2015Gohap282 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

Violation of law

A

Lecturers (prosecutions and public trials)

Law Firm B, Attorney in charge C, D, E, F

Law Firm (G), Attorney in charge H, I, J, K

Attorney L, M, N,O

P Law Firm, Attorney Q, R, S

November 6, 2010

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Status of the defendant and related persons

The defendant is an attorney-at-law (T law office) and a vice-chairperson of the Central Committee for Youths of U.S., who currently holds a real estate development-related business entity such as a corporation V [W, hereinafter referred to as "W"] and X share 100%, and a corporation 49% of Y shares.

On the other hand, from September 4, 2009 to March 4, 201, the person who has overall control over the overall management, such as asset management, as the WW representative director, who is a real estate development implementation company, from around March 4, 201.

(b) Progress of the implementation of an urban development project of the Z;

On June 20, 2009, the Z concluded an urban development project promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as the "promotion committee") established by the land owners of the AA urban development district (1.292,000m) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the "AA urban development project promotion committee") and W to promote the development by the replotting method.

On July 29, 2009, the Korea Land Corporation ("LH Corporation") submitted a proposal for designation of an urban development zone according to the expropriation method at Sungnam-si. On October 1, 2009, Sungnam-si decided to accept the proposal and notified it to LH Corporation. On October 5, 2009, from October 5, 2009 to September 19 of the same month, the Korea Land Corporation ("LH Corporation") submitted a proposal for designation of an urban development zone pursuant to the expropriation method.

Therefore, the Z submitted a proposal for designation of a private urban development zone in the name of the promotion committee around October 21, 2009 and around November 18, 2009, on a total of two occasions at Sungnam-si, but Sungnam-si returned the proposal on the ground that the proposal cannot be accepted in duplicate because it accepted the proposal of LH construction and is in progress.

Therefore, in order to enable LH Corporation to voluntarily withdraw from the project and convert the project into a private development method, not a gold public development method, to the male city, the Z shall file a civil petition against LH Corporation, Sungnam City, etc., and continue the meeting, while LH Corporation and Sungnam Viewing Public Officials

In other words, from AB, which was known to the general public around October 2009, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, "A is the vice chairperson of the young party, and there is a relationship with AD, which is an assistant officer of the AC members belonging to the National Maritime Committee. The issue of LH Corporation is shaken at the National Maritime Committee of the Republic of Korea, and is introduced by the defendant."

Accordingly, the Defendant, around November 2009, appears to have served as “LH Corporation” to the Z at “AF restaurant located in the AE”, and the Defendant is affiliated with the Maritime Committee of the National Land and Sea, and the inside is aware of AC members’ AD assistants. Not only AC council members but also AG council members and AHHH council members belonging to the Committee on the Sea of the National Land and Sea are aware of the fact that: LH Corporation and the National Land and Sea Committee may put a civil petition to both committees; “a person who is fluent of AD assistants may be allowed to leave the business so that the LH Corporation may take charge of the expenses; later, “if the LH Corporation is going to work and progress in the way of promoting the project, it will become more necessary to pay for the amount of 1.5 billion won, and at the same time, request the Defendant to enter into a criminal case contract in the form of legal advisory services with the Defendant to avoid any future criminal problems.”

From November 26, 2009, Z deposited KRW 100,000 from the account under the name of the defendant in the name of the AI, which is the birth, to the account under the name of the defendant, and deposited KRW 20,000,000,000 from the corporate account under the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in the above account in the name of the defendant in December 14, 2009.

As a result, the defendant promised to receive 1.5 billion won in consideration for the case or affairs handled by the public official, and received 8.3 billion won in consideration among them.

(d) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

Around May 201, the Defendant drafted a contract to pretend that he would receive advisory fees due to a normal legal advisory agreement in relation to the crime described in the above paragraph (c) at the AL office of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, in order to conclude that he would receive advisory fees due to a normal legal advisory agreement. From November 2009 to April 2, 2010, the Defendant pretended that he received KRW 830 million from around April 2, 2009 to receive and arrange for the case or affairs handled by a public official four times in total to receive KRW 830 million, which is criminal proceeds.

