2012 Highest 7978 A. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(b) Fraud;

1.(a)(b) fixed 00, free of office;

Residence Busan Busan Jin-gu

Original domicile Busan Jin-gu

2. (a) .b. ○○, and parking managers;

Residence Busan East-gu

Ulsan Northern-gu in the place of registration

3.(a)(b) Kim ○, and non-permanent.

Residence Busan East-gu

Gyeongbuk-gu in the original domicile

4.A.M.M.O.T.O.T.

Residence and Busan Shipping Daegu

Busan Maritime Transportation Daegu

Isopon (prosecutions) and Obscopon (public trial)

Attorney Park Gi-won (Apon for the defendant ○○○)

December 27, 2012

[Defendant U.S.O.]

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten months;

2. 3 million won shall be additionally collected from the above defendant.

【Defendant OO】

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months;

2. The sum of one million won shall be collected from the above defendant.

[Defendant KimO]

1. Defendant Kim ○ shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

2. If the above defendant does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

3. 1.3 million won shall be collected from the above defendant.

4. To order the above defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Defendant 00,000 won or more shall be punished by fine of 3 million won.

2. If the above defendant does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

3. To order the above defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

On January 201, 201, Defendant Park Jong-○ introduced Defendant ○○○ Office operated by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was operated by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, to call out the designated number of times as a result of the offense of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and requested the appointment of an attorney who may easily handle the case. Defendant Kim Jong-○ to introduce Defendant Kim Il-○ to the victim. Defendant Kim Jong-○, who was working at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, was called “○○○○,” and Defendant Kim Jong-○, who was called Defendant Jong-○, was not on duty at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but, on the other hand, called Defendant ○○○, who was called on the part of ○○○○, who was called on the part of ○○○○○, to offer money and valuables to the victim on the part of 00:00 on the part of 00 on the part of ○○-one account.

피고인 김○○은 2011. 2. 28. 11:00경 부산 연제구 거제동에 있는 부산지방검찰청 1층 로비에서 피해자를 데리고 들어가 피고인 정○○을 소개시켜 주고, 피고인 정○○은 검찰청 직원이라고 사칭하기 위해 미리 건물 내부에서 대기하고 있던 피고인 천이 ○를 검찰청 직원이라고 피해자에게 소개시켜주었다. 피고인 천○○는 피해자를 데리고 1층 로비 출입 통제 방호원에게 "내 조카다"라고 하면서 방문증을 받아 2층 사건과로 가서 마치 그곳 직원인 듯 행세하면서 지명수배를 풀기 위해서 어떻게 해야 하는지 문의하고, 다시 피해자를 데리고 7층에 있는 검사실 앞까지 가서 피해자에게 "내가 얘기를 잘해놨으니까 들어가라"라고 하여 피해자로 하여금 자신이 검찰청 직원으로 사건 청탁을 다 해놓은 것처럼 기망한 후, 위와 같이 피해로부터 받은 400만 원 중 100만 원을 나눠가졌다. 피고인 김○○은 2011. 2. 28. 11:46경 피해자로부터 피고인 김○○이 사용하는 김○○ 명의의 ○○은행 계좌(게좌 번호: 000-00-000000-0)로 30만 원을 교부받고, 2011. 3. 1. 피해자의 부탁을 받은 피해자의 후배 김○○으로부터 현금 100만 원을 교부받았다. 이로써 피고인들은 공모하여 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관하여 청탁 또는 알선을 한다는 명목으로 피해자를 기망하여 합계 530만 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police on this ○○ and Kim○○;

1. Previous offense: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation report (verification of period of repeated offense by suspect Kim-○);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 100 and 00: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (each point of fraud)

B. Defendant Kim ○: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud)

2. Competition;

Defendant Jeong ○○, ○○, ○○, and Ma○○○: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (a punishment provided for each of the crimes of fraud and each of the crimes of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and a punishment provided for each of the

3. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant JeongO and ProfessorO: Selection of imprisonment with labor

B. Defendant Kim ○-○ and Park ○: Selection of each fine (including the degree of participation by each of the above Defendants in each of the crimes, the amount of profits acquired, and other favorable circumstances)

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Defendant Jeong-○, ○○, and Kim○: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

5. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant ○○○, Park ○: Articles 70 and 69(2) of each Criminal Act

6. Additional collection:

Defendant Jeong-○, ○○, and Kim○: Article 116 of each Attorney-at-Law Act

7. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant ○○○, Park ○: Grounds for sentencing on Defendant 100, and 00 of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The circumstances favorable to the above Defendants are as follows. The victim of the instant fraud crime also took the part in the desire to enjoy illegal benefits by solicitation, and agreed with the victim about the crime of fraud.

The pertinent Defendants did not have any criminal record of the same kind, and in particular, they did not have any criminal record for the last ten years. 2. Conditions unfavorable to the said Defendants are as follows.

• The act of receiving money and valuables, etc. on the pretext of solicitation in relation to public duties to be performed fairly and strictly is likely to undermine the foundation of the rule of law and cause another crime such as bribery. In this respect, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act must be punished strictly.

• In particular, the crime of this case is not only by misrepresenting the above defendants to the prosecution staff but also by deceiving the other party as if he were to use the money for personal purposes, even though the above defendants used it for the personal purposes. Therefore, the crime of this case is not very good.

3. In addition, the motive, means and result of the instant crime against the said Defendants, taking account of the various circumstances, including each of the said Defendants’ respective ages, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence as ordered shall be determined.

Judges Bo Il-ju