2016Gohap331 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, fraud

2017Gohap40 (Joint)

A person shall be appointed.

Shin Ho-ho, Yellow-ju (prosecutions), Yellow-ju (Public Trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

March 31, 2017

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

48,000,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the additional collection charge shall be ordered to a defendant.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Records】

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for fraud at the Busan District Court's Dong Branch Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

" 2017Gohap40"

1. Fraud;

On March 20, 2016, the Defendant leased the victim D with the right to operate the Maritime Bathing Beach located in Busan, Busan, Busan, and the right to operate the Maritime Bathing Province only to an organization. However, the Defendant is entitled to receive the right to operate the Marararara, i.e., the branch of the Busan, the branch of the branch of the Busan, the office of branch. The Defendant leased the lease deposit of KRW 20 million with the right to operate the Mararara, i.e., the lease deposit of KRW 20 million with the right to operate the Mararara.

However, the defendant did not have any income or property at the time, and he did not have any intention or ability to return the money received under the name of the deposit money if he did not have any intention or ability to return the money in the name of the deposit money if he did not have any income or property from the victim to use it as the living expenses, etc. for the defendant.

Nevertheless, on March 23, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the bank account under the name of the Defendant as a deposit for the lease of the right to operate bathing beaches around March 23, 2016.

2. Fraud to victims D and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

(a) Crimes committed while on May 2016, 201;

As above, the Defendant received money from the victim D as a security deposit for the lease of the right to operate the Maritime Bathing Beach, and had the public official in charge receive money under the pretext of accepting a solicitation in relation to the above right to operate.

1) On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) through E at a non-permanent place, required a public official in charge of the Maritime Affairs and Daegu Office in relation to the right to operate the Pakistan; and (b) made a false representation to the said public official.

However, there was no income or property at the time and there was no intention or ability to deliver to the public official in charge of the defendant's living expenses, etc. with money in the name of personnel expenses for the public official in charge from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 3 million from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant on May 16, 2016, under the pretext of personnel expenses for the public officials in charge around around the day.

2) On May 2016, the Defendant, through E, set a flagpole in the upper line of a public official in charge of the Maritime Affairs and Daegu Office via E at a place in the middle of May 2016, the Defendant sent KRW 2 million more to the upper line. “A false statement”

However, there was no income or property at the time and there was no intention or ability to deliver to the public official in charge of the defendant's living expenses, etc. with money in the name of personnel expenses for the public official in charge from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2 million from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant on May 23, 2016, under the pretext of personnel expenses for the public officials in charge around around the day.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim under the pretext of solicitation or mediation with respect to the affairs handled by public officials as above, received a total of KRW 5 million from the victim twice.

(b) Crimes committed while on June 2016.

On June 15, 2016, the Defendant would return to the said victim at the coffee shop located in the Busan-gu Busan-gu, Busan-do to KRW 25 million. However, as there is a relationship with each public official of each Gu office in Busan-gu, the Defendant may obtain the right to operate the G G 30 pages located in the Jung-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-gu. The Defendant would receive the right to operate the parking lot if the deposit amount is KRW 70,000,000 from the public official of each Gu office in the Busan-gu. The Defendant would receive the right to operate the parking lot. The Defendant would be entitled to KRW 25,000,000 which was previously received in relation to the right to operate the G Dora. Accordingly, the public official in charge of the Busan-gu Office changed the amount of KRW 3,00,000,000,0000 as the education expenses are required.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any income or property at the time, and he thought to use the defendant's living expenses and unpaid additional charges, etc. by receiving money from the victim under the name of the deposit money for parking lot operation or under the pretext of education of the public official in charge, and there was no intention or ability to return the money received under the name of the deposit when the victim is unable to lease the above parking lot operation rights.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received from the victim to the company bank account in the name of the Defendant under the name of the right to operate the said parking lot from the victim, the sum of KRW 30 million around June 13, 2016; (c) KRW 40 million around KRW 15 million around June 17, 201; and (d) transferred KRW 3 million to the said account under the name of the public official in charge of around the 17th of the same month.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 45 million from the victim under the pretext of the deposit money, and received KRW 3 million from the victim under the pretext of solicitation or good offices in connection with affairs handled by public officials.

" 2016, 331

3. Fraud to victim H and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

The victim H was sentenced by the Ulsan District Court on August 28, 2015 to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice) for one year and six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2016 and conclusive on September 28, 2016, and was confined in the Ulsan District Court for the execution of detention in the Nowon-do House for the Nowon-do House for the execution of the detention in the Nowon-do House from September 5, 2016, and the victim I is the seat of H.

(a) A crime on August 12, 2016;

On July 2016, the Defendant issued a fine of KRW 5220,000,00,000 to a mutually infinite restaurant located in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and found the solution methods due to the difficulty in paying a fine of KRW 522,00,00,00 as above, to the victim H and the victim I “I are many people who come to the prosecutor’s office of prosecutor’s office. Through the bromoer’s solicitation to the prosecutor’s office public officials, etc., the Defendant may allow H to pay and extend the payment deadline for H’s fine. In order to do so, the Defendant provided the prosecutor’s office public officials, etc. with KRW 5,00,000 in advance through the bromoer.

However, as seen above, the Defendant had no intention or ability to give the above H’s fine installment payment and payment deadline, and even if he received five million won, he was intended to use the Defendant individually, and did not intend to deliver it to the prosecutor’s office officials, etc. through Brazil.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims; and (b) received KRW 50 million from the victim I to the vehicle operated by the Defendant, who stopped in front of the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, on August 12, 2016, in the vehicle for the Defendant’s operation.