2. Declarations of the defendant and his defense counsel;

A. The Defendant did not agree to give and receive KRW 1.5 billion between 2 and 2.

B. It was true that the Defendant received KRW 830 million from the Z as stated in the facts charged, but among them, the total amount of KRW 530 million received in the year 2010 was sought to be commercialized and returned at the request of the Z, and the remainder of KRW 300 million was paid by the Defendant for performing various legal advisory services while serving as an in-house lawyer. Thus, the money received by the Defendant is not received under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement for all cases or affairs handled by a public official.

C. Since LH Corporation is designated as a public corporation on February 4, 2010 and prior to that designation, its officers and employees are not deemed as public officials, a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, based on the premise that its executives and employees are deemed as public officials, cannot be established legal principles.

D. For the foregoing reasons, insofar as the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not found, the crime of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment cannot be established.

3. Determination

(a) Basic facts;

1) Progress, etc. of the Subdivision-si AA urban development project in Sungnam-si

A) At the time of June 29, 2005, Sungnam-si approved the basic urban planning of Sungnam-si from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of June 29, 2005 and promoted an urban development project.

B) The owners of land AA members had established a promotion committee to implement an urban development project by replotting around March 2008.

C) On June 20, 2009, the promotion committee entered into an urban development implementation agency contract with W/W operated by the Z.

D) Around July 29, 2009, the Korea National Housing Corporation submitted a proposal for designation of an urban development zone in accordance with the expropriation method in relation to a AA urban development project at Sungnam-si, and Sungnam-si accepted the above designated proposal of the Korea National Housing Corporation on October 1, 2009. Meanwhile, on October 1, 2009, the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Korea Land Corporation were merged into Korea and established by the Korea Land Corporation.

E) On October 21, 2009 and November 18, 2009, the promotion committee submitted a proposal for designation of a private urban development zone at Sungnam-si, but Sungnam-si is proceeding for the urban development of LH, and thus, it cannot accept any other proposal in duplicate.

F) For the purchase, etc. of land and borrow land in the AA, the Z was loaned total of KRW 180.5 billion from the 111 savings bank lender, such as Busan Savings Bank through three companies, including W, which it actually operated from November 19, 2009 to June 4, 2010.

G) LH on or around June 28, 2010 and around July 13, 2010, the promotion committee accepted a proposal for designating a private urban development zone at Sungnam-si on or around October 8, 2010. However, on or around September 29, 2010 and December 20, 2010, Sungnam-si rejected each of the above proposals on the grounds that "Although LH made withdrawal of proposals at LH on September 29, 2010, administrative procedures for designating an urban development zone continue to progress, it is not possible to accept duplicate proposals."

2) Defendant’s participation in AA Urban Development Project

A) The Z constitutes an advisory group with certified public accountants AM, certified public appraisersN, certified judicial scrivener AO, etc. for the implementation of an urban development project, and people belonging to the advisory group have worked almost every day in AAC and 2 have given advice in the process of making various decisions.

B) The Defendant completed the Judicial Research and Training Institute as a AP period and was an attorney-at-law, and was involved in the AP business in the PP business in the Republic of Korea that was promoted by the Defendant at the time of 20

C) After having become aware of the Z and around November 2009, AB, both the Defendant and the Republic of Korea, introduced the Defendant to the Z on the basis of November 2009. The Defendant, in combination with the Z and the Z upon the solicitation of the Z, went to work at the AA Urban Development Project site almost every day from November 2009, and served as the member of the advisory group.

