2014Gohap195 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A person shall be appointed.

Kim Jong-soo (Lawsuits) and Noh Jeong-ok (Trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

August 22, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

250,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Records】

On April 17, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court).

7. 31. The execution of the above sentence was completed.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 2013, the Defendant: (a) promised to the effect that he was released from the prosecution of the husband, who was detained on the ground of oil pipeline theft incident, to the D’s wife E, who was detained on the ground of oil pipeline theft incident, to be released from parole after being sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years at the first instance court; and (b) agreed to the effect that he would have the husband be released from parole after being sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years; (c) on the ground that the Defendant received KRW 20 million around May 26, 2013; (d) around 30 million around May 28, 2013; (e) around June 7, 2013; and (e) around 15 billion won around June 12, 2013; and (e) transferred KRW 5 billion to a public official’s deposit account under the name of the Defendant, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 14 of the evidence list), each financial account seizure and search warrant execution report (H, A);

1. A copy of the details of transactions, tape-records, details of transactions, and check notes of a national bank;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry into criminal and investigation records, and each investigation report (the sequences Nos. 8, 9 of evidence);

[Defendant asserts to the effect that I was paid KRW 150 million on June 12, 2013, and that the Defendant was unrelated to this, and that the Defendant was transferred KRW 150 million to the account in the name of his/her father and wife, as in the previous KRW 100 million, as in the case of KRW 100 million, and ② KRW 150 million was transferred to the account in the name of his/her father and wife, and ② KRW 150 million was transferred to the Defendant.6, 2013.

12. On June 20, 2013, after eight days, E had a special meeting of husband D with the defendant as the main owner of the defendant, and on June 20, 2013, the defendant and E also had a meeting of D. It appears that E mentioned the above KRW 150 million to the defendant around that time, ③ immediately after the transfer of the above KRW 150 million to the defendant, the defendant was issued KRW 1,40 million cashier’s checks from Nonghyup and KRW 1,100,00 won to the above account of the defendant, including KRW 1,50,000,00 won, KRW 77 and KRW 1,000,000,00 won, KRW 1,000,000 to the above account of the defendant, and KRW 1,00,000,000,000 to KRW 3,00,000,00 won to the defendant’s cashier’s account, respectively, and KRW 1,000,0,000.

Application of Statutes

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

Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (in general, choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the crime of this case is committed on the grounds of sentencing and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act by reducing the sentence and sentence of sentence against D who is detained in solicitation of a court and the prosecution so that the defendant may be provisionally released. The above crime of this case is committed on the grounds that fairness in the execution of official duties and influences, in particular, the public confidence in judicial order is seriously damaged, thereby causing social harm and injury. The defendant is not merely an abstract reference to solicitation, but also deceiving E that he was given a favorable promise to provide money and entertainment and give favorable judgment by referring to a specific prosecutor and judge. In light of the Criminal Procedure Act, the nature of the crime is very poor, and the amount received under the pretext of solicitation reaches 250,000,000 won, which is still not returned to E, and considering the fact that it is difficult for the defendant to obtain punishment for the crime of this case during the period of punishment corresponding to the fraud, even though it is difficult to do so.

However, the defendant returned 30 million won to E, there is a family member to provide support, such as having been hospitalized for a long time due to traffic accidents, and the fact that he/she is partially responsible for the occurrence of a crime even to E who has made an illegal solicitation, etc. In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for a crime, circumstances after a crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct

Judges in English and English;

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Shin Dong-dong