Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and one other and the prosecutor

Freeboards

Law Firm Suh, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gohap928 Decided November 23, 2007

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 40,000 into one day.

132 days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

2,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, the charge of bribery, the charge of receiving KRW 2 million in relation to the permission for the filling business of liquefied petroleum gas from Nonindicted 1 to October 2003, and the charge of receiving KRW 10 million in total in relation to the trading business between May 10, 2004 and May 23, 2005 is not guilty.

2. The appeal filed by Defendant 2 and the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants (the acquittal part against Defendant 1 in the judgment below) are dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1)

(1) 1-A of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below

It is true that Defendant 1 was aware of the violation of the Customs Act against Nonindicted Party 2 at the Seoul Customs Office upon Nonindicted Party 1’s request. However, around July 30, 2003, KRW 2 million transferred from Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 1’s account is not the receipt and the nominal amount, but the dividend for KRW 50 million invested by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted Party 1 on or around May 13, 2003.

(2) Paragraph (1)-B of the crime of the lower judgment

Although it was true that Defendant 1 arranged a special interview to Nonindicted 2, there was no fact that Defendant 1 received money from Nonindicted 1 or Nonindicted 2 in return for this.

(3) Paragraph (1)-C of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below

It is true that Defendant 1 asked the relevant public official in connection with the permission for the filling business of the Nonindicted Company upon the request from Nonindicted 1, but there is no money received, and 2 million won received from Nonindicted 1 in the middle of October 2003 is not a reward for solicitation, but a dividend for the said investment amount of KRW 50 million.

(4) Article 1-4 (D) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below

It is true that Defendant 1 was aware of it in the Ministry of Unification upon the request from Nonindicted 1 in connection with the trade in North Korea on May 2005, but there is no fact that he received the money, and Defendant 1 received the money from Nonindicted 1 (However, there is no fact that he received the money listed in No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2) not the reward for solicitation, but the interest of KRW 20 million lent by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 1 on May 12, 2004, or the principal amount of KRW 50 million invested on May 12, 2004.

B. Defendant 2

(1) Whether there is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

The violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is premised on the need for prior agreement on acceptance of money and valuables, and there was no such agreement between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

In addition, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established when the case was introduced to "specific attorney-at-law or his office staff" and the defendant 3 did not become a specific attorney-at-law staff at the time of delivery of money around February 2005 or after March 10, 2005.

(2) misunderstanding of facts

The money received by Defendant 2 is not the consideration for the introduction of the case, but only the money borrowed by Defendant 2 from Defendant 3.

(c) Prosecutors;

(1) The part not guilty of facts (the part not guilty by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3)

Although Defendant 3’s statements and Nonindicted 6’s prosecutor’s statements were reliable, the lower court rejected them without reasonable grounds and acquitted each of the charges on this part.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing (as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2)

In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

(In this part, Defendant 1 is referred only to as “Defendant”

A. The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement

(1) The direct evidence of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is only the defendant's prosecutor's office and the court of the court below (hereinafter "non-indicted 1's statement"), and the credibility thereof is examined.

(2) According to the evidence of this case, the following facts are acknowledged.

① When Nonindicted 1 was investigated by Nonindicted 7 to the fact that he received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 7 with respect to the financial institution’s loan brokerage, Nonindicted 1 was present at the prosecutor’s office on November 4, 2005, and subsequently made a statement that Nonindicted 7 introduced Nonindicted 7 to the Defendant (a copy of the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 1). On the same day, Nonindicted 1 made a statement that Nonindicted 5, one of his employees, was in favor of Nonindicted 5 to the prosecutor’s office and had Nonindicted 5 deliver money to the Defendant (the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 5).

② After November 17, 2005, Nonindicted Party 1 submitted a written statement to the prosecution. The said written statement included the same content as, and the content that the Defendant received KRW 3 million from Nonindicted Party 8 in return for a special interview (this part was not prosecuted).