D) On December 2010, when a promotion committee’s proposal was not accepted even after the maturity of the PF loan has arrived, resulting in difficulties in extending the maturity due to the failure of the promotion committee’s proposal, the AA Urban Development Project was practically excluded from this AA Urban Development Project, and the AR, the representative director of W, acquired its business rights. Thereafter, AR refused to become a joint and several surety for extending the maturity of the PP loan around June 2010, and transferred its business rights to the Defendant, and the Defendant was working as the representative director of W et al. from

3) On November 26, 2009, the details of the monetary transaction between the Defendant and Z deposited KRW 100 million from the account under the name of the Defendant to the account under the name of the Defendant, and deposited KRW 200 million from the AJ account to the said account under the name of the Defendant on December 14, 2009, and KRW 300 million from January 18, 2010 to the said account under the name of the Defendant.

On April 1, 2010, the Z deposited KRW 50 million from the AL account to the Defendant’s account, but on April 2, 2010, it returned KRW 50 million from the Defendant to the AL account, and on the same day, deposited KRW 200 million from the AJ account to the Defendant’s account.

On May 7, 2010, the Z deposited KRW 60 million from its personal account to the Defendant’s account, and on May 11, 2010, the Defendant returned KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s account to his own account, and on the same day, deposited KRW 30 million into the Defendant’s account in the AJ account on the same day.

On July 26, 2010, Z issued to the defendant one cashier's checks of KRW 100 million at par value, and two cashier's checks of KRW 10 million at around August 2010.

B. As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1) The first sentence of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by a public official, or any person who causes or promises to give them to a third person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won."

On the other hand, Article 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "an attorney-at-law shall perform his/her duties independently and freely as a legal professional of public nature," and Article 3 provides that "an attorney-at-law shall perform acts related to lawsuits and requests for administrative dispositions by delegation of parties or other persons concerned, or by delegation of the State, local governments or other public agencies, or perform acts of representation or other general legal affairs."

In light of the public nature of a lawyer’s status and the universality of his/her scope of duties, Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be deemed as a provision that is subject to punishment for lawful solicitation or act of know-how performed in accordance with the purport of delegation. In cases of an attorney-at-law who is regularly requested legal cases, the provision of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-law Act constitutes a violation of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-law Act when it can be deemed as a legal professional of public nature, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a normal activity as a legal professional of public nature, such as entertainment to resolve the case, offering bribe, private relationship, or friendly relationship, by transferring the client’s solicitation to a public official or promising to receive money or valuables, etc. on the pretext of soliciting a public official on his/her behalf (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2409, Jan. 31, 2013).

2) As evidence that conforms to the prosecution room of this case, 1's entry of the defendant was made by LH Corporation to waive the AA project through a way for political power, and all the money that the defendant gave to or was scheduled to give to the defendant was in the pretext of payment for Rovi, 2) statement to the effect that the defendant made some confessions of the facts charged in this case at the prosecution investigation stage, 3) statement to the effect that the defendant was discovered from LH Corporation's inspection data related to the AA urban development project conducted by the secretary of the National Assembly member AC, 4) employee AS's inspection data, and 'legal advice on the withdrawal of participation in the AAA project of LH Corporation' as a special delegation to the defendant, 209.

3) However, among the above evidences, there are only the statements of Z as direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is difficult to believe that the two statements are as they are.

① As to the circumstances in which the Defendant was first introduced, the Z states that AB paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the ground that he/she could oversee the connection with the political power and lead the withdrawal of the AHA project by the LH Corporation, and thereafter, AB introduced the Defendant to the Z as a human material more suitable for the AB’s non-activities as he/she did not properly engage in any street activity. As to this, the Z states that AB introduced the Defendant to the Z.

Recognizing the fact that the Defendant introduced the Z from AB, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Z was introduced, but only stated to the effect that the Z is a large amount of money and that the Z is required by the attorney, and that the talks related to the Z Corporation was never heard. However, as to AB, the investigation was not conducted at the investigation stage, it is difficult to confirm the AB’s statement about whether the AB introduced the Z to any person who was the Defendant, whether the AB introduced the Z to any circumstance, and what the AB introduced the 7th to the Defendant. In addition, even considering the content of the Z’s statement itself, it was difficult to believe that the Z had not obtained any outcome from the AB as a 10 million won capital, and that it was difficult to confirm the fact that the Defendant was the Defendant who introduced the ZB without undergoing a specific inspection (the content of the Defendant, etc. who was the prosecutor’s origin is difficult to obtain from the ZB).

