에 대해서는 묻지를 마라. W 변호사의 3천만 원은 별개의 돈이다'라고 말하였다"고 진술하였다(증거기록 808, 809쪽). 이에 비추어보면, 피고인은 D 등으로부터 변호사 수임료 및 범죄수익으로 인한 추징금 납부 명목으로 5억 원가량 되는 이 사건 1차 지급금을 받았고, 그 후 D 등이 경찰에 자수하러 갈 무렵 추가로 W 변호사 선임비용이 필요하다면서 3천만 원을 요구하였으며, 그 과정에서 수사기관 내부 정보를 입수하고 수사에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 것처럼 행세하면서 이미 받은 이 사건 1차 지급금은 피해자들 구속을 면하게 하기 위해 검사보다 높은 사람에게 청탁하는 데 사용하겠다고 말한 것으로 보인다.

② 변호인은, S이 소개한 M 변호사에게 2016. 12. 11. D 등의 구속적부심 착수금 명목으로 3억 원, 2017. 2. 15, 1심 공판사건 선고일 무렵 성공보수금 명목으로 추가로 3억 원을 S을 통하여 지급하였다고 주장한다. 그런데 M는 검찰 1회 조사에서, "2016. 11. 말경이나 12. 초순경 법무법인 AB의 본사무소에서 S과 피고인이 저의 사무실을 찾아왔고, S이 피고인을 소개해주었다. S을 통하여 사건 설명을 들은 후 피고인이 사건 선임비용과 관련하여 '돈은 충분히 준비되어 있으니 걱정하지 않아도 되고 3억 원은 미리 맡겨 놓겠다'고 말했다. 그 후 저와 피고인이 변호인 선임약정서를 작성하였다", '변호사 보수 조건은 모두 S이 정한 것이다. 제가 S이나 피고인에게 변호사비용으로 얼마를 달라고 말한 적은 없다. S이 변호사 보수로 5억 원, 6억 원 등을 말하였고, 저는 액수가 크다 보니 S이 제시한 금액을 거부할 이유가 없었다. 변호사 보수의 구체적인 조건도 모두 S이 정한 것이다. 다만, 구속적부심이 기각된 후 본안 소송을 담당할 변호사 선임 문제에 대해서는 제가 S에게 맡겨달라고 부탁한 것은 맞다'는 취지로 진술하였으나(증거기록 1206, 1207, 1213, 1214쪽), 검찰 2회 조사에서는, '2016. 12.자 구속적부심 사건위임계약서(증거 12번)는 2017. 10. 추석 연휴 막바지 즈음에 S이 저를 찾아와서 예전에 D 등으로부터 받은 돈이 문제가 되었다며 도와달라면서 경찰 조사가 되고 있으니 당시 제가 선임비와 성공보수로 5억 원을 받았다고 진술해달라고 하였고, 제가 알겠다고 하였다. 그 후 며칠 정도 지나서 S과 피고인이 다시 찾아와서 5억 원이 아니고 6억 원이어야 한다고 하였고, 그래서 제가 알겠다고 하면서 선임계약서와 영수증을 써주겠다고 하였다. 위 선임계약서는 이러한 경위로 2017. 10.경 작성된 서류이다. 본안 사건위임계약서(증거 14번) 역시 같이 작성된 서류이다. 변호사 선임료 명목으로 3억 원을 받았다는 취지의 2016. 12.자 영수증(증거 13번)과 같은 명목으로 합계 6억 원을 받았다는 취지의 2017. 2. 15.자 영수증(증거 15번)도 사건위임계약서 2장을 작성할 때 함께 작성한 것이다. 제가 수서에 있는 제 사무실에서 혼자 서류를 작성한 다음, AC역 근처에 있는 AD 카페에서 피고인과 S을 만나서 같이 서명을 하였다'는 취지로 진술을 번복하였다(증거 기록 1600, 1601쪽). M는 진술 번복 경위에 관하여, '제가 예전에 힘들어서 두 달 정도 잠적을 했다가 복귀한 다음에 친구들에게 연락을 했는데, 친구들이 저를 만나주지도 않고 심적으로 힘든 상황에서, S은 저를 찾아와서 너무 힘 들어하지 말라고 말도 해주고, 술도 사주고, 사건도 소개해주었다. 그런데 S이 자기 친동생 일이라고 하면서 좀 도와달라고 하니까 제 입장에서는 도와줄 수밖에 없었다. S이 도와주면 억대의 돈을 준다고 하였고 실제로 사건위임계약서와 영수증을 작성하면서 현금으로 1억 5천만 원을 저에게 주었다'(증거기록 1602쪽), "S이 저에게 구속적부심을 해서 인터넷 도박사이트 운영하다가 구속된 3명이 모두 석방되게 해준다면 성공보수로 3억 원을 주겠다고 하였고, 저와 제 동생)이 구속적부심을 진행하였는데 기각되었다. 며칠 후 이 제가 연락을 했는지, 직접 찾아왔는지 정확히 기억은 안 나지만 연락을 하여 'D 등 3명이 모두 집행유예로 석방되면 성공보수로 4천만 원을 주겠다'고 하여 제가 착수금은 받지 않고 공판사건을 맡게 되었고 D 등이 1심에서 집행유예를 선고받고 모두 석방된 뒤 S이 'D 등이 우리에게 준 돈을 돌려달라고 하고 있어 어쩔 수 없이 돈을 돌려주어야 하므로 성공보수 4천만 원을 못 줄 것 같다'고 하여 결국 4천만 원을 받지 못했다. 당황스럽긴 했지만 1심을 하는 중간에 저희가 변호인으로 사임을 하기도 한 상황이므로 D와 그 가족들이 제게 성공보수를 주지 못한다고 하면 어쩔 수 없다는 생각에 포기하였다"는 취지로 진술하였고(증거기록 1595~1598쪽), 이 법정에서도 번복된 내용과 같은 취지로 진술하였다. 당시 경제적으로 어려운 형편이었던 M 변호사는 S으로부터 돈을 빌리거나 사건을 소개받는 등 도움을 받고 의지하는 처지였는바 S과 M 변호사의 이러한 관계 및 다음에서 보는 여러 사정들에 비추어보면 M변호사의 위 진술 내용은 신빙성이 낮다고 보기 어렵다.