③ After that, there was no investigation on the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 1 asked the Defendant to hold a special visit from the detention house on or around June 7, 2006. On the other hand, at around that time, attempted to donate golf loans to the Defendant.

④ On July 6, 2006, the prosecutor investigated the Defendant against Nonindicted Party 1 (the first prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted Party 1), and Nonindicted Party 1 initially stated the part of the consideration for solicitation for the violation of the Customs Duties Act under Article 1(a) of the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment. At the time, the prosecutor stated that he borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant around March 2003, and KRW 50 million from May 12, 2003, and that he paid the full payment, but did not mention about the investment amount of KRW 50 million from May 12, 2003.

⑤ On July 21, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that, at the third prosecutorial interrogation of the Defendant (the third prosecutorial interrogation protocol against the Defendant), Nonindicted Party 1 received dividends or interest from the Defendant on May 12, 2003, the investment amount of KRW 50 million from the Defendant, KRW 20 million on January 9, 2004, and KRW 50 million on May 12, 2004, and returned the principal.

④ Nonindicted 1’s written statement submitted by the Defendant on August 10, 2006 (which was written on August 7, 2006) stated that the fact that Nonindicted 1 himself reported to the prosecution was false and first made a false statement, and that it was merely a continuous maintenance of his statement without being able to make it impossible to make it impossible to do so, and that it was merely a fact that he continued to maintain his statement without being able to make it impossible to do so. On August 11, 2006, Nonindicted 1 reversed the said written statement at the prosecutor’s request by the Defendant (the second prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 1) (the second prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 1).

7. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 1 made a statement inconsistent with and lacking consistency in a substantial part at the prosecution, the lower court’s court, as seen in the following sub-paragraph (b).

(3) In full view of the above facts, Nonindicted 1’s own information about the relation with the Defendant who is not directly related to the case at the time of his criminal investigation, was about to inform the prosecution at the time of his criminal investigation, and the motive of information appears to have been doubtful; Nonindicted 1, who is a public official of the Ministry of Justice, has omitted part of the fact if he asserts the lack of the grounds; and Nonindicted 1, who has reversed the previous statement and returned it again; and Nonindicted 1, who has attempted to use the Defendant even after he informed the Defendant to the prosecution, cannot be said to have credibility. However, considering these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the entire statement of Nonindicted 1 was false on the sole basis of the above circumstances, and it is reasonable to adopt only the part that is consistent with the specific, objective circumstances, or evidence as evidence of guilt.

B. Judgment of mistake of mistake

(1) 1-A of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below

(A) The judgment of the court below

The court below stated to the effect that the defendant, at the first time at the prosecutor's office, did not receive a request from the non-indicted 1 for the case of violating the Customs Act against the non-indicted 2 (hereinafter "the case of violating the Customs Act"), and that the non-indicted 1 sent this part of the money to the prosecutor's office "it sent 2 million won so that the defendant can get a meal even if he had a lot of contact," and that the above 50 million won is separate from the amount of dividends paid to the prosecutor's office since the case of violating the Customs Act was terminated at the time when the case of violating the Customs Act was delivered. In fact, the date the case of violating the Customs Act was sent to the prosecutor's office at Seoul on July 29, 2003, which is the day before the date of remittance, the non-indicted 9, who was employed by the Seoul prosecutor's office, asked the prosecutor's office to find out the contents of the case of violating the Customs Act and the process of handling it, and asked the defendant to the prosecutor's office separately from the case of Seoul Customs Act.

(B) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the above circumstances in the court below were just, and there is no error in finding that the defendant received dividends or interest from the defendant's third suspect's third examination whenever one month has passed from the date of the initial loan (investment date) but there is no exception to the actual payment date of dividends from the defendant's assertion, and in light of these circumstances, the defendant made a consistent statement about this part in cash at the prosecutor's office and the court below's court. The defendant transferred dividends or interest to the non-indicted 1 in cash only when the non-indicted 1 paid dividends or interest to the defendant's account, which is less likely to be erroneous in this part. ② The defendant argued that the above money was paid to the non-indicted 1 in July 13, 2003, the defendant's third suspect's office's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's dividends or interest on the above 2000 won.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the defendant is without merit.