② Although the Z asserts that the Defendant was entering the area for the course of the political right, in light of the following circumstances, there is considerable doubt as to whether the Z considers the Defendant as suitable for the route of the political right, and as to whether the Z was entering the area.

① The Defendant asserted that the Z was a person eligible to move from the first place of the Z’s territory to the Z’s members, AG’s members, etc.

Based on the above, the issue of whether a defendant is a relative with a AH council member is not verified at all. In addition, if the defendant was expected to have been able to work for the AH council member through the defendant, it is natural to confirm that the defendant requested a solicitation against a AH council member, etc., confirmed whether the defendant made a solicitation to a AH council member, etc., or that the defendant made a specific effort to make a solicitation to a AH council member, etc., and such circumstances do not seem to exist at all.

The connection with the political authority of the defendant is submitted, and the degree of friendly relationship with the person who became aware of in the course of the defendant's activities by holding the office of secretary AT, assistant AD, and vice-chairperson of the Youth Committee of U.S. seems to be all the friendly relationship with the person who became aware of in the course of the activities.

First of all, if a defendant pays a cost for the withdrawal of the LH AA project through AT and AD, this would inevitably lead to a structure in which the defendant solicits a member of the AC through AT and AD, and the AC member again solicits or exercises pressure against the executive officers and employees of the AC. However, it is not easy to readily conclude that the defendant has a friendly relationship with the AC member, thereby exercising a solicitation or pressure against the AC member as the defendant's meaning. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate that the defendant may be able to assist in collecting information through the AT and AD, but it is difficult to evaluate that the defendant's non-performance of his/her political power is beyond his/her ability on the grounds of such a friendly relationship.

In addition, even if the defendant is the vice-chairperson of the U.S. Youth Committee, the above position is an honorary post, and it is difficult to expect that he will have any particular influence on the part of the vice-chairperson, and there is no data to see that he is forming any special relationship with the personnel who may have a direct influence on the AA project, as he is in charge of the above position.

In the end, it is difficult to see that the defendant is in a position to ask for expenses for political rights until he/she receives a large amount of money.

There is an unclear aspect as to whom the CZ entered the zone against anyone via the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant did not have any connection at the time of LH Corporation or gender south, and was in friendly with the secretary and assistant of the AC member of the National Assembly. However, the effect of this friendly relationship on the AA project is considerably indirect, and the Z contacts with the AV member of the National Land and Sea Committee through AU, or delivers a bribe to AV member AV member through AW. At the same time, it is difficult to understand the fact that the AA member is entering the zone and paid a large amount of money with the objective of AC member who does not go through AA as a local constituency. Moreover, if the AC member is in a region where the AY area, it appears that the LH Corporation withdrawn the movement of the AY area, and it appears that it would have been unreasonable for the LH corporation to have already pointed out that it was improper to cancel its project as a separate local constituency, and that it would have been improper for the AH corporation to cancel its project.

From October 19, 2009, the Z made a large amount of KRW 3.5 billion to the AU, and paid KRW 1.38 billion in total around November 19, 2009 and around January 28, 2010, and stated that it is the consideration for solicitation or arrangement to the public officials of LH Corporation or Sungnam city. In light of the amount of money that the Z pays to the AU, it appears that the AU would have expected that the AU would play a critical role in the waiver of the AHA project. In light of the amount of money that the Z would pay to the AU, it is difficult to obtain it by entering the defendant at the intervals of KRW 3.5 billion to the AU and requesting expenses at the intervals of KRW 1.5 billion in each city.

① On the other hand, around November 2009, the Defendant participated in Z or AA projects, legal advice required during the process of the PF loan was already conducted through AZ law offices and law firms BK, etc., and most of the contracts necessary for the purchase of land and lease and various service contracts were already completed and concluded. It is difficult to deem that there was little need for entry of a person who can serve as an in-house lawyer at that time. Furthermore, it is difficult to find out any particular experience, etc. that the Defendant had special expertise in an urban development project as an attorney-at-law who was not over two years after the completion of the Judicial Research and Training Institute at the time of 2009.

