2016 Highis1221 (Separation), 2016 Highis1320 (Joint), 2017 Highis82 (Joint)

(a) Property in breach of trust;

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

E. Violation of the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Act

F. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(g) Offering of bribe;

1. A.

2. A. (b) B

3. (a) C.

4. b. (c) d. (f) g. D

Final leather, date of use (prosecution), red (public trial)

Law Firm E, Attorneys F, and G (Defendant A)

Attorney H (the national election for the defendant B)

Law Firm I, Attorney J.K (for Defendant C),

L Law Firm, Attorneys M, N, andO (Defendant D)

March 22, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for Defendant C, by six months, and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for one year for Defendant C.

To order Defendant A, B, and C to provide community service for 80 hours each.

Seized evidence 1 to 6 shall be confiscated from Defendant D, respectively.

30,200,000 won from Defendant A, 18,100,00 won from Defendant B, 7,600,000 won from Defendant C, and 643,202,760 won from Defendant D shall be collected respectively.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charges.

Criminal facts

"2016 Gohap1221"

Defendant A is a person working as the chief of the prime affairs division in charge of industrial accident reports in Q Hospital, a industrial accident designated hospital in Seoul, from June 2006 to June 2006. Defendant B is a person working for the chief of the prime affairs division in charge of industrial accident compensation in the “S-type department, an industrial accident designated hospital in the second floor of the Seoul RR building from January 2013. Defendant C is an industrial accident designated hospital in Seoul from March 2010 to the chief of the prime affairs division in charge of industrial accident compensation affairs in the U.S. Hospital, the industrial accident designated hospital in Seoul.

Defendant D has made an application on behalf of the workers for industrial accident compensation in Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, and it has given the money and valuables to the director of hospital office and the advisory doctor of Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service in the process.

1. Defendant A

In dealing with the industrial accident insurance affairs of Q Hospital, the defendant has a duty to prevent outside persons from running business for patients at a hospital, and if there is any person who intends to receive industrial accident insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, he/she has a duty to restrain it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant came to know D, an industrial accident compensation professional hub, which was found in Q Hospital around 201, and accepted the proposal from D to introduce patients of Q Hospital to enable them to operate their businesses, and to provide money and valuables for the purpose of aiding and abetting patients to receive a written diagnosis desired by the patients.

around December 2011, the Defendant introduced patients V to D and received KRW 700,000 from the new bank account in the name of the Defendant around December 13, 201, and received KRW 230,000,000 from that time by the same method as indicated in attached Table 1, from May 11, 2016.

As a person who administers another person's business, the Defendant acquired property in return for an illegal request from industrial accident hub D with regard to his/her duties.

2. Defendant B

In dealing with industrial accident insurance affairs with SP, the defendant has a duty to prevent outside persons from doing business for patients at a hospital, and if there is any person who intends to receive industrial accident insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, he/she has a duty to restrain such outside persons from doing so.

Nevertheless, the defendant introduced D, which is an industrial accident compensation professional hub, from A working for the head of Q Hospital in spring around 2013, and accepted the proposal from D to introduce S-type and patients so that he/she can operate his/her business against the patient, and to provide money and valuables for the purpose of assisting patients, such as face-to-face introduction fees and diagnosis fees.

Around January 1, 2014, the Defendant introduced DW from the foregoing SP to D, and received KRW 700,000 from D to the SC Japan bank account in the name of the Defendant from around January 16, 2014, and received KRW 18,100,00 from March 4, 2016, a total of 14 times, as shown in attached Table 2, from around March 4, 2016.

As a person who administers another person's business, the Defendant acquired property in return for an illegal request from industrial accident hub D with regard to his/her duties.

Goman C.

In dealing with industrial accident insurance affairs of a hospital, the defendant has a duty to restrain outside persons from doing business for patients at a hospital, and where there is any person who intends to receive industrial accident insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means, he/she has a duty to restrain such outside person from doing so.

Nevertheless, around January 2015, the Defendant became aware of D, an industrial accident compensation professional hub, which was found in U.S. Hospital, and introduced Q Hospital patients to enable them to operate their business to patients, and accepted a proposal to provide money and valuables for the purpose of help patients to receive a medical certificate they want, such as face-to face-face referral fees or diagnosis fees.

around May 2015, the Defendant introduced patients X to D and received KRW 2 million from around April 2015 to a new bank account under the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 7.6 million in total from around 200,000,000 from around 200 to around 27, 2015, as shown in attached Table 3 of the List of Crimes.

