2016 Highest 182 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

○○ (671125 - 1), non-permanent,

Residential Goyang-gu and Soyang-gu

Yongsan-gu Seoul basic domicile

Gangnam Shipping (Lawsuits) and Park Jae-sung (Trial)

Law Firm Cho & Lee

[Defendant-Appellant]

June 27, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A penalty of two million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Criminal History Office

The Defendant has served as a police officer from November 3, 1990 to the present date, and the Defendant has served as a police officer.

2. From January 2, 201 to February 10, 2014, the Seoul ○○ Police Station and its police officers served as criminal offenders and police officers.

1. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

On September 18, 2013: At around 30, the Defendant received a complaint from 00,000 won in cash through ○○○○○○○’s wife’s wife’s wife, so that he may talk about and process a case under investigation by the Seoul ○ Police Station at the time of Seoul ○○ Police Station to the investigator in charge, and received a request from 00,000 won in cash from 21:30 on the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 2 million from ○○○ in the name of soliciting cases or affairs handled by public officials.

2. Abandonment of duties.

(a) Crimes committed on September 7, 2013;

The Defendant was on September 7, 2013 as a police officer of the Seoul ○ Police Station and a police officer affiliated with the Seoul ○ Police Station on the same day, and from 09:0 to 20:00 on the same day, the Defendant has served in the criminal department and office of the Seoul ○ Police Station located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and has to receive and distribute generated cases in his/her jurisdiction, and perform affairs such as handling of the case and handling of the

Nevertheless, on September 18, 2013: from around 00 to 20:00 of the same month, the Defendant left the above office, and deserted the duties of a person who is on duty in the police station, such as having ○○ from a restaurant located in Seoul ○○-gu, Seoul.

(b) Crimes committed on September 11, 2013;

The defendant is a criminal defendant of the Seoul ○ Police Station and a police officer affiliated with the Seoul ○ Police Station on September 11, 2013 and is on the same day from 09:0 to 20:00 on the same day, and is working in the criminal department and office of the Seoul ○ Police Station, and is in charge of the receipt of cases occurring in the jurisdiction and the handling of such cases as dividends, and the handling of new soldiers'

Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, the Defendant left the above office from around 00 to 20:00 of the same month, and deserted the duties of the day watcher of the police station, such as leaving the office, and leaving the office in the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seo-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness ○○○ and Kim○○○, and part of the legal statement of the witness ○○;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused (including questioning with ○○○);

1. A protocol concerning examination of suspect concerning ○○○;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning ○○○, and a part of prosecutorial statement concerning ○○○;

1. Statement of each police statement on ○○○, ○○, and Kim○○;

1. A written statement ○○ and ○○○;

1. Written charge and accusation;

1. Request for investigation, a personnel record card, communication confirmation data, text messages on the restored suspect mobile phone, details of each text, telephone conversations, and details of card transactions; and

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of a fact-finding certificate by a police officer in the same guard);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 122 of each Criminal Code (Abandoning of Duties), Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Abandoning of Money or Valuables in Receipt of Requests), and Selection of Imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant's act of receiving money under the pretext that he will make another solicitation to the police officer's status is not less than that of the crime, and that there is no light against the defendant, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in the case of this case, the defendant suffered disadvantage from removal on December 2, 2014, the primary offender points are considered as favorable circumstances, and the amount of money and valuables received, the circumstances leading to the crime of abandonment of duties, and the amount and quality of abandoned duties, and other factors of sentencing, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, shall be determined as per the order.

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act)

On September 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was able to find out how ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was able to use the same as the Defendant’s testimony at the time of the crime; and (b) was able to use the same as the Defendant’s testimony at the time of the crime. However, considering that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony, the Defendant’s act of using the same as the Defendant’s testimony was somewhat inconsistent or unclear, taking into account the following circumstances, the Defendant’s motive and method of contact.

Judges Cho Young-chul