그러나 다른 한편으로 보면, 이 구성한 자문단은 각 분야의 전문가, 즉 공인회계사, 감정평가사, 멉무사 등으로 구성되어 있었다. 그리고 그 구성원들은 도시개발사업에 일정한 지식이 있었던 것으로는 보이지만, 각자의 역할이 그 직업에 따라 구체적으로 어떻게 분담되었는지는 알기 어려운 측면이 있다. 이에 비추어, Z이 변호사인 피고인을 자문단에 합류시킬 때 구체적인 법률수요가 있었던 것이 아니라고 하더라도, 자문단의 구성이나 역할에 비추어 자문단에 각 분야의 전문가를 참여시켜 구색을 갖춘다는 차원에서 피고인을 영입한 것으로 이해할 여지도 있다고 보인다. 또한 당시 피고인이 사법연수원을 수료한 지 2년밖에 되지 않기는 하였으나, 경력이 많고 안정적인 위치에 있는 변호사로서 AA 현장에 상주하면서 업무에 매진할 수 있는 변호사를 찾기는 쉽지 않을 것이라는 점에서, 경력이 많지 않은 피고인을 영입한 것도 수긍할 수 있는 면이 있다.

③ The Z stated to the effect that the Defendant first promised the Defendant to give KRW 1.5 billion to the Defendant in relation to the LH construction cost at the first place. However, in light of the following points, it is difficult to believe the above statement.

① Z argues that an agreement was reached on KRW 1.5 billion in the place where the Defendant and the Defendant met, but it seems to be very exceptional in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant, in the first place where the Defendant were living together, divided the talk about the Z and the Defendant on the robs, and determine the amount thereof.

There is no document, such as a written contract, with respect to KRW 1.5 billion that C has agreed to the Defendant at the intervals of the Defendant. In addition, the Z does not clearly state at the time and how the Defendant divided the amount of KRW 1.5 billion. As regards AU that retired as a director of LH, the Z state that AU promised to pay 3.5 billion to LH Corporation and Sungnam city and that it promised to pay 3.5 billion.5 billion. Between AU and AU, it is compared with the Defendant’s failure to prepare a document.C with respect to the method of payment of KRW 1.5 billion, the Z stated that the investigative agency had prepared and stated that the amount of KRW 1.5 billion was paid in cash in the form of passbook, and that it was difficult to easily conclude that it was a large amount of cash deposit, not in cash deposit, but in cash deposit.

② On April, May, 2011, the Defendant appears to have prepared a written legal advice service contract and signed and sealed AR, which had been the representative director of W, for the purpose of filing a tax return, etc., on a retroactive basis. If the Defendant’s promise amounted to KRW 1.5 billion, it seems that the Defendant prepared a written contract with a total amount of KRW 1.5 billion, even for filing a report on the amount to be additionally received, and that there was no significant reason for preparing a written contract with a total amount of KRW 50 million.

④ The Defendant stated that the Defendant introduced the Defendant as an attorney-at-law at the time of entering the AA site and expressed to the effect that the Z was about the legal issues related to the law, and that the content of the Z is inconsistent with the statement of the Z.

⑤ Since the Defendant was affiliated with the Advisory Board around November 2009, the Defendant appears to have performed certain duties, such as making a stay in the AA, reviewing a written contract, holding a legal hearing for residents, and conducting a case of a clan, which is the landowner. If the Defendant was entered for the purpose of paying for expenses for political rights as alleged in Z, it is difficult to easily explain how the Defendant needs to stay in the AA site, and what way it can be for political rights while staying in the AA site.