(3) On July 13, 2018, the defense counsel asserts that it is true that, at the time of this case’s commencement fee and the cash receipt for the total amount of 600 million won, there was prior notice of imposition of fines for negligence to AB by M attorneys-at-law, and that, on August 24, 2018, M attorneys-at-law was given the said money in the first investigation by witnesses. Accordingly, following the reversal of the statement, M made a consistent statement that the Defendant and S promised to be responsible for both fines for negligence and taxes due to his request for the retroactive preparation of documents, and that it was difficult for M& attorneys-at-law to directly borrow or obtain money from M& attorneys-at-law by requesting for the above issue of fines for negligence and taxes imposed on M., and that it was difficult for them to provide the Defendant with a reasonable amount of money borrowed or received from M& by cash 200 million won, but it was also questionable that it was necessary to directly receive money from M& 200,000 won or more.

④ At one time of prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant stated that 1.3 billion won was defective and 200 million won was determined by S. 1, and that 200 million won was more than 30 million won after S’s dismissal of the legality of detention; 3.4 additional detention was changed to 100 million won; 1.6 of the document of appointment and investigation was prepared at the time of conclusion of the contract (Evidence 1271 of the record); 2.3 of the document of appointment and investigation prepared by M. 1 to the effect that M. 2 of the document of appointment and investigation prepared by M. 2 of the document of appointment and investigation (Evidence 1.6 of the document of appointment and investigation) and 1.3 of the document of appointment and investigation prepared by M. 16 of the document of appointment and investigation (Evidence 2 of the document of appointment and investigation) and written by M. 16 of the document of appointment and investigation to the effect that 200 million won was less than 100 million won.