(2) Paragraph (1)-B of the crime of the lower judgment

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On July 4, 2003, the Defendant received from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 in cash 2 million won as a honorarium for special interview, and received from the public official, through the general affairs and employees of the Seoul detention center, which is the institution subject to audit and inspection office of the Ministry of Justice, from August 4, 2003 to the 13th day of the same month, through the general affairs and employees of the Seoul detention center, which is the institution subject to audit and inspection office of the Ministry of Justice, in which the Defendant works. On August 4, 2003, the Defendant arranged a special interview to Nonindicted 2 four times in total, and around 19:00 on the 24th day of the same month, the Defendant received from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, under the pretext of a special interview, two million won in cash as a honorarium for special interview, and then the public official received a bribe in connection

(B) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, ① the defendant stated that he arranged the above special interview by Nonindicted Party 2 at the request of Nonindicted Party 1, which was only once, and that he arranged the special interview by the court below four times, ② on August 24, 2003, which the defendant, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 had been released by Nonindicted Party 2, and ③ on the ground that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to deliver the above part to the defendant at the time of delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of delivery, Nonindicted Party 1 again called the above public prosecutor’s office to the effect that he stated that he would have been released by Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of delivery. The reason why the defendant stated that he had been released by Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of delivery of the above 200,000 won to Nonindicted Party 1.

(C) Judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, ① Nonindicted 1’s statement that was submitted to the prosecution on August 10, 206 (the Defendant asserted that he did not submit the evidence, but was submitted as evidence of this case) and Nonindicted 2’s statement to the effect that it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to use Nonindicted 2 to make a false statement on Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s office, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted 2 to use Nonindicted 1 to make a false statement on the part of Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s office, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to use Nonindicted 2 to make a false statement on the part of Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s office, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to use Nonindicted 2 to make a false statement on the part of Nonindicted 1, 203, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to use Nonindicted 2 to make a false statement on the part of Nonindicted 1, 300,000 won.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the defendant is justified.

(3) Paragraph (1)-C of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On September 2003, the Defendant received a request from Nonindicted 1 to grant prompt approval of the application for permission for the filling business of liquefied petroleum gas (hereinafter referred to as "permission for filling business") that the Nonindicted Company applied for at the time of the Yan-si (hereinafter referred to as "the permission for filling business") from Nonindicted 1, the Defendant offered a solicitation to the public official in charge of the Yan-si in the Yan-si, and asked Nonindicted 1 to "I would like to find a person in charge because he had talked about it," and then, on October 7, 2003, the permission for filling business was called as "I would like to provide meals with viewing persons," and received money and valuables from Nonindicted 1 in the second floor coffee of the 2nd floor building and coffee, which was around the Pyeongtaek-dong Police Station in the same month, around 19:00 on the first day of the same month, in order to offer good offices for matters belonging to public officials' duties.

(B) The judgment of the court below

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, namely, ① the defendant stated that he did not receive KRW 2 million from Nonindicted 1 during the period of October 2003 at the prosecutor’s office, which was reversed by the court below, but this stated that he was paid the above money as dividends for KRW 50 million on May 13, 2003; ② Nonindicted 11, the representative director of Nonindicted Co., Ltd., stated that “the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court of the court of the court below should consider the person in charge of the viewing and viewing in the river,” and stated that the defendant visited the defendant from Nonindicted 1 after the permission for charging business was granted on October 7, 2003, and that the defendant visited the above factory as well as the above factory after the completion of the factory, ④ the defendant visited Nonindicted 1 and the public official in charge of the viewing and viewing Business to the effect that he did not directly visit the public official in charge of the Seoul Metropolitan City at the time of the charge charge office.