④ Meanwhile, the Defendant, upon receipt of the request from Z to receive KRW 30 million on January 18, 2010 and around April 2, 2010, received KRW 200 million, respectively, and returned KRW 150 million and KRW 100 million after deducting 50 million, such as taxes and public charges, to be borne by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that KRW 30 million and KRW 30 million received on May 11, 2010 are value-added taxes for KRW 30 million and received on January 18, 2010. On the other hand, the Defendant consistently stated from an investigative agency to this court that KRW 830,000 and KRW 830,000 are consideration for solicitation or good offices to the Defendant. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of the Defendant’s on the other hand, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

① The Defendant stated to the effect that, in order to cashize money received from Z, the Defendant requested BC attorneys-at-law, staff of the legal office, BD, BE, etc. who operated the Z, and that, at the request of the Defendant, the ND, BD, and BC made a statement to the effect that money was withdrawn in cash at the request of the Defendant, and that it is consistent with the contents of the Defendant’s statement.

피고인은 2010. 1. 18. 피고인의 계좌로 3억 원을 송금받은 후, 같은 날 BD, BE, BC의 계좌로 약 6,200만 원, 2010. 1. 20.경 AN의 계좌로 1억 원을 각 이체하였고, 2010. 4. 2. 피고인의 계좌로 2억 원을 송금받은 후에는 2010. 4. 5. AN의 계좌로 5,000만 원, AM의 계좌로 2,000만 원, 2010. 4. 7. AM의 계좌로 3,500만 원을 이체하였다. 이러한 거래내역 또한 피고인의 잔술 내용에 들어맞는다. Ⓒ 피고인이 2010. 1. 18.경 받은 3억 원 중 1억 5,000만 원을 Z에게 반환하였다.는 점에 관하여는, 당시 피고인과 동행하였다는 BF, Z의 운전기사이던 BG가 모두 피고인이 AA 마을회관에서 돈이 든 쇼핑백을 전달하는 것을 보았다는 취지로 진술하고 있다. 또한 피고인이 2010. 4. 2.경 받은 2억 원 중 1억 원을 반환하였다는 점에 관하여, BA은 2010. 4. 초순경 피고인이 Z의 사무실로 찾아와 Z에게 돈을 전달하였고, Z이 피고인으로부터 받은 돈을 자신에게 보관하라고 시켰다는 취지로 진술하고 있다. 이러한 관련자들의 진술 내용도 피고인의 진술 내용에 들어맞는다. ê 피고인의 주장대로라면 피고인은 Z의 횡령 범죄에 가공한 것이 되고, 그 액수는 5억 원 이상으로서 법정형이 3년 이상의 유기징역인 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)죄에 해당할 수 있다. 변호사인 피고인이, 수사단계에서부터 변호사법위반죄의 혐의사실 중 일부 금액에 대하여 굳이 훨씬 더 법정형이 무거운 범죄가 성립한다고 허위로 주장한다는 것은 경험칙상 납득하기 어렵다.

Since the Z is able to achieve a little amount of tax by using other service companies, etc., it is argued that there is no reason to be commercialized by the Defendant even when deducting 50% of the total amount of tax as tax, and that in fact, the Z appears to be considerably unfavorable to the Defendant in terms of the amount of tax, etc. (the Defendant has returned 50% after deducting 50%, and the value-added tax was received separately from the fact that the loss incurred in the course of Zization is deemed to exceed 60%). However, as the funds to be commercialized are the PF loans, it is possible to obtain approval for the execution of the loan solely on the basis of the tax invoice, while the attorney fee cannot be said to have no motive to be commercialized by the Defendant even if there was no motive to receive a considerable amount of deduction in consideration of the ease of the execution of the PF funds.

On May 7, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 60 million from the personal account of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account. On May 11, 2010, the Defendant returned KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s account to the Z account, and received KRW 30 million from the AJ account of the same day. In light of such transaction details or amount, deeming that only KRW 30 million received from the Defendant’s account from the AJ account of the Defendant on May 11, 2010 to have been separately removed for solicitation or intermediation is very natural scopic and rather, it seems that the Defendant’s assertion that the said money was the name of value-added tax on KRW 30 million received on January 18, 2010 is more persuasive. Furthermore, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of receiving KRW 30 million from value-added tax under the name of the Defendant’s request for simplification.