5 S has been aware of the fact that 'M has long been introduced through AJ after the long time, and 'M has been aware of it.' There has been 5-6 cases around low-level and there has been little room for introducing 'M to '5-6 cases'. Since M has been aware that there is no money, 'M has not been paid money for the purpose of introducing 'M'. 'No money for the purpose of introducing 'M', 'No money for introduction', 'No 12' case of detention (No. 12), 'No money for the purpose of sending 'No money for introduction', 'No money for 13 times after the call of 'M' and 'no money for 200 million won', 'no money for the defendant has been returned to 'no money for 200 million won', 'no money will be returned to 'no more than 30 million won', 'no money will be returned to 'no more than 200 million won'.

6) On the other hand, M. stated that, at the time of the investigation by the prosecution, ‘10 million won was 30 million won by telephone and received KRW 300 million from the middle school near AK apartment page (Evidence No. 1207 pages)', M. 20 million was sentenced on February 15, 2017, and the lower court requested S to prepare additional KRW 300 million according to the contract, and S. 30 million was 30 million won by contact with the Defendant, and S. 10 million won was 30 million won again at the place near S. 1,000 won was first 30 million won, and 30 million won was delegated to S. 1,000 won and 250 million won was first delegated to S. 1,000 won and 300 million won was later delegated to S. 1,000 won and 150 million won was later delegated to S. 1,000 won.

7) From the prosecutorial investigation to the effect that, once more than two times, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that S would have made a false statement in accordance with the direction of 30 million won when giving and taking cash in the way (Evidence No. 1272 pages), and in the prosecutorial investigation twice, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “The Defendant made a false statement in accordance with the direction of 190 million won to M&M 300 million won by having S pay the cost of selection and appointment (in advance, KRW 300 million, contingent fee KRW 300 million) to M& 300 million, although S paid the cost of selection and appointment to M& 300 million before being detained, it stated that “The Defendant made a false statement in accordance with the direction of 300 million won to M& 300 million won,” and that “the Defendant made an additional statement in accordance with the direction of 300 million won to M& 300 million won,” which changed its name to M& 300 billion won.

8 In this court, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I, prior to about 20 years ago, established a de facto marital relationship with S1, Q was involved in the process of having been found to have been aware of a criminal case of D, etc., by having Q’s pro-friendly S with the help of criminal case of G, which was cut off by Q, and asked for a fair inter-party S with the help of legal professionals, and that I did not inform S of the fact that I did not want to contact with the public prosecutor because I did not want to contact with the public prosecutor, and it was difficult for S to understand that I had been bound by the contract of this case, which was first by S, and that Q was not in fact trusted by S, and that it was difficult for S to say that there was no absolute contact with the public prosecutor before it was sold to S, and that there was no problem between the Defendant and the commercial building that was sold to S before it was sold to the public, and that it was difficult for S to do so.

9. The Defendant stated to the effect that he was aware of the fact that his respective payments were paid to M&L through S, and that his respective payments were not a place to be used without permission. However, after the end of December 2016, the Defendant stated that parents, such as D, would resign from M&L and would only request W/L to dismiss M&L, and that D would not resign before he personally ascertained his position, and that the Defendant would not have been able to know that the Defendant would not have been able to resign from the public prosecutor in charge, and that the Defendant would not have been able to know that the Defendant would not have been aware of the fact that the Defendant would have been working for the public prosecutor in charge, and that the Defendant would not have been able to know that the Defendant would have been working for the public prosecutor in charge, including the fact that the Defendant would have been working for the public prosecutor in charge, and that the Defendant would not have been able to know that the Defendant would have been working for the public prosecutor in charge, including the fact that Q&D 1000.

100 million won is 30 million won or more, and T was considered to be a fund to be used by the prosecution. (Evidence No. 938 pages) After receiving the first payment from the investigative agency, the defendant mentioned T in the interview with D and others. T was working at the prosecutor's office for a long time.T was a statement to the effect that "T was gathering contact with the defendant for a long time" (Evidence No. 1253 pages) and that "T was no longer available to the prosecutor's office for any reason other than the Seoul prosecutor's office, and it was hard to say that there was no motive that "T was no longer available to the prosecutor's office for any reason other than the Seoul prosecutor's office."