(C) Judgment of the court below

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., ① Nonindicted 1 stated in the court of the court below that “the defendant was asked by him to find a astronomical viewing.” On the contrary, Nonindicted 12 in the court of the court below stated that the public official in charge of viewing astronomical viewing was the auditor of the Ministry of Justice with regard to the permit for charging business at the time, and was not the defendant. Nonindicted 1 stated that the defendant directly asked the defendant to find out a astronomical viewing. As long as the defendant did not do so, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 1’s statement concerning the delivery of this part was difficult, ② Nonindicted 1 stated in the prosecutor’s office that the defendant paid the above money to him, and it was hard to find that there was no possibility for the defendant to have made a statement in the court of the court of the court below that there was no possibility that the defendant made an investment in Nonindicted 10 with the money of Nonindicted 11, as well as that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no other motive for the defendant to have made the above 111111.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the defendant is justified.

(4) Article 1-4 (D) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below

(A) Summary of the facts charged

At around 19:00 on May 10, 200, the Defendant received the request from Nonindicted 1, who was preparing an application for approval to carry out the goods subject to inter-Korean trade (hereinafter “approval to carry out the goods”) for the inter-Korean trade business, through a person related to the Ministry of Unification, and received the request from Nonindicted 1, who had been able to smoothly carry out the said business. He was able to do so on the side of the Ministry of Unification. He was able to do so. He was able to do so. He was able to do so. He was able to do so. The Defendant received 1.5 million won in cash from Nonindicted 1 and received 1.5 million won in cash from May 23, 2005 from that time to May 23, 2005.

(B) The judgment of the court below

① In the first interrogation of suspect, the Defendant first 2-month interest rate of KRW 200,000 per month on January 9, 2004, and the second 2-month interest rate of KRW 100,000 per month on May 12, 2004, the Defendant stated that the Defendant received KRW 300,000 per month on May 12, 200, and KRW 2 million on the last 5-month interest rate of KRW 205,000,000 per month on May 2, 200, and the first 3-month interest rate of KRW 1.5,50,000 per month on May 10, 204, the Defendant stated that the Defendant received KRW 150,000 and KRW 2,000 as interest rate of KRW 20,000,000 per month on May 24, 200.

(C) Judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, ① it is difficult for the defendant to make a statement on May 12, 204, as well as the fact that the defendant was paid high dividends of KRW 50 million in the inter-Korean trade business (which constitutes 72% per annum) from the non-indicted 1, and thus it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the defendant would act as a public official of the Ministry of Unification for the above business. ② Furthermore, the defendant acquired dividends of KRW 18 million through KRW 20 million (the defendant's assertion) from the non-indicted 5's office with high interest rate of KRW 100,000,000,000 (the non-indicted 1's assertion) from the non-indicted 1's prosecutor's office, and it is difficult to find that there was a lack of funds from the non-indicted 1's office to the non-indicted 5's statement on the above non-indicted 1's own account of the above non-indicted 1's funds.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the defendant is justified.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2

(2) The defendant 3 shall be represented only by his name)

A. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the legislative intent of the Attorney-at-Law Act to protect the public nature and reliability of a lawyer by preventing various corruption and unjust receipt of money through the referral of a case, the clerical staff subject to the act such as the referral refer to only the registered clerical staff of a local bar association.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., violation of Article 109 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 7357, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter the same) and Article 34 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 7357, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter the same) are commenced when the defendant 3 had intended to receive money and valuables in return for the introduction and introduced the attorney-at-law or office staff. The defendant 3 was registered as an employee of the non-indicted 4 attorney-at-law until March 10, 2005; ② the defendant 3 used the non-indicted 4 attorney's account for the purpose of having the non-indicted 4 attorney-at-law delegated the divorce case to the non-indicted 4 attorney-at-law; ③ the defendant 3 introduced him to the non-indicted 3 under such recognition; ④ Even after the resignation of the defendant 3, it did not affect the defendant 205 days.