As a person who administers another person's business, the Defendant acquired property in return for an illegal request from industrial accident hub D with regard to his/her duties.

4. Defendant D

(a) Property in breach of trust;

1) Assist in breach of trust against the director general of the hospital

The Defendant promised to introduce patients who want to claim industrial accident insurance benefits to the chief of the Labor Welfare and Welfare Service Department of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and to pay the consideration for various convenience in order to issue a medical certificate that can receive a high degree of disability.

From March 24, 2011 to May 11, 2016, the Defendant offered KRW 5,90,000 to the head of the hospital A, B, and C a sum of KRW 5,00,000 from March 24, 2011 to May 11, 2016, including the transfer of KRW 70,000 to the new bank account under the name of A, in the process of patient introduction and issuance of a medical certificate, as described in the above paragraph (1).

As a result, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation to A, C, and B dealing with the duties of the hospital and provided property.

(ii)property in breach of trust against the advisory doctor of Korea Labor Welfare Corporation;

The defendant knew that the opinion of the advisory doctor of the Corporation directly selected by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service is the most important when the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service makes a decision on insurance benefits, and requested that two hospitals A, the advisory doctor of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, submit to the Corporation the advisory opinion so that the disability grade can be judged favorable

Around March 3, 2014, the Defendant issued money and valuables totaling KRW 17,770,000,000 from that time until March 3, 2016, to AB and B, for solicitation related to AB’s disability grade examination, and for delivery of KRW 700,000,000,000, from that time, to March 2016.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation to AA of the advisory doctor dealing with the entrusted affairs of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation and provided property.

(b) A person who is not a certified public labor attorney in violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act shall not perform the duties of a certified public labor attorney using another person's name or title.

Nevertheless, around 2010, the defendant agreed to pay 300,000 won per month to the Certified Public Labor Attorney AC, and used the name of the "AD" office to which AC belongs.

From the beginning of 2010 to May 2015, the Defendant used the name of ‘AD' office from ‘AD' to ‘AD' office to run its business for workers, and submitted to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation the power of attorney in the name of ‘AD'.

Therefore, even though the defendant was not a certified public labor attorney, the defendant did not work in the "AD", it used the name of the "AD" office registered by the "Certified Public Labor Attorney Association" in the name of the "AD" office.

5. Defendant B, Defendant D, around August 25, 2013, was provided medical treatment at AE Hospital located in Namyang-si with a plucking, plucking, and plucking, while going beyond the way to walk at the Namyang-si.

After that, while Defendant B received treatment from the above SP surgery at the above SP surgery, he considered the method of receiving industrial accident insurance benefits by filing a false application with the SP to be different from his duties in South Yang-si, and on September 2013, Defendant D entered the industrial accident support center, who visited SP foreign affairs. Defendant D stated that “IE hospital is treated generally because it remains in the health insurance treatment record, and it is possible to treat industrial accident if he moves to the bed from the hospital.” In this regard, Defendant D stated that “I may be able to receive class 12.”

Defendant B submitted a false disability diagnosis certificate, as different from the hospital, to decide to apply for industrial accident compensation insurance, and asked a doctor AF to request that “the head of the kindergarten be audited so that the head of the kindergarten will be able to be treated industrial accident as having come to the hospital.” On September 5, 2013, AF revised “8/26 of the medical records of B from the above Swel and the above Swel and the medical records of B from the hospital to the stairs from the hospital,” and falsely stated “the details of the industrial accident compensation insurance in the medical records of the Swel and the industrial accident compensation insurance report, which was being contacted with the stairs from the stairs of Swel and C.”

Defendant B prepared an application for reimbursement of industrial accident compensation insurance benefits with false written opinions and medical records attached to the above medical examination and treatment at a hospital, and gave them to Defendant D, and Defendant D received an application for reimbursement of industrial accident compensation insurance benefits on behalf of Defendant B from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service branch located in Seoul AG on September 5, 2013.