① The Defendant entered into a delegation contract under the condition to return the full amount of KRW 300 million upon dismissal of M&D, and requested S to return KRW 300 million after dismissal of the legality review. However, despite the fact that S et al. continued to operate gambling sites during an investigation, the legality review was dismissed, and M& attorney was also dismissed, and the amount already paid is also the starting money of the public trial case, and the conditions to return in full unless D et al. are released at the public trial. However, the Defendant did not directly verify the reasons for dismissing the legality review and the conditions of the new contract, but did not prepare a contract, and it was difficult for S&D to understand that the Defendant did not have any duty to return KRW 300 million to 30 million, and that it was difficult for S&D to accept the aforementioned money at the public trial court’s final and conclusive time when 200 million was rejected. In light of the foregoing, it is also difficult to view that the Defendant again received the money of KRW 106,2000,000.

(12) The defendant, through S, demanded the public prosecutor in charge to work in favor of D, etc. to prepare the bill of indictment in favor of D, etc. The defendant stated that S had been informed of D, etc. because S actually stated in the bill of indictment 150,000 won remaining in cash and the first bill of indictment prepared by S were reflected. In this regard, the defendant's counsel did not personally prepare money if he/she had an intention to make embezzlement. However, on December 29, 2016, public prosecution against D, etc. was received by the court, and the defendant did not intentionally request S to inspect the bill of indictment and make a copy of the bill of indictment in favor of S, which was written by S, and then made a copy of the bill of indictment in favor of his/her parents, but it was not possible that S would have made a public prosecutor's statement and a copy of the bill of indictment in favor of S, which was written by S, a copy of the bill of indictment, which was written by the court.

In addition, the Defendant stated that the Defendant received the second payment of the indictment in this case under the pretext of the contingent fee in the trial case from S with the dismissal of the legality of detention and before receiving a copy of the indictment by facsimile, and the Defendant stated that 1,50,000 won was given to S by means of borrowing money from S with I, and that the period for giving money was the same as the date when the Defendant received the copy of the indictment by facsimile. As such, in the situation where the instant second payment is being kept, it seems that there was no need for giving money of 1,50,000 won or more to S while lending money from I. Even though the Defendant raised questions about the management and use of money, the Defendant did not properly state the exact amount and use of money, and there was no room to view that there was a dispute between the Defendant and his parents to use the money by making efforts to use the money under the pretext of the indictment.

③ At the time of this court’s examination of the detention warrant for D, etc., the Defendant did not use the first payment of KRW 20,000,000, and received the appointment fee from I. The Defendant had been aware that the first payment of KRW 100,000 was made from the actual examination of the detention warrant. On the date of the request for the detention warrant, “I would like to return because I would like to have been detained because I would like to do so. I would like to know that I would not know this money, and I would not have to say that I would not have to say that I would not have it, and we would not have to say that there was no possibility that I would have received money for the subsequent examination of the detention warrant for 1,000,000,000 won. The Defendant would not be able to say that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have made a statement to the effect that the Defendant would have made a statement to the effect that the Defendant would have made it difficult for the Defendant to have made a statement to the effect that the Defendant would have made a false statement.

4) On February 15, 2017, the day the Defendant sentenced M& lawyers to KRW 300 million for the contingent fee of the trial case. However, in the examination of the Defendant in this court, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was subject to suspended sentence by telephone prior to the previous sentence, and that the Defendant was given to S one to two days prior to the previous sentence, and that there was no consistent attitude as to the date of delivery.

(15) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assertion that he paid KRW 300 million out of the instant primary payment to M lawyer via S is false, and that he would have deducted the said money from S through public offering. M stated that he was offered a proposal to offer KRW 300 million as the commencement fee for the review of legality of detention from S. In view of this part, it appears that the instant primary payment was prosecuted for embezzlement, not fraud, but for embezzlement. However, in light of the above circumstances, there is a strong doubt that the Defendant would not receive money from the beginning.