In addition to those included in the facts charged in the instant case, the Z transferred KRW 60 million to the Defendant around May 7, 2010, or delivered KRW 100 million cashier’s checks around July 2010, and two cashier’s checks around KRW 10 million around August 2010. If the Z delivers money to the Defendant only in return for solicitation or good offices, it may be understood that there was additional details of transactions due to value-added tax, etc. that occurred during the instant process, while it is difficult to real name the said KRW 60 million or KRW 100 million.

07 is charged with embezzlement of W et al., and the portion of money paid to the Defendant is also included in the facts charged of embezzlement. As a result, the Z seems to have the motive to deny its intent of unlawful acquisition in the payment of money to the Defendant by asserting that the money paid to the Defendant is the name of solicitation or arrangement.

① As seen above, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the Defendant received KRW 530 million from Z, which the Defendant received from Z in 2010, as seen above. Thus, the possibility of giving and receiving the remaining KRW 300,000,000,000,000, which the Defendant received from Z at the request of Z. Therefore, it is difficult to fully accept that the Defendant received KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

On the other hand, Z has granted the STR and BH a total of KRW 280,000,000 for the STR, annual salary of KRW 150,000,000 for annual salary, KRW 120,000,000 for the STR and annual salary of KRW 120,000 for the STR and KRW 120,000,000 for the annual salary. In light of the scale of these funds, there is room to view that the Defendant did not have any substantial amount of KRW 300,000,000 for the sum paid without the concept of STR costs or annual salary.

Furthermore, with respect to the situation at the time when the defendant first received money, the defendant asked the defendant to concentrate on his/her duties at the AA site, and gave around November 26, 2009, 100 million won. On or around December 12, 2009, the defendant stated that he/she paid KRW 200 million to the defendant at his/her attorney's expense, and that he/she paid KRW 200 million on December 14, 2009. On the other hand, the ZZ stated that the defendant paid KRW 100 million first by changing it to the commencement money, and that the defendant paid KRW 200 million on December 14, 2009 because he/she promised to pay the whole amount to the defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant made a specific statement on the possibility of paying the credibility of the defendant's statement without any specific possibility of paying the amount of money.

④ After acquiring the right to operate the AA project on June 201, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Z in response to the entry into or withdrawal from the residence in the name of the Z. From that time, the Defendant and the Z seem to have been in a hostile relationship. The Z had been conducting the implementation project in the GI prior to the AA project, but it was the criminal facts that the Z had not been employed at the time, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by having been sentenced to two years of suspension of execution for the period of eight months of imprisonment on October 2012.

Considering the cross-electric power of such Z and the hostile relationship between the defendant, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Z might have been abandoned by false statements against the defendant.

4) Furthermore, the evidence as shown in the facts charged of the instant case, other than the statements of the Z, is examined.

A) The Defendant confirmed the current status, etc. of an AA urban development project from AT.D, and obtained data on the inspection of the State administration of LH Corporation from AT andD.

However, it is not clear that AT and AD were not officers or employees of LH corporation specified as the counter-party to solicitation or mediation in this case, and the situation that the solicitation was indirectly delivered to the executives or employees of LH corporation by Patom. Furthermore, even if the act of acquiring materials from the inspection of state administration of LH corporation constitutes other illegal acts, it cannot be deemed that the defendant performed "competing or arranging" acts under the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by using a method that is difficult to deem it as a normal act as a legal professional position.

B) On the hard disc, other than a computer, used by AS, the files of legal advice contract were discovered as of November 25, 2009, and the date of the last modification of the said files was March 12, 2010. The above contract states that “A(the Expert Group belonging to the TH Office) shall resolve the case where a factual or legal impediment has occurred in the implementation of the project due to the participation of LH Corporation in the competition with A(W) in the implementation of the above project, and ultimately, the contract states that “A(the Expert Group belonging to the TH Office) shall provide legal advice by devising a legitimate countermeasure so that LH Corporation may withdraw its participation in the project.”

