(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.2.15.선고 2012고합694 판결

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year. KRW 52 million from Defendant A and KRW 3 million from Defendant B shall be collected respectively.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A’s crime;

Around January 2012, the Defendant: (a) at G K K K K K K K KK run by the Victim F in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the said victim “B,” and (b) B is well aware of the senior executives of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the senior director of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the senior director of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office; and (c) through B, at the request of the president of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the president of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s High Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Defendant borrowed money to the effect that I (victim’s male and female) would be well handled in difficult circumstances in connection with the sale of commercial buildings. However, the fact that B is not a senior executives of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s High Public Prosecutor’s Office, but a person who is the president of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s High Public Prosecutor’s High Public Prosecutor’s Office did not have any intent or ability to handle I’s sales of commercial buildings; and (d) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money

On January 12, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received money of KRW 11 million from the said victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number:J) in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by money as the borrowed money.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

At around 19:00 on February 30, 2012, the Defendants knew to the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's Office that "I will make sure that I will handle the affairs well by using F and F's inter-high-ranking dong B, which is the inter-high-ranking dong B." On April 30, 2012, at the office of the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's Office that entered into the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's Office that "I will not inform the public prosecutor of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's Office and the head of the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's office that entered into the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's office that "I will use the above public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's office to the public prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's office of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor's office."

As above, the Defendants requested the High-ranking Division of the Prosecution to detain the above M, and received cash of KRW 30 million from the mutual unclaimed restaurant located in the door-dong and KRW 25 million from the above I on April 30, 2012, respectively. Accordingly, the Defendants received money and valuables from the above I on the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials in collusion.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant A’s legal statement (the third trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each entry in the prosecutor's investigation report (the identity of the wife 0), investigation report (the relationship between B and the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office P), investigation report (the report on the details of the case related to theM), investigation report (the report on the results of the account tracking), and investigation report (the report on the results

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness I and F;

1. To enter the prosecutor's investigation report (M-related case handling details);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud), Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of receiving money under the pretext of consignment), and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor

B. Defendant B: Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, choice of imprisonment

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than that prescribed in a more severe fraud)

3. Additional collection:

Article 116 of each Attorney-at-Law Act

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

The summary of the Defendants and defense counsel's arguments

A. Defendant A

Defendant A’s statement to the effect that “Defendant B is well known to the senior secretary of the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office, and is well known to the senior secretary of the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office,” and that “I would not be well resolved when M is detained,” and that he received KRW 55 million from the former. However, there was no demand for money with the latter that he would be bound by the latter, and the said KRW 55 million was not paid in relation to the solicitation of the senior secretary general of the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office.” The above KRW 50 million was only borrowed, and it was not paid in relation to the solicitation of the senior secretary general of the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office.

B. Defendant B

Although Defendant B had been interviewed about 13 and 4 times according to Defendant A, it was true that Defendant B had made the same remarks as indicated in the judgment, and there was no fact that Defendant A was known that Defendant A was entirely delivered and Defendant B was delivered, Defendant B cannot be held liable for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and even if punishment could be imposed, Defendant B is only liable for the violation of the Act.

2. Determination

A. Review of the statements made by related persons under Paragraph 2 of the holding

1) The opportunity for Defendant B to become aware of the Defendants at the prosecution (Evidence Nos. 66, 195) and the legal statement of the first instance court: on February 3, 2012, who was the head of the public prosecutor's office (Evidence Nos. 66, 195) and Defendant B, who was the head of the public prosecutor's office, had talked about the problems of the Defendant A and the person who made a statement. In this case, Defendant B introduced Defendant B as the head of the public prosecutor's office (Evidence Nos. 66, 195) and the public prosecutor's office (Evidence Nos. 66, 195) and the public prosecutor's office, the head of the public prosecutor's office, and the head of the public prosecutor's office, the head of the public prosecutor's office, the head of the public prosecutor's office and the public prosecutor's office and the public prosecutor's office and the public prosecutor's office and the public prosecutor's office did not ask the Defendants of the above public auction building site.