On September 11, 2013, Defendant B issued a witness’s signature to AH on the witness’s false statement stating that “AH’s witness witness to the application for industrial accident compensation insurance is necessary in preparation for an investigation of actual accident of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service in the above-mentioned and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service” and submitted it to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service after obtaining the signature of AH on the witness’s witness statement in the name of AH, which was written as “AH had been witnessed to keep in the stairs while he/she was engaged in the bottled crowdfunding around August 26, 201

Defendant B filed an application for false industrial accident compensation benefits with the employee of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service as if he/she was suffering from an accident in the course of performing his/her duties at a hospital; around February 27, 2014, Defendant B transferred KRW 12,686,890 as disability benefits under the name of the victim’s Korean standards set forth in Defendant B’s name from November 19, 2013 to March 14, 2014; Defendant B received hospital fees of KRW 4,22,820 in total nine times from November 19, 2013 to March 14, 2014; and Defendant D transferred KRW 1 million as a fee to Defendant D’s bank account in the name of Defendant D around February 27, 2014.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire the total amount of 16,909,710 won from the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service and received the industrial accident insurance money in falsity.

No person, other than a certified public labor attorney-at-law (Defendant D) shall handle any agency, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, or other legal affairs in connection with legal cases, in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, etc.; and no person, other than a certified public labor attorney-at-law, shall perform the duties of certified public labor attorney as an agent or agent for the relief of rights, etc. under labor-related statutes, preparation of related documents, or

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney, the Defendant introduced the hospital he knows to the industrial accident victims, received the power of attorney, submitted the application for disability benefits to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and received the fees in return. The Defendant became aware of the fact that he wanted to file an industrial accident compensation insurance application through a bridge while he managed the horses by the Madon Manager of the Korea Racing Association through pro-Mal.

On June 2012, the Defendant called the said AJ to notify the said AJ of the claim for benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the state of disability, the number of benefits, and the method of receiving a large amount of benefits, etc. In addition, the Defendant hospitalized the AK Hospital in which he well-known, and submitted a request for disability benefits to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service by receiving a power of attorney on behalf of the AJ.

On July 26, 2012, the Defendant received 1.4 million won, equivalent to 20% of the disability lump sum amounting to 6,837,950 won from AJ, under the name of a national bank account in the name of the Defendant, from May 13, 2010 to July 13, 2016, as shown in the attached Table 5, from May 13, 2010 to 232 times in total, as shown in the attached Table 5.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables from a person who is not an attorney-at-law and dealt with agency, legal counseling, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs, and even if he is not a certified public labor attorney, he/she performed the duties of certified public labor attorney such as agency or agent for remedy for infringement of rights, preparation of related documents, etc.

[Defendant D] 2017Gohap82]

The Defendant was a person who was working for the industrial accident hub and was claiming the industrial accident compensation insurance money on behalf of the patient, and was introduced to AM working for the AL branch of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service through the Go-gu around 2006.

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant requested the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation YG branch in Seoul to the effect that even if he did not submit a letter of delegation, the Defendant would assist the AM chief in charge of the affairs such as determination of disability grade and payment of compensation, so that the disability grade of the patient he received can be easily determined, the Defendant would be informed in advance of the results of disposal (the amount of disability grade, the amount of payment), payment date, etc., and the Defendant would be able to receive the date of consultation review.

On March 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 300,000 won was 11 times in total under the same name as shown in [Attachment Table 6] from November 10, 2015, following the branch office of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and (b) around 11, 200,000 won was 11 times in total as shown in [Attachment Table 6].

Accordingly, the defendant provided a bribe to AM employees of Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation who are deemed public officials under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Summary of Evidence

July 1221, 2016 1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. AA's legal statement;

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against AH, AF, and AC;

1. Each investigation report (the report to confirm the amount of money and valuables received in accordance with the provisions of the A, B, and C);

1. An investigation report (a report on confirmation of a violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act in AC);

1. Investigation report (a text message with D stored in the A mobile phone);

1. Copy of corporate register (AD);

1. A copy of an application for medical care benefits and a copy of application for disability benefits;

1. Official documents and clinical records of the Seoul National Health Insurance Corporation's Seoul Regional Headquarters and the AE Hospital emergency department;

1. Copy of the B insurance benefit ledger;

"2016, 1320"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the AJ and AI;

1. Details of transactions of national banks;

1. A telephone number, a text message;

1. Investigation report (report on confirmation of additional amount of suspect DNA fees) ;

1. Investigation report (a text message with D stored in the A mobile phone);

1. An investigation report (in addition to fees for a national bank account);

1. A list of inquiries and inquiries;

[2017Gohap82]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of AM;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A and C: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively

