Whether Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is violated in cases where money and valuables are received by employees of the Bank of Korea for solicitation.

Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall not be violated even if the director in charge of planning the Investment Fund of the Bank of Korea is not a public official, and has received money and valuables under the pretext of teaching expenses.

Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74 high-liability788)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final decision.

A penalty of KRW 1,000,000 shall be collected from Defendant 2.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the charge of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act is acquitted.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel is as follows: First, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the blanket single crime, thereby misunderstanding facts, misunderstanding the application of Acts and subordinate statutes, and misunderstanding it, thereby finding the Defendant guilty; second, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable; second, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 2 is that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

First of all, prior to examining Defendant 1’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of all the charges of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act under Paragraph (a) of the indictment against the same Defendant among the charges charged, and sentenced Defendant 2 by treating them as concurrent crimes with other conviction facts. The above charges against the Defendant are based on the facts charged under the premise that Defendant 2 is a public official. Even according to the facts charged itself, Defendant 2 is the director in charge of planning the Bank of Korea Investment Fund, who is the director in charge of the division of planning the Bank of Korea Investment Fund, and is not a public official, and there is no other ground to recognize Defendant 2 as a public official or as a public official in the case prosecuted for violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the charges of violation of the above Attorney-at-Law Act against the Defendant in light of the fact

Nevertheless, it is clear that the court below found the defendant guilty of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act or erroneous in the facts without evidence. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

Next, in light of the records and records, Defendant 2’s assertion of mistake of facts and error in the application of laws and regulations were comprehensively examined. In light of the records, Defendant 2’s original facts charged by the court below can be sufficiently recognized. There is no evidence to deem that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on comprehensive crimes, and thus, Defendant 2’s ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

Finally, as to the Defendant 2’s assertion of unfair sentencing, considering various circumstances such as health care unit, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc. of this case’s crime, the determination of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is considered to be too unreasonable, and thus, the lower court’s appeal is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a party member’s appeal is to be decided again as follows, after pleading.

Criminal facts

Defendant 1 is a marine engineer belonging to the Korea Fisheries Agency's Office, the deep-sea fishing industry promotion center, and the development center, who has been in charge of all the affairs concerning the domestic building of deep-sea fishing vessels, and Defendant 2 is the Director in charge of planning the Investment Fund of the Bank of Korea and has been in charge of the affairs concerning the limit adjustment, etc.

1. From Apr. 1974, Defendant 1 made a solicitation that the director in charge of the affairs of the Gyeongyang Fisheries Co., Ltd. as a director of the Gyeongyang Fisheries Co., Ltd. applied for a loan of fishing vessel construction funds from among the funds allocated to the Seoul Bank, a trading bank, to raise the building cost of three deep-sea fishing vessels under an order from the director of the Gyeongyang Fisheries Co., Ltd. to the Seoul Bank, which is a trading bank, but the above funds were not borrowed from the Bank of Korea to the above bank. Accordingly, upon receiving a solicitation from the relevant agency to request that the above funds be loaned by the Bank of Korea, Defendant 1 made a request from the investment fund division and the planning office of the Bank of Korea Investment Fund of April 1974 to the Gyeongyang Fishery Co., Ltd. so that the Gyeongyang fishery Co., Ltd. can get the Gyeongyang fishery Co., Ltd. borrowed Fisheries Co., Ltd. to the effect that the above solicitation was made later, and the defendant was allocated to the 100 million won.

(1) On May 25, 1974, KRW 400,000,00,000, in the underground and in the knife building of Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (KAL) building.

(2) On July 17, 200,000 won in cash at Defendant 2’s house located in any model apartment (dong trees omitted) in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(3) On the 24th day of the same month, in the office of planning director of the Bank of Korea Investment Fund division in Seoul, South-gu, 3-10,000,000 won in cash, each of which shall be delivered to Defendant 2, who is an executive officer of the government-managed enterprise, a bribe in connection with his duties.

2. Defendant 2 received a request from Defendant 1 to offer a loan to the Seoul Bank to build three deep-sea fishing vessels. Defendant 2 received a loan from each bank due to the limit of each bank during the process of the selection of the loan, but made it possible to get a loan to build fishing vessels in an appropriate manner. On April 29, 1974, Defendant 2 had the Gyeongbuk Fishery Co., Ltd. receive a loan of KRW 220 million from the reserved amount of the fishing vessel building loan, and again had Defendant 1 obtain a loan of KRW 1.3 million, which is a part of the cargo shipbuilding fund, from Defendant 1, 100,000,000 from Defendant 1, and the public official received a bribe in connection with his duties.

