logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.06 2013고합754
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

140 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From April 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012, the Defendant was a staff member of the “E” law firm located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and from May 1, 2012 to May 1, 2012, the Defendant is a staff member of the “G” office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

1. On June 201, the Defendant, in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, committed a charge of forging a private document, etc. and was investigated by the South Seodaemun Police Station on the charge of forging a private document forgery, etc., and came to know of the victim in the process of counseling with the attorney-at-law affiliated with the law firm E, and attempted to receive money from the victim to help the victim settle the case without being detained by giving money to the police officers affiliated with the South Seodaemun Police Station who investigate the said case, and instead to have the victim settle the case.

On June 7, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to resolve the instant case by offering money to a police officer in charge of the Seodaemun Police Station or having an oral contact with the police officer in charge of the other police officer in charge of the other police station, stating that “In order to reduce the case to meet the width of the case, the police officer in charge should be given money to the victim, not to mention the money, or not to give an answer to the criminal officer in charge, and the person in charge should not be given a more attention.”

However, the defendant did not have an intention to have the police officer in charge deal with the above complaint case smoothly, and even if he received money from the victim, he did not have an intention to provide money or valuables to the police officer in charge or to interfere with the police officer, and he thought to use the money as a means of repayment of his obligation.

Therefore, the Defendant, at the same time as above, provided money and valuables to the police officer in charge of the above accusation case from the victim or under the pretext of providing money and valuables or teaching with the police officer on June 7, 201;

6. 15 million won;

6. 22.2.

arrow