Accordingly, the defendant received 500,000 won under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the affairs handled by the public officials from the victims.

(b) A crime on August 24, 2016;

When the Defendant received a request from the above victims to return KRW 5 million due to the said victims’ failure to extend the time limit for the installment payment and payment of the fine to H, the Defendant, around August 22, 2016, issued a false statement to the victims of the mutual unclaimed restaurant located in Busan L, that “The amount of KRW 5 million, which had been paid to the victims at a time since the request for the installment payment and extension of time limit for payment was not well made, was returned from his Brazil. However, the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office, along with the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office in charge of the collection and payment of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office, to grant the extension of the time limit for the installment payment and the payment of the H’s fine to KRW 40 million,000,000,000,000, which had been 500,0000,0000,000,000 won.

However, as above, the Defendant had no intention or ability to extend the time limit for payment of fine and payment by the victim H through the Ulsan District Prosecutor’s examination, and even if the Defendant received KRW 35 million, the Defendant was merely intended to use it individually, and did not intend to pay it as a fine by the victim H.

On August 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims; and (b) received delivery of KRW 35 million in total in the vehicle operated by the Defendant, which was stopped on the street before the coffee shop, of the Ulsan-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Park on August 24, 2016, of KRW 10 million; and (c) five million in KRW 35 million in KRW 10,000 in KRW 10.

Accordingly, the defendant received KRW 35 million under the pretext of solicitation or mediation for the affairs handled by the public officials from the victims and acquired them by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

“ 2017Gohap40

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Investigation report (referring to witness E and telephone conversations), investigation report (referring to the suspect's account number), investigation report (referring to hearing of witness E phone statement, etc.);

1. Notification of data on financial transaction status;

1. Previous convictions as indicated in the judgment: Criminal records, previous records of disposition and results of confirmation;

“2016 Gohap331,

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each prosecutor's statement about I and H;

1. A complaint prepared by the I;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to the judgment of the case in which H is in custody) and investigation report (the collection of custody in a workhouse with H);

Attachment, such as a letter of command, etc.), investigation report (a document attached to the complaint I submitted), investigation report (a statement attached to the complaint I), investigation report (I’s name);

Documents attached to the details of transactions by coordinates), investigation reports (attached to a check delivered to A), investigation reports (I mobile phone devices) (I mobile phone devices);

Attachment of text messages received and sent to A), investigation report (I and H stored in a mobile phone of A)

Attachment of a copy of the text message, etc. received), investigation report (to hear 00 telephone statements), investigation report (to carry A)

The contact point of the prosecutor's staff stored in the phone), investigation report (the monetary details with A, H and I), investigation report

C. (Attachment to A actually used 00 Busan Bank Account Transactions)

1. Preparation of records and reports, and copies of written statements (Article 00);

1. Previous convictions as indicated in the judgment: Residents, investigation, criminal records (A) and investigation reports (Attachment to judgment of a similar case A);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Paragraph 1 of Article 347 of each Criminal Code, and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of each Attorney-at-Law Act.

Points of giving and receiving articles

1. Competition;

Articles 40, 50 (Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 40 of the Criminal Act and each fraud

(Mutual)

1. Selection of penalty;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (B-B of Decision No. 2 with the largest number of crimes)

(2) Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided in the crime of fraud

1. Collection;

The latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the amount to be collected in addition to 40 million won = the amount to be collected in addition to 8 million won = the amount received in relation to the right to operate

Won + Amount received in relation to parking lot operation rights 3 million won + Amount of fine installment and extension of the payment deadline

Amount received 4,00 million won 11)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Sentencing 2)

Each of the crimes of this case is to receive money and valuables from the relevant public officials under the name of the victim D, by deceiving the victim D to obtain money under the name of the security deposit for the lease of the right to operate the Pakistan and the right to operate the parking lot, and at the same time taking money and valuables in the name of solicitation or mediation with respect to the cases to be handled by the public officials, and to take money and valuables from the victim H and I under the name of fine payment by deceiving the victim H and I, and to receive money and valuables in the name of solicitation or mediation with respect to the cases to be handled by the public officials while there is no intention or ability to extend the payment of fines and additional payment of fines by the victim H and I, and to accept money and valuables in the name of solicitation or mediation with respect to the cases to be handled by the public officials. Such crimes are crimes that undermine the general public's trust in the process of performing duties by the administration and investigative agencies and investigative agencies. In light of the motive, background, method, and result, etc. of the crime, there is a very heavy punishment for the victims and victims of the same kind of punishment.

However, the following facts are considered as favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant offenses; (b) the Defendant returned KRW 5 million out of the amount of damage to the victim I; and (c) each of the instant offenses was sentenced to one year imprisonment with prison labor in Busan District Court’s branch branch branch on July 6, 2016, and the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on January 25, 2017; and (b) the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on January 25, 2017, should be considered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act; and (c) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, health condition, and the fact that equity should be considered in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Judge Full attendance of the judge

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Judges Kim Sung-sung

1) Although the defendant was found to have returned 5 million won after the fact, the fact that the defendant was found to have returned the amount of 5 million won after the fact is not returned, the amount of the money received is included in the additional collection

Court Decision 90Do1770 delivered on October 39, 1990

2) Since each of the instant offenses committed by the Defendant is in the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the previous offense, the sentencing guidelines do not apply

(c)