(3) Judgment of the court below

Article 34 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "No person shall introduce, mediate, or induce a party or other interested persons to a legal case or to the office staff thereof in advance in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits in connection with the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs, or shall receive or demand any money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits in return after introducing, arranging, or inducing a party or other interested persons to a legal case or to the office staff thereof." According to the written indictment of this case, this part of the facts charged is the criminal of violation of the latter part of the above provision. The latter part of the above provision does not require any prior agreement to receive or demand money and valuables. Even if it is interpreted on the premise that there should be an agreement to receive or demand money and valuables in return for the introduction of cases, etc., the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence and the circumstances acknowledged in subparagraph (b) below, even if not set at least the amount of the introduction fees, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the court below's duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the court below's judgment that Defendant 2 committed a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misapprehension of legal principles, since Defendant 3 continued to have a deposit passbook and seal of Nonindicted 4 attorney, and that Defendant 4 attorney-at-law was registered in the law firm salknife on May 30, 2005, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 3 was an office worker of Nonindicted 4 attorney-at-law regardless of whether the office worker was registered in the local bar association.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this part of the appeal by Defendant 2.

B. Error of mistake

(1) The judgment of the court below

① Although Defendant 2 borrowed each money as indicated in the lower judgment, he did not pay it at all. ② On March 20, 2005, Defendant 2 continued to receive money from Defendant 3 during the short period of time, which is, around April 28, 2005, and Nonindicted 3 stated to the effect that Defendant 2 would continuously pay to Defendant 3 in early April 2005. ④ Nonindicted 14 was the prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s court stated to the effect that Defendant 2 did not offer money to Defendant 3 on the premise that it was necessary to introduce Defendant 2’s additional demand for delivery (70 million won) to Defendant 3, and that Defendant 2 did not offer money to Defendant 2 at the time of the lower court’s request for delivery on the premise that it was necessary to deliver money to Defendant 3 and 30 million won to Defendant 2.

(2) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's reasoning is justified, and further, it is hard to view that there was a pro rata relationship to the extent that Defendant 2 borrowed money to Defendant 3, even under circumstances where it is difficult for Defendant 3 to take advantage of the court staff and the head of the attorney-at-law office around November 2004, and there was no agreement between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime of this case in the judgment below, and Defendant 2 received additional KRW 15 million on April 28, 2005, even after Defendant 3 was paid to Defendant 3. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 received additional KRW 1 million on April 28, 2005, not from Defendant 3, but from Defendant 3 as a consideration for the divorce case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s argument on this part of the appeal is without merit.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant 1 (referred to as the "defendant" in this part, and only to the name of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3)

(1) Summary of the facts charged

In collusion with Defendant 2, the Defendant

No person may receive or require money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return after introducing, arranging or inducing a party to a legal case or other interested person to a specific attorney-at-law or office staff thereof, in connection with the acceptance of a legal case or legal service;

On January 2005, the defendant knew that Non-Indicted 3, who was known to the defendant, was about divorce due to the assault or incompetence of his husband, thereby allowing Non-Indicted 3 to introduce an attorney-at-law in charge of family affairs to the non-Indicted 3. Defendant 2, upon the defendant's order, color the attorney-at-law who could be introduced to Non-Indicted 3, and arrange for the defendant to interview Non-Indicted 3, who is the head of the office of the non-Indicted 4 attorney-at-law.

2005. 2. 19.경 서울 용산구 한남동 하얏트호텔 커피숍에서 피고인 1은 피고인 3으로 하여금 공소외 3을 만나 이혼사건 등을 수임토록 소개한 후 그 무렵 피고인 2는 피고인 3에게 소개료 명목으로 3,000만 원을 요구하고, 피고인은 피고인 3에게 ‘비용문제는 피고인 2를 통하여 나와 상의한 후 결정해라. 소개료는 피고인 2와 약속한 대로 주면 된다’는 취지로 말하여 피고인 2는 피고인 3으로부터 2005. 3. 12.경 서울 용산구 △△△호텔 근처 ▲▲▲ 시행사 주차장에서 현금 1,500만 원을, 같은 달 20. 11:40경 서울 강서구 화곡지하철역 사거리 근처 ‘ ▽▽ 커피숍’에서 10만 원권 자기앞수표 21장 210만 원을, 같은 달 21. 15:40경 서울 서초구 서초동 우리은행 법조타운지점 앞 도로에서 10만 원권 자기앞수표 30장 300만 원을 교부받고, 같은 달 28.경 피고인 2의 조흥은행 계좌로 100만 원을, 같은 해 4. 28.경 같은 계좌로 100만 원을, 같은 해 12. 28.경 피고인 2의 농협계좌로 50만 원을 송금받아 합계 2,260만 원을 소개료 명목으로 받았다.

