beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 10, 2008, the defendant and C (hereinafter "the defendant, etc.") received the request from the plaintiff to receive orders from G in the company operating the plaintiff for the F City Urban Promotion Center construction, which was ordered by the F City Urban Promotion Center, in response to the plaintiff's public officials, at the E-cafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on June 10, 2008. The defendant is well aware of the city planning and division H, which is the department in charge of the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff can receive the construction by well-knownly speaking to the head of H, and C is able to bear necessary expenses. On June 12, 2008, the plaintiff was transferred KRW 5 million from the plaintiff to C foreign exchange bank under the pretext of teaching expenses.
B. On July 4, 2008, the defendant et al. received a request from the plaintiff to the above purport, and the defendant et al. agreed that the defendant et al. would be able to easily speak to the F viewing I Bureau and H division, and that they would have been able to get the construction work. The expenses were changed. The defendant et al. received five million won from the plaintiff et al. to C's account as teaching expenses.
C. On July 22, 2008, the defendant et al. received a request from the plaintiff to the same purport at the K hotel coffee shop located in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 2, 2008, and the defendant et al. decided to be the head of I, the head of H, and the head of H to determine 21 preliminary examiners on the job. In order to ensure that the work is well progress, the defendant et al. changed the number of examiners to the officer in charge, the head of the division, the head of H, and the head of I, and the director of I, who are assigned leave expenses to the officer in charge, the head of the division, the head of H, and the head of I, and the amount of KRW 20 million from the plaintiff et al. to C's account as leave expenses.
The defendant
(a) through (c);
On February 12, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court was convicted of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to each act of this case (hereinafter “instant illegal act”) and was sentenced to a punishment of imprisonment for one year, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of 15 million won, but the prosecutor and the defendant appealed.