3) Whether the instant amount was additionally disbursed 70,000 won for the payment of additional charges for G, etc. from the first payment amount

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that he delivered KRW 70,00 to G through Q with the name of G, H and U prior to and after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment. In this regard, G had no money received as a surcharge from the Defendant and paid money created by him, and the Defendant stated to the effect that, for several months after the issuance of the judgment, 70,000 won out of the first payment of this case and the Defendant would have changed to receive money for the additional imposition of H and U 3 (Evidence record 1480-1482). However, the Defendant had received KRW 70,00 from the Defendant at the place of delivery of Q and individual examination of the court, and that, in light of the fact that Q and U were 7,000 won borrowed from the amount of KRW 7,80,000,000,000, the Defendant had no choice but to say that Q and Q were 1,500,000 won in a way that there was a false statement from the investigative agency and court.

② The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that “in addition to KRW 70,00,000 for additional collection charges, the Defendant was created from February 2, 2017 to May 6, 2017, but, in order to avoid tracking financial institutions, I transferred I’s account to DongM, husbandN of AM, and I’s account, and withdrawn KRW 130,000 to several times in cash, and paid approximately KRW 1,30,000 to G for operating funds of private sports discussions, but I stated that “I stated that I would have made a statement as if I would have paid KRW 7,00,000 for additional collection charges (Evidence No. 2142 pages of evidence),” and in this court, it did not first start to make an investment within KRW 7,000,000,000,000 for KRW 170,000,000,000 for more than 70,000.7.7,000.

③ Meanwhile, G’s additional collection charges were KRW 17 million and paid in full on May 2, 2017. H’s additional collection charges were KRW 24.5 million and paid KRW 1,066,35 million on October 24, 2017. U’s additional collection charges were KRW 4 million and paid in full on May 31, 2017 (see, e.g., the investigation report No. 50 (the confirmation of the payment of additional collection charges under the judgment of the Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da8304), G, H, and U’s additional collection charges are KRW 45 million in total (i.e., KRW 17 million + KRW 4.5 million + KRW 4 million +4 million).

④ In light of the above statement and the additional collection charges paid, the Defendant’s dry money to G around 2017 is 20 million won when claiming the Defendant, and the amount of G, H, and U’s additional collection charges up to KRW 1.55 million when claiming that it would be 20 million when claiming that it was made. There is a considerable difference between G, H, and U’s additional collection charges up to KRW 45.5 million. Even in the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s payment of the additional collection charges up to KRW 70,000,000, which the Defendant asserted that it was 70,000,000,000 won when he was aware that G used to discuss the money to return to G under the pretext of additional collection charges, or 13,000,000 won as additional collection charges, instead of returning the money to H, and U., it is difficult to view that the Defendant was able to submit the additional collection charges up to seven,000,000 won.

B. Whether fraud related to the second payment of this case, and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established

1) Amount of the second payment of this case

① As to the background leading up to the Defendant’s demand for the second payment of L in this case, there was a detailed number of the Defendants at the investigative agency on December 12, 2016, “Around December 12, 2016, the Defendant would be able to take out D, G, and H from K to low, G, and H. There are three forms of laws. First, there is a judge who is the Incheon District Court N, Second, there is a well-known attorney, and the third is an influent attorney who is a well-known attorney, and the third has been influent attorney, and there was a total known that the judge could use the D case through life. A judge made a statement to the effect that “The 9th judges did not make a statement to the effect that the said 9th judges did not make a statement to the effect that the said 9th judges made a statement to the effect that the said 9th judges did not make a statement to the effect that the said 9th judges’ evidence and the 9th judges made a statement to the effect of G evidence.”

② With respect to the amount of the second payment requested by the Defendant, L in an investigative agency: “A defendant requires KRW 300 million to release three persons as to the necessity of KRW 100 million per person; it is difficult for the defendant to continue to speak to us, but it is also difficult to do this work, which is less than KRW 100 million. It is also sensitive to the judge. Furthermore, the sum of KRW 30 million is collected from the sum of KRW 30 million to the third-class system, and the sum of KRW 330 million was collected from the sum of KRW 330 million to the sum of KRW 3.3 billion. In the process of making a request for release by delivery or release, this expense was paid in money.

