A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 21, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months for the obstruction of performance of official duties at the Incheon District Court, and the judgment was finalized on July 29, 201.

The Defendant did not have been awarded a contract for the Criart development project, and therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to allow the victim D to carry out transportation business at the construction site or to permit the victim E to operate the restaurant as a box at the construction site.

1. On December 6, 2010, the Defendant, at the G attorney-at-law office located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, issued a false statement to the victim D, stating that “The construction of the Criart has been made, and the construction site is he stored a million lux.” The Defendant received KRW 17 million from the said victim in return for the right to transport business on the same day.”

2. On January 1, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, stating that “The Defendant shall have the right to operate a brine restaurant at the site of the construction site of the Criart, changed the amount of KRW 30 million with the deposit money.” The Defendant received KRW 30 million from the said victim as the deposit money on or after the 12th of the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims of the total amount of KRW 47 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning D and E;

1. Previous records: Resident inquiry and criminal records, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes (the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act of a Suspect A concurrent judgment);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act recognize and reflects the crime of this case. The fact that the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the criminal records indicated in the judgment of this case is favorable, and the defendant is punished for the same crime.