The contents of the defendants' statements made by the defendant to the person who made a statement in relation to the solicitation of P inspection: The defendant A and the defendant B had been in the office of K buyers more than 4 and 5 times, and the same two persons are always allowed to be bound by the auction business operator's suspicion of tax evasion, obstruction of auction, receipt of political funds, etc. upon request from the head of the P High Prosecutors' Office. On the other hand, M will compensate the seller for the total amount of the sale price to the seller, or will not be able to live in the seller's site. In order to do so, it is necessary that M will be compensated for the sale price to the seller, and whether the defendant B will be friendly with the head of the P High Prosecutors' Office, and whether the defendant B will be able to take part in the sale price of the above commercial building.

The role of Defendant B: Defendant B notified Defendant B of the facsimile number of the text message (Evidence No. 208, No. 1) to Defendant B via Annyang Cooperative case, and the copy of the document that filed a petition to Annyang was sent to Cheongyang, and the head of Daejeon High Prosecutor’s H on April 2, 2012, Defendant B sent the relevant document to Defendant B via the above facsimile number. At the time, Defendant B sent the document to Defendant B at the office without any remainder of evidence when sent facsimile to the person who made the statement. Defendant B was aware of the division division of H2, but Defendant B and the person who was friendly with the head of the H division was able to receive money from Defendant B on the grounds that Defendant B and the head of the H division were able to receive money from Defendant B. The head of the P division on the ground that Defendant B and the head of the H division were able to receive money from Defendant B. The head of the P division on the ground that Defendant B and the head of the P division were able to receive money from Defendant B.

The process of payment of KRW 05 million is that KRW 55 million has been paid for the purpose of solicitation. The loan certificate (Evidence No. 82 pages 3) demanded the Defendants to prepare and request to use as evidence to provide money. Defendant A did not use it, but Defendant B did not refuse to receive suspicion, thereby making it defective. The Defendants took place for the purpose of solicitation, but they could belong to the person who made the statement. Of KRW 55 million, the amount of KRW 30 million is the amount of the association, and KRW 25 million has been prepared individually, and KRW 20 million has been borrowed from V and W, each of which is 10 million, and there is a confirmation document (Evidence No. 305 pages and evidence No. 306) and a document to support this.

2) F의 검찰 및 법정 진술 피고인 A이 2011. 12.경부터 진술인이 운영하는 노래방에 자주 찾아와서, 자신의 아들이 건달이어서 여러 번 사고를 쳤는데 P 고검장이 도와주었고, 금산에서 기계제작 공장을 운영하면서 수금이 안 되어 고생할 때도 P 고검장이 관할 세무서를 통하여 도와주었는데, 이와 같이 도와준 것은 피고인 B이 P 고검장의 동서이기 때문이라고 하였다는 등의 이야기를 하였다. 이에 피고인 A에게 동생 [이 분양 문제로 어려움을 겪고 있으므로 P 고검장을 통하여 해결해 달라고 부탁하였고, 2012. 2. 3. 이 대전에 내려와 진술인과 피고인들을 만나 저녁식사를 하는 자리에서 이 피고인들에게 구체적인 어려움을 설명하였다. 그러자 피고인 B이 H과장을 시켜서 일을 어떻게 진행할 것인지 긴 시간에 걸쳐서 이야기 하였다(다만, 피고인 B이 자신이 P 검사장의 동서라는 점을 직접 이야기 하였는지에 관하여는 검찰과 법정에서의 진술이 일치하지 않는다). 피고인들이 뚜렷하게 어떤 말을 했는지는 모르지만 P 고검장이 H과장을 통해서 M 파일을 열어 회사 탈세는 얼마나 했는지, 정치인에게 돈을 얼마나 상납했는지 조목조목 다 파서 똘똘 말아서 구속시킨다고 했다.

3) Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 170, No. 215) and statement No. 1 written by the court, and Defendant B’s oral statement: (a) on February 3, 2012 to 3, 2012, five persons, including the statement, F, I, I, Defendant A, and F, were first viewed at a restaurant located in the Daejeon Chang-dong. Defendant A, and Defendant A, had been working as the head of the commercial partnership in inside and outside of the world, and the commercial building had been going beyond the auction and went beyond the auction, I would like to find out that there was a person with this commercial document, and that there was a person who is going inside the shop, who will be aware of the fact that the commercial building was in excess of M through auction; and (b) in order to make the commercial building to be a person whose name is likely to cause damage to M, it would be difficult for the member to file a complaint to compensate for the damage from the public prosecutor’s office to the extent that M would not have been detained.