In addition, a statement was made to the effect that "the business that was promoted in the present time is likely to prevent damage by opening a stop (Evidence Record 929 pages)" was stated to the effect that "the money that was delivered to the defendant by the police upon receiving from "L" from the police is well known to be KRW 300 million. The defendant stated to the effect that "the amount that the defendant requires more than KRW 100 million per person as a lawyer's fee" (Evidence Record 66,67 pages), and the prosecutor's office should release the defendant from the legality of detention because "the defendant was detained by the defendant to the low, L, H, Q, etc. at K." (Evidence Record 66,67 pages).

M was appointed to participate in the judgment of legality of detention, and M was N in the Incheon District Law and Dongs. Therefore, in order to release detained son, M tried to give money to this three-dimensionals and to give KRW 100 million to 300 million. Since it is difficult to release son, it stated otherwise that 30 million won should be added to each three-dimensionals and 3.3 billion won should be released by a judge in charge of the judgment of legality of detention if he states that 3.3 billion won should be released by a judge in charge of the judgment of legality of detention (Evidence No. 1474 of the evidence record). In relation to the specific details of delivery of money, 3.6 million won should be received from L and Q apartment, and then 2.6 million won should be communicated between Q and P apartment, and 3.6 billion won should be communicated to the effect that the remaining amount of 7,000 million won should be communicated to the defendant directly.

③ Meanwhile, H made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant’s sentence is a judge in the presence of G, L, Q, etc. at K, and the Defendant’s sentence is possible to release the detained son through this judge, and thus, the Defendant ought to pay 300 million won through this judge. On the last hand, upon release, H demanded KRW 100 million to the judge and the attorney-at-law’s three-choices, respectively. Moreover, it stated to the effect that “There is no memory as to whether an additional KRW 30 million was given in addition to KRW 300 million” (Evidence record 1264).

④ Although L, G, and H agree with a statement that the Defendant demanded KRW 300 million since both of the three shapess including M to demand KRW 300 million. However, with respect to the additional KRW 30 million, H stated that the Defendant only demanded KRW 300 million and did not hear additional KRW 300 million; G stated that the amount requested by the Defendant was KRW 30 million at the time of the initial investigation conducted by the police, and demanded KRW 1,000,000 for each person at the prosecution as more necessary, and that the delivery of KRW 260,000 to the Defendant is memory, and it is difficult to view that the remaining amount directly delivered by L to the Defendant was KRW 30,000 after the delivery of KRW 260,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000 for each of the above 10,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for each of the above reasons.

2) Whether the second payment in this case was delivered as contingent fees to M lawyer

① The Defendant alleged that he paid the instant secondary payment to the attorney-at-law through S with the contingent fee for the trial case, such as D. However, as seen earlier, M received money from the Defendant or S for the first time at the prosecutor’s office, but did not receive the previous statement on two occasions, and the Defendant reversed his previous statement. ② The Defendant stated that the instant secondary payment was not the name of the contingent fee for the trial of legality of detention, but the amount received as the contingent fee for the trial case. However, G made a statement that the Defendant did not immediately prepare and deliver the money at the request of the Defendant before the legality of detention, and D also stated that it was for the same purpose after the release, and that the Defendant did not appear to have consistently expressed that it was difficult for the Defendant to receive the instant secondary payment from the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office until the prosecution of the Defendant was instituted, and that it was difficult to accept the instant secondary payment under the pretext of the Defendant’s request for the contingent fee for the trial to the Defendant’s attorney-at-law, and that it was also difficult to accept the instant case’s request for the Defendant’s contingent payment.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than 15 years;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria shall not apply because there is a crime in a mutually competitive relationship.

3. Determination of sentence: Determination of sentence shall be made, in consideration of the following circumstances for seven years of imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, the process of growth, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the arguments in this case.

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

The defendant acquired the second payment of this case under the pretext of embezzlement of at least KRW 300 million out of the first payment of this case, and making use of an imminent situation, such as detained D, under the pretext that he would not be detained by public officials in criminal cases. In light of the method of crime and the degree of damage, etc., the crime is very poor.