(2) The judgment of the court below

As shown in this part of the facts charged, there are some statements in the prosecutor's office of Defendant 3, in the court below, and in the prosecutor's office of Nonindicted Party 6, in the following purport: (a) with respect to all money issues, Defendant 2 must be instructed by Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 should be instructed by Defendant 2; and (b) in advance, Defendant 2 agreed to pay the shares of Defendant 30 million won to Defendant 2; and (c) Defendant 3 provided the shares of Defendant 15 million won to Defendant 2.

However, as seen below, it is difficult to view that Defendant 3 delivered KRW 15 million to Defendant 2, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, i.e., (i) it is difficult to view that Defendant 3 provided Defendant 2 with KRW 15 million, as seen below; (ii) Nonindicted 6, at the time of the reversal of the statement in the lower court, set the share of Defendant 30 million by himself and Defendant 3 with Defendant 2 as the share of Defendant 2 at the time of the reversal of the statement in the lower court, but, in light of the fact that Defendant 2 stated that the sum of Defendant’s share to Defendant 30% was no less

Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspired with Defendant 2 to receive a referral fee in collusion with Defendant 3 on April 2005 to the effect that Defendant 3 continued to pay a nominal amount, such as a commission, even after Nonindicted 3 expressed his intention to introduce a lawyer first, and Nonindicted 3 expressed his intention to cancel the appointment of a case, on April 2005, including the first instance court’s prosecutor’s office and the statement in the court of original trial, etc., each of the remaining evidence, such as each of the statements in the court of original trial, are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant passed a resolution to receive a referral fee from Defendant 3. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise (the remainder of the part except the above KRW 15 million, which was delivered by Defendant 2 independently from Defendant 3, so long as there is no prior conspiracy between the Defendant and Defendant 2, it cannot be deemed that Defendant was difficult

(3) Judgment of the court below

Upon examining the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and since the defendant 3's statement on this part of defendant 3's witness who was additionally examined in the court of the trial is still lacking credibility or lack of probative value, it does not affect the above judgment. Thus, the court below's decision did not contain any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor

B. Violation of each Attorney-at-Law against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

(1) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 2는 원심 판시 범죄사실 제2항 기재와 같이 공소외 3으로 하여금 공소외 4 변호사사무실의 사무장인 피고인 3을 만나도록 주선한 후 그에 대한 대가로 피고인 3으로부터 2005. 3. 12.경 서울 용산구 △△△호텔 근처 ▲▲▲ 시행사 주차장에서 현금 1,500만 원을 교부받고, 같은 해 12. 28. 피고인 2의 농협계좌로 50만 원을 송금받아 합계 1,550만 원을 소개료 명목으로 받고,

Defendant 3 promised to give KRW 30 million in cash to Defendant 1 and 2 as a referral fee after having been introduced the case, such as a divorce lawsuit by Nonindicted 3 from Defendant 1 and 2, and then delivered KRW 15 million in total to Defendant 2’s agricultural account on March 12, 2005. On December 28, 2005, Defendant 3 transferred KRW 500,000 to Defendant 2’s agricultural account, and delivered KRW 15,50,000 in total as a referral fee.

(2) The judgment of the court below

(A) Judgment on March 12, 2005 on delivery and receipt of KRW 15 million

As shown in this part of the facts charged, there are some statements in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below and some statements in the prosecutor's office of non-indicted 6.

