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

30,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

[2015 Height375] Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, fraud

1. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the criminal defendant, through C, a police officer in the middle of October 2012, who was a police officer, committed as if the husband of the victim D was aware of the fact that he/she was detained and tried for the crime of murder, and had access to the victim and had an interview with the husband of the victim being detained in the correctional institution. On December 13, 2012, the defendant demanded the victim by telephone from the F office located in the counter E of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, to reduce the balance between the victim and the victim (the husband of the victim). The defendant demanded to send entertainment expenses of KRW 10 million to the victim.

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he thought that most of them were used for private purposes such as repayment of the defendant's debt or living expenses, and there was no intention to make a solicitation such as contact with the court clerk.

As above, the Defendant, as well as the receipt of a remittance of KRW 10 million from the victim, received a total of KRW 35,500,000 from the victim under the pretext of solicitation about cases or affairs handled by public officials four times in total, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. Around March 12, 2013, the Defendant continued to commit fraud, saying, “If the Defendant lends KRW 10 million to the victim of the building materials rapidly purchased the building materials, he/she would necessarily repay it at the end of March 2013.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property while engaging in the building business at the time, on the other hand, was responsible for the unpaid personnel expenses, and the income of the construction cost in progress alone is insufficient to cover such liability and living expenses, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay such money within the agreed period even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim and belongs to it.