The Defendant has gathered false statements from the time of the investigation by S, M and investigative agencies, and the Defendant has made a different statement from the prosecution. However, the Defendant still appears to have shown a consistent attitude as to the background and the place of use of each of the instant payments, or has avoided liability. In particular, when the police investigation was conducted, it appears that the Defendant demanded the retroactive preparation of evidentiary materials for each of the instant payments, and paid a large amount of money to the attorney-at-law in return for the demand, but the fact is not recognized, and it does not go against all the mistakes because it was difficult for the Defendant to understand the awareness that he did not want to disclose S because he did not want to do so, and even did not go against the awareness that he did not want to disclose S. Because of his refusal to do so, in order to eradicate the type of crime due to the behavior of the Defendant in this case, the public trust in the judicial agencies seems to need more strict punishment against the victims.

【Free Circumstances】

There is no record of sentence in addition to the punishment sentenced four times due to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor due to traffic accidents, the violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc., and there is no previous sentence.

The acquittal portion

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the amount of the first payment received by the Defendant in relation to embezzlement is KRW 515 million, and the amount of the second payment received by the Defendant in relation to fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law is KRW 330 million. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that the amount of the first payment in the instant case exceeds KRW 500 million or the amount of the second payment in the instant case exceeds KRW 300 million. As such, it is difficult to find that the amount of the first payment in the instant case exceeds KRW 50 million, or that the amount of the second payment in the instant case exceeds KRW 300 million. Thus, the crime of embezzlement, fraud, and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendant shall be acquitted pursuant

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) Since the part of the facts charged in the instant case, which judged the acquittal of some of the facts charged, is insufficient to prove, the part of the facts charged was partly revised to the extent that does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise

2) Although the Defendant was indicted as having received KRW 50 million, the Defendant is not guilty in respect of KRW 15 million exceeding KRW 500 million, as seen thereafter.

3) Defendant was indicted as having received KRW 330 million, but not guilty of the part exceeding KRW 30 million, as seen later.

4) S is the Defendant’s pro rata and the person who appears to be the accomplice in the instant case. The Prosecutor’s Office was investigated by the witness, but thereafter escaped, and the Defendant’s defense counsel had been present during the instant trial, but was not present at the end.

5) The name of "victim" in the main sentence below is omitted.

6) The victims of the instant case, including D, and X from January 2015 to October 2016, the suspicion that they received part of the profits with respect to the illegal sports soil site operated by V, etc. from around 2015, 2016, and around 131.2 billion won, and that they received part of the profits and conducted the job of filling and exchanging money.

7) In this court, while the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that pro-friendly S does not coincide with that of pro-S and that it was a large company in the house, WW attorney made a statement that he was extremely close to the person who has long been aware of it through S. Even before the instant case, there seems to have been a debate about the appointment of SP attorney.

8) As seen earlier, the Defendant stated in this Court that the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,000 for the warrant case fee of the attorney-at-law, which was kept at the time, to the spouse, not the primary payment in this case.

9) The co-born AE of M lawyer is also a lawyer.

10) The Defendant made a statement to the effect that money lent to M lawyer was 200 million won. The Defendant’s statement to M lawyer that only 1.5 million won was given was first presented in this court. There is no evidence to verify whether the money loaned by M lawyer was 200 million won or not, and whether the money paid to S was 200 million won or not.

11) Of the written submission of documentary evidence by a defense counsel on January 28, 2019 and the reference materials for the defense counsel on February 1, 2019 (spouse I) see, e.g., the Defendant stated that there was a case where the Defendant guaranteed and repaid S’s obligation under this Court instead of paying it.

12) Around December 17, 2016, the Defendant sent to S such letters as “D’s father’s this, and if you speak, whether the Defendant’s report on indictment is to be made on the same phone as that of his hand-durged? or whether it is to be made on the basis of mar’s mar?, “or not a brupted and open mar?”

13) R Reference Statement (Evidence records 963, 964 pages)

14) AL attorney-at-law is not identified by a legal professional officer.

15) The Defendant stated in this Court the following: (a) the Defendant’s written indictment referred to in this Court stated that: (b) the Defendant’s work did not state law; (c) carried out a pure expression to the effect that it was not state law; (d) the name of the suspect under detention was the name of the criminal suspect under detention; and (e) stated the criminal record of the suspended sentence of the accomplices already sentenced to the judgment; and (e) omitted statement