그러나 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 3이 검찰에서 처음에는 ‘2005. 3. 20.경 룸살롱에서 공소외 6과 함께 피고인 2를 만나 1,500만 원을 건네주었고 그 돈은 같은 날 오후에 공소외 15로부터 차용한 돈’이라는 취지로 구체적으로 진술하였다가 당시에 공소외 15로부터 돈을 차용하지 않았다면서 이를 번복하여 공소사실 기재 일시, 장소에서 피고인 2에게 1,500만 원을 교부하였다고 진술한 점, ② 피고인 3은 당시 2005. 3. 20.경 실제로 룸살롱에서 공소외 6, 피고인 2를 만나 피고인 2에게 용돈 조로 몇십만 원을 교부한 사실이 있어 처음에는 착오로 잘못 진술하게 되었다는 취지로 진술하나, 2005. 3. 20.경에는 이미 공소외 3이 사건선임을 해약하려는 의사를 표시한 때이고 피고인 3이 2005. 3. 20.경 및 같은 달 21.경 피고인 2에게 다른 장소에서 별도로 금원을 교부한 사실이 있는 점에 비추어 피고인 3이 착오로 일시, 장소를 잘못 진술한 것이라고 보기 어려운 점, ③ 공소외 6이 검찰에서 처음에는 피고인 3과 동일하게 2005. 3. 20.경 룸살롱에서 피고인 2에게 1,500만 원을 교부하였는데 당시 공소외 15로부터 비닐에 싼 돈을 받아 그대로 피고인 2에게 주었고 피고인 2가 이를 받아 술을 마시기 전에 먼저 차에 실어놓았다고 상세하게 진술하였다가 이를 번복하여 공소사실 기재 일시, 장소에서 1,500만 원을 교부하였다는 취지로 진술하였고, 원심 법정에서 다시 이를 번복하여 피고인 2에게 1,500만 원을 교부한 사실이 없고 검찰에서는 피고인 3의 진술을 토대로 조사를 받다 보니 그 진술에 동조하여 진술하게 되었다는 취지로 진술한 점, ④ 피고인 3은 검찰 및 원심 법정에서 계속하여 피고인 2에게 금원을 교부하기 위하여 △△△호텔에서 만난 시간이 2005. 3. 12. 오후 1~2시경이고 자신의 차량이 주차된 근처의 ▲▲▲ 시행사 주차장에서 피고인 2를 다시 만나 승용차 트렁크에 돈을 넣어주었다고 진술하였으나, 당시 피고인 3이 호텔에서 사용하였던 공소외 16 명의의 체크카드 사용 시간이 20:17경인 점, ⑤ 피고인 3이 검찰에서는 공소외 6이 자신의 옆에서 자신이 피고인 2에게 금원을 교부하는 것을 직접 목격하였다는 취지로 진술하였다가 원심 법정에서는 이를 번복하여 당시 공소외 6이 피고인 3 자신의 차량에서 돈이 든 봉투를 꺼낼 때 옆에 있었기 때문에 자신이 피고인 2에게 금원을 교부하는 것은 직접 목격하지 못하였다는 취지로 진술하는 등 2005. 3. 12.경 금원교부의 상황에 대하여도 그 진술이 일관되지 아니한 점, ⑥ 피고인 3은 2005. 3. 10.경 공소외 3으로부터 4,000만 원을 수령하여 그 중 공소외 3 남편의 미행비용으로 3,000만 원을 공소외 17에게 지급하였고 그 이후에는 공소외 3으로부터 미행 등 일을 제대로 하는지 의심을 받아 더 이상 비용을 받지 못하고 오히려 돈을 돌려달라는 요구를 받고 있었던 점 등에 비추어보면 피고인 3이 2005. 3. 12.경 ▲▲▲ 시행사 주차장에서 피고인 2에게 1,500만 원을 교부하였다는 취지의 위 각 진술은 이를 믿기 어렵다.