However, although AS states that the above contract was prepared by the defendant and sent by its e-mail, it is difficult to conclude that the above contract was prepared by the defendant because the mail, etc. was not confirmed, and the process of its preparation cannot be known. In addition, in light of the last amendment date of the above file, it is doubtful whether the above contract reflects the agreed matters at the time when the defendant was entered into the contract, as alleged in 1.2, it is difficult to real name of the reasons why the contract was made on March 12, 2010, not at the time when the defendant entered the contract, rather than at the time when the defendant entered the contract was entered the contract. Furthermore, even if the contract was actually made by reflecting the contents of the agreement between the defendant and 2, it is difficult to interpret that the role of the defendant in the text of the above special mandate is providing legal advice by seeking legal countermeasures, and thus, it is difficult to interpret that the defendant's meaning is a way that the defendant would not be considered as a normal activity as a legal professional.

C) On May 20, 2015, the Defendant stated, at the prosecutor’s investigation, that “the amount of KRW 330 million out of the amount received from the Z is included in the part to resolve the issue of LH construction. At the time, the pending issue of AA was a matter of LH construction, and it was nothing more than that of the date, and it was nothing more than that of the matter. It was very low. The Defendant opened and opened the LH Corporation. The materials submitted to AT secretary through the LH secretary are also brought about, and the LH Corporation was delivered to the Z.” In addition, when arranging the statement of the suspect, the Defendant stated that “The suspect's statement of the suspect today,” the suspect received 830 million won from the Z, but the fact that the suspect deposited the amount of KRW 330 million,00,000,000 from the Z, is not the fact that the suspect would be included in the consideration for the AH construction's reply, but the fact that it is included in the “H project.”

In this court, the Defendant did not go to the AA project from the beginning with the aim of the LH project. However, while making efforts to withdraw the AA project, the pending issue of the AA project, the Defendant stated that information was deducted through AT, and that all such parts are included in his/her payment. Considering that the Defendant collected information through AT, etc., obtained data on inspection of state administration of LH Corporation, and that the purpose was to cancel the project of LH Corporation, there is room to understand the Defendant’s statement in an investigative agency to the same purport as the Defendant’s legal statement, and therefore, it cannot be evaluated that the Defendant’s solicitation or arrangement was made, as seen in the above A). In light of the fact that it cannot be evaluated that the Defendant made such solicitation or arrangement, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant was a confession of the fact that he/she received money under the pretext of making a solicitation or arrangement with respect to the affairs

D) On or around December 24, 2014, the Defendant, AM, and NN appears to have been investigated by the prosecution and arranged the contents of the investigation and discussed for future countermeasures, etc. In the document, “the report of the case prepared at the time” is in line with AM’s own pen: (i) the front and rear side: (ii) there is no way to exclude the accomplice from embezzlement, (iii) there is no way to cover the attorney’s fee.

However, with respect to the meaning of the above domains, AM states that it is difficult to avoid the liability as an accomplice of the crime of embezzlement, which is called a lawyer's fee. As seen above, it is difficult to exclude the probability that 530 million won received by the defendant for the simplification, and considering the fact that the statutory punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is very high, IM's statement that at the time the defendant is likely to become the accomplice of the crime of embezzlement is not acceptable.

5) Ultimately, in full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, by promising the defendant to accept KRW 1.5 billion on the pretext of solicitation or good offices for the affairs handled by the public official, has received KRW 830 million among them, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Accordingly, among the facts charged in the case of this case, there is no proof of facts constituting the crime.

C. As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

As seen above, as long as it cannot be recognized that the defendant received 830 million won as the name of solicitation or good offices in connection with the affairs handled by public officials, it shall not be deemed criminal proceeds. As such, among the facts charged in the instant case, there is no proof of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment against the defendant.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since all of the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty against the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

For the presiding judge or judge;

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

Judge Lee Dong-ho