In addition, the statement was made by the statementer who was known at the time of entrance into X Hospital on February 2, 2012 to March 3, 2012, and was talked with the defendant A, and the defendant A called the P high-ranking inspector and the head of the Daejeon High-ranking Prosecutor's Office. And the statement was made by the defendant A as the head of P high-ranking inspector's office and the head of P high-ranking inspector's office. In addition, the statement was made by the defendant F and I as the head of P high-ranking inspector's office and the head of P high-ranking inspector's office. The statement was made by the person who made the statement was the person who made the statement was the person who made the statement was the person who made the statement, and the statement was made by the person who made the statement was not made by the person who made the statement while making a particularly false statement, and the statement was made by the defendant A to inform him of the fact that the statement was made by the person who made the statement, but not by the head of Pax.

○○’s personal information introduced as the head of H: Brer’s “Y” was one of the persons with many insurance proceeds, and she was referred to as “H director by introducing Y as an employee of the prosecutor’s office who is well aware of Y as she consulted / her case.” From August 2012, 2012, she was paid cash KRW 3 million to Y under the pretext of solving 1 case, but no contact was made after she did not reach a demand for a more amount of money. The contact was made without being aware of Y’s contact or personal information, and believed that she was the same as the head of P high-ranking examination. The reasons why she was paid KRW 05,500,000,000,000,000,000 won: Defendant A was 0,000,000 won, and Defendant A did not have been able to resolve the amount of money as the instant case’s business force, and she did not have any specific settlement.

4) Defendant A’s statement (Evidence Nos. 268) and his role in the testimony of the public prosecutor: He talked about F and I, which he had experienced: F and I’s signature, and he asked the public prosecutor to know about it once. F and I’s signature is good. From February 2 to 3, 2012, I, I, and F were sent to the public prosecutor’s office, and I were sent to B and I’s signature to the public prosecutor’s office. It was not the first time that F and I’s signature was not the public prosecutor’s signature but the public prosecutor’s signature was not the public prosecutor’s signature. It was not the public prosecutor’s signature that it was not the public prosecutor’s signature. It was not the public prosecutor’s signature but the public prosecutor’s signature was the public prosecutor’s signature.

The circumstances leading up to the receipt of KRW 50 million: I did not have written a demand for the payment related to the instant case. However, since I would like to get dividends of KRW 900 million from Q because I would like to get 90 million, I would like to say I would have to be able to pay money personally. I would like to be able to pay money. I would like to say I would be able to pay money. I would be able to pay this loan, but I would be able to do so by the statement, but I would be 0,000 won. I would not have agreed interest, and later I would be 0,000 won, later, I would be 0,000 won and 20,000 won and 30,000 won and 0,000 won and 20,000 won and 0,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 30,00,0,0.

B. Judgment on Defendant A

The above I and F’s statements are consistent with the main part of the prosecutor’s office from this court to this court, and there is credibility in making a concrete and detailed statement as to the process and the Defendants’ interviewing the Defendants to I (the Defendant B, who misrepresented the Defendant B as the P High Military Prosecutor and the B, who requested the P High Prosecutor’s Office to detain the K site M by requesting the P High Prosecutor’s Office, and the purport that he/she would be bound by the K site).

The above I and F statements: ① used the money of a union to raise money to be given to Defendant A without any monetary time at the time, and used the money of KRW 20 million from others (the Defendant A was scheduled to receive KRW 900 million from Q at the time, but the Defendant A stated to the effect that there is no objective material to support the statement and it cannot be viewed as reasonable statement in itself; ② The Defendant A’s above statement was not reliable; ② The Defendant A did not have friendship with the Defendant A as much as he used the money of a private union for the Defendant A and borrowed money from others; ③ the number of loans written to Defendant A and written to the Defendant A are not written. The interest agreement was not made for 50 million won for 4 months without any doubt, and the Defendant A’s request for payment of KRW 50,000 from the public prosecutor’s 50,000,000 for the above 50,0000 won may not be easily resolved, or Defendant A’s request for payment of the money by taking account of the following facts.

Therefore, Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion are without merit. Defendant B’s judgment is without merit.