Summary of Evidence

The facts of the judgment are as follows: 1. Each statement consistent with the facts of the judgment by the Defendants in the court.

1. Each statement made by a prosecutor and judicial police officer against the Defendants in each interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor and judicial police officer, which conforms to the facts indicated;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Non-Indicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment

1. Each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 1, 7, and 8, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. Each statement prepared by Nonindicted 9, 10, and 11 that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment

1. In full view of the following: (a) one bill of payment for the East Fisheries Sales Co., Ltd. seized; (b) one bill of exchange for the East Fisheries Sales Co., Ltd.; (c) two bills of exchange for the East Fisheries Sales Co., Ltd.; (d) one bill of exchange for the East Fisheries Sales Co., Ltd.; (e) one bill of exchange for the company’s face value 5,500,000 won; (e) one bill of exchange for the company’s face value 5,00,000 won; (e) one bill of payment resolution; (e) one copy of the written request for payment; (f) one copy of the written request for payment; (f) one copy of the written request for payment; (f) one copy of the ordinary deposit account for the East Fisheries Trade Co.

Application of Statutes

Defendant 1’s judgment below is a comprehensive action of Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant 2’s judgment below falls under Article 2(1)2 and Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 3 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 129(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 1’s judgment of the court below is a prison term for the crime of offering a bribe; Defendant 2 selected a prison term for the crime of offering a bribe; Defendant 2 has to take into account the circumstances, such as the first offense of offering a bribe, which is a primary offender, in depth, after reducing the amount of imprisonment with prison labor pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 2 has to take into account the amount equivalent to 80 days prior to the period of imprisonment with prison labor; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 had to take into consideration the amount equivalent to 10 days prior to the above punishment.

Judgment on the acquittal of Defendant 1 in the facts charged

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the Defendant is an officer in charge of the deep-sea fishery industry development and development of the Korea Fisheries Agency's Office. On April 1974, the Defendant applied for a fishing vessel building loan from the director in charge of the director in charge of the Gyeongyang Fisheries Co., Ltd., Ltd., to the Seoul Bank under a transaction in order to raise the building cost of three deep-sea fishing vessels under the order of the company from the director in charge of the Gyeongyang Fisheries Co., Ltd., Ltd., in order to secure the building cost of the 3 deep-sea fishing vessels, but it is difficult to obtain the above loan from the Bank of Korea due to the fact that he requested the relevant agencies to request for the lending of the above loan by making it difficult to obtain the above loan due to the low amount of the above construction fund allocated from the Bank of Korea. At that time, the Defendant asked Defendant 2 to ask Defendant 2 for the limit on the construction fund of the cargo ships and deep-sea fishing vessels set by the Bank of Korea and asked it to the bank of Korea.

(1) On April 20, 1974, in cash 200,000 won from Nonindicted Party 1 under the pretext of the retainerion of the above teaching materials from New Seoul Scama underground located in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu Joints

(2) On May 20, 200,000 won in cash for the remainder of the teaching expenses, which are additionally allocated from Nonindicted 6 to the Bank of Korea only to the Seoul Bank for the company, in the underground space of the Korea Sports Council located in Jung-gu, Seoul. 3,80,000,000, for the sake of the balance of the teaching expenses for the company from Nonindicted 6.

(3) On June 15 of the same year, upon receiving a request from Nonindicted 6 to receive additional funds by making an offer from Nonindicted 6 for the said solicitation and in response to the request, 50,000 won in cash in the name of the start payment from Nonindicted 6 at the office of the Seoul Central Bank's branch office located in Jung-gu Seoul Central Bank's office on June 15 of the same year.

(4) On July 13 of the same year, the above sports center’s corridor received a cash of KRW 4,500,000 from the Bank of Korea for only the above Gyeongbuk Fishery Co., Ltd. in addition to KRW 1,30,000 from Nonindicted 6. The above facts charged are not subject to Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act or there is no proof that Defendant 2 is a public official, as stated in the above reasons for appeal, and thus, the above facts charged are acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Oral-ho (Presiding Judge)