In addition, Nonindicted 18’s statement in the court of the court of the court below that lent KRW 15 million to Nonindicted 16 around March 10, 2005 is not direct evidence as to the fact that Defendant 3 delivered KRW 15 million to Defendant 2, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge it based on the remaining evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(B) Judgment on December 28, 2005 on acceptance of KRW 500,000

There are statements in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below to the effect that, until December 28, 2005, Defendant 2 demanded money from his own until December 28, 2005, Defendant 3 made statements in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below to the effect that he had talked on the issue of introduction of

However, in light of the fact that on December 28, 2005, the issue related to the divorce case by Nonindicted 3 was closed, it is difficult to believe each of the above statements. Furthermore, each of the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the above KRW 500,000 as the introduction fee for the divorce case by Nonindicted 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(3) Judgment of the court below

Upon examining the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and since the defendant 3's statement on this part of defendant 3's witness who was additionally investigated in the court of the trial is still lacking credibility or lack of probative value, it does not have any particular influence on the above judgment. Thus, it does not seem that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts as pointed out by

C. The point of unfair sentencing on Defendant 2

Defendant 2’s crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is against the intent of the Attorney-at-Law Act to block various corruptions through mediation of the case, and in light of the fact that Defendant 2 is a court public official, the fairness and reliability of the judiciary are also harmed, and the amount received is 7,100,000 won over several times, and the responsibility for such crime is not less complicated.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 2 appears not to introduce professionally the case, there is no criminal record against Defendant 2, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant 2’s age, character, family environment, etc., the lower court’s sentence imposed on Defendant 2 is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, there is no reason to issue this part of the appeal against Defendant 2 by the prosecutor.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since part of Defendant 1’s appeal is well-grounded, without examining the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing against the above defendant, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading.

In addition, Defendant 2’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 1 (the acquittal part against Defendant 1) are without merit, and they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On July 20, 2003, Defendant 1, who was engaged in the trade business from Nonindicted 1, was arrested on charges of drinking, etc. while being investigated by the Seoul Customs as a violation of the Customs Act, due to the suspicion that Nonindicted 2 filed a false report in the process of importing the Korean clothing in China, and was detained on charges of drinking, etc. from the Seoul Customs Office. The case of the above violation of the Customs Act, upon request by the public officials in charge of the Seoul Customs investigation, would have been in favor of the above violation of the Customs Act, and it would be well in receipt of a solicitation to request the public officials in charge of the investigation so that the case can be taken first, and at the last, he would be able to be dealt with. The last day, even if the case is well meal, but he would be sent with food expenses or more, and received money and valuables from Defendant 1 for the purpose of arranging matters belonging to the public official's duties.

1. Defendant 1’s party trial and each part of the original judgment’s legal statements

1. The legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness at the lower court

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (including part of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted Party 1 among the third prosecutor's interrogation protocol)

1. Each prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 1

1. Details of deposit transactions (Defendant 1);

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

Article 3 (Selection of Fine)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Articles 13 and 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Considering the fact that Defendant 1 received money to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of other public officials, and the nature of the crime is bad and Defendant 1’s status as senior public officials of the Ministry of Justice, etc., the crime of this case brings about serious damage to the public’s trust in the legitimate performance of duties of all public officials, etc., the corresponding punishment is necessary for Defendant 1.

However, in full view of the fact that Defendant 1 was the first offender, that the amount received is not much larger than two million won, that is the most important thing to care for the livelihood of wife and three children, and that other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing such as Defendant 1’s age, sex, family environment, etc., the decision that it is reasonable to choose a fine and determine the punishment as ordered.

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the fact that the defendant 1 received a total of KRW 10 million from May 10, 2004 to May 23, 2005 in relation to the permission for the filling business of liquefied petroleum gas among the facts charged in this case, and the fact that the defendant 1 received KRW 2 million in relation to the permission for the filling business of liquefied petroleum gas from the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 1. The summary of each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is the same as the corresponding part of the above 2-B, (3), and (4). As such, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of

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

[Attachment Table 1]

Judges Yoon Jae-ap (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)