In light of the above evidence and the following circumstances, which can be seen by this court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., (i) the credibility of Defendant BO's act as a whole is acknowledged, and (ii) the Defendant B made an opinion about the plan to detain M by solicitation with Defendant B to the head of P high-ranking examination team, and (iii) the Defendant B made a request to the head of P high-ranking examination team through B, and the head of P high-ranking examination team through B, would have been able to receive the money of this case if he made a request to the head of P high-ranking examination team, and the head of 50,000 won would have been able to receive the money of this case from Defendant B under the pretext of 50,000 won, 50,000 won, and 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won and 50,000 won, 50,000 won, which were directly delivered to Defendant B and 50.

Therefore, the defendant B and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

[Scope of Punishment] Fraud of Paragraph (1) of the Decision 15 years of imprisonment (Application of Sentencing Criteria)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) of Fraudulent Crime (General Fraud)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months

【Standards for Handling Multiple Crimes】

Since the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is concurrent in cases where the sentencing guidelines are not set, the lower limit shall be the lower limit of the sentence range (six months of imprisonment).

[Decision of Sentence] The crime of fraud in the case was committed by one year and six months in prison. Despite the absence of the Defendant’s ability to resolve the case through the senior executive organ of the prosecution, the crime of fraud in the case did not recover from the damage by deceiving the victim with 11 million won after securing trust with the victim as if the Defendant had such ability. In addition, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in the case of this case is a serious crime that damages trust in the fairness of criminal justice. Therefore, the Defendant needs to be punished strictly.

However, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment of imprisonment or heavier, shall be taken into consideration under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the case.

2. Defendant B

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with labor for not more than five years

[Determination of Sentence] The crime of this case committed by the Defendant for one year, who was sentenced to imprisonment, was received money under the pretext of soliciting the case by committing the act as if the Defendant was between the senior executive officer and the senior executive officer of the prosecution, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. The Defendant is trying to explain his role to reduce and explain, but the crime of this case was not established without the premise of the Defendant’s role, so that the Defendant’s responsibility can not be easily assessed.

However, most of the profits from the crime of this case appears to have been acquired by A, an accomplice, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than imprisonment, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case shall be considered in light of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant A in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Around January 2012, the Defendant: (a) at G K K K K K K K K-sing room run by F in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon; (b) B is well aware of the senior executives of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the senior executives of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the senior director of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office and the senior director of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office. (c) B, upon request from the head of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Office and the head of the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor’s Public Prosecutor

As above, on January 12, 2012, the Defendant received money of KRW 11 million from the above F to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number J) in the name of the Defendant under the pretext of requesting the High-ranking Division of the Prosecution to handle the case.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials.

2. Whether the F has provided money or goods on the pretext of solicitation;

(a) Details of the defendant's lawsuit;

Although the defendant was received KRW 10 million from F, it has changed to the purport that he was borrowed from F due to the financial difficulties of the defendant's financial situation, not received as a solicitation for I's case.

B. Determination

The court has consistently stated to the effect that, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, (i) F is required to send the above 11 million won to the defendant on January 12, 2012, and (ii) the defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 17 pages) stating that "A shall pay 11 million won until January 31, 2012, and deliver F with the loan certificate (Evidence No. 17 pages)"; (iii) F has consistently stated to the effect that the defendant lent 100,000 won to the first Supreme Prosecutors' Office from the time when the statement was submitted to the defendant, and this Court stated to the effect that "the above 100,000 won was not given" should be settled first of the date of his factory to solve the above 10,000 won, and there is no reason to expect the defendant to pay the above money within the last day of January 31, 2012.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, insofar as it cannot be deemed that F was proven by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that the above money and valuables were given to the defendant on the pretext of solicitation, the above facts charged constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of fraud

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

Judges

Judges of the presiding judge and assistant judges

Judges Hong Jin-young

Judge Kim Gin-hun

Note tin

1) The phrase “the wind Nax to send immediately a copy of the document exercising the right of retention of the auction creditors MI lien,” which appears to be a clerical error in the R (S).

section 30.

2) The subscriber to the above facsimile number is "T" (Evidence No. 213 pages), and the defendant B is a collection of solid goods residing in Daejeon U.S.

In other words, he stated that he had been aware of himself from 10 years to 10 years (Evidence Records 215 pages).

3) The above certificate of borrowing will be borrowed in return for promise I to pay 5 million won to I until August 20, 2012.

(2).

심급 사건

대전지방법원 2013.2.15.선고 2012고합694

-대전고등법원 2013.6.19.선고 2013노134

참조조문