B. Defendant B: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (including the receipt of property in breach of trust), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud), Article 127(2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Amended by Act No. 14499, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of insurance benefits)

(c) Defendant D: Articles 357(2) and 357(1) of the Criminal Act (including the receipt of property in breach of trust, each of the other parties to the receipt of property in breach of trust), 347(1), and 30 (Fraud) of the same Act; Article 127(2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 28(2)3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act; Article 20-3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act; Article 109 subparag. 1 (a) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act; Article 28(1)2, Article 27, and Article 2(1)1 and 2 (a) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act; Article 133(1) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (including offering of property in combination)

1. Commercial competition;

(a) Defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Fraud and the violation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and punishment provided for more severe frauds);

(b) Defendant D: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Fraud and violation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act between the crimes of fraud and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and punishment imposed on more severe fraud; each violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act due to the violation of each Attorney-at-Law Act and the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act due to the fact of the business of a person who is not a certified

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Imprisonment with labor

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B and D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing are considered favorable to each of the Defendants)

1. Social service order;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant D: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant A, B, and C: the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant D: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant D and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. The assertion;

Article 28 (1) 2 and Article 27 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act are a mitigated special composition requirement under Article 109 (1) 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by a person other than an attorney-at-law among the facts charged in this case is in conflict with the fact that a person who is not a certified public labor attorney violates the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act due to the business of practicing a certified public labor attorney and a special relation. Thus, the violation of the Certified Public

2. Determination

Trade concurrence refers to a case where a single act substantially satisfies several elements of a special law. Legal concurrence refers to a case where a single act appears to fall under the constituent elements of several crimes, but actually constitutes only one crime. Whether a single crime is established or several crimes should be determined in terms of the evaluation of the constituent elements and the legal interests and interests protected by the law. In addition, in a case where a special relationship, which is the form of a legal concurrence agreement, constitutes the existence of other elements, other than all other elements of a special law, the act satisfying the elements of a special law, on the contrary of the requirements of a general law, does not satisfy the elements of a special law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6503, Aug. 30, 2012).

In comparison with Article 28 (1) 2 and Article 27 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act and Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the elements of the Attorney-at-Law Act are different in terms of their respective legislative purposes and legal interests, and compared with the contents of Article 28 (1) 2 and Article 27 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act and Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it cannot be deemed that the elements of the Attorney-at-Law are met other elements than all elements of the elements of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act requires money, entertainment, and other benefits, but it does not require the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, but it does not require the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act to engage in business, but the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not require

Therefore, the above defendant and defense counsel cannot accept the above argument.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 2 (not less than KRW 30 million, but less than KRW 50 million) of misappropriation Acceptance of Property in Breach of Trust ( Imprisonment of one year to two years)

[Special Persons in Charge] In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water;

B. Defendant B

Category 1 Crimes (Fraud)

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud Type 1 (less than KRW 100,000) and aggravating area (one year to two years)

[Special Person] In the event that the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes is very poor, the second crime (in the event of misappropriation)

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (less than 30 million won) and the weighting area (one month to six months of imprisonment) of breach of trust.

[Special Persons in Charge] In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water;

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor from one year to three years;

C. Defendant C

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (less than 30 million won) and the weighting area (one month to six months of imprisonment) of breach of trust.

[Special Persons in Charge] In the case of conducting illegal business affairs in relation to water;

D. Defendant D

1. Violation of Attorney-at-Law Act

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 5 (at least 100 million won) or aggravating area (at least 2 years of imprisonment to 7 years) of persons, other than attorneys-at-law.

* descriptive criteria: 2-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Persons] The Second Crime (Fraud) in the event that multiple clients commit repeatedly and habitually a crime

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud Type 1 (less than KRW 100,000) and aggravating area (one year to two years)

[Special Person] In the case of a very poor criminal method, the third crime (Bribery)

【Scope of Recommendation】

Class 1 (less than 30 million won) of the offering of a bribe, the special aggravated area (one month of imprisonment to two years)

[Special Persons] Cases where active mines and the contents of solicitation are related to illegal performance of duties

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 2 years to 9 years 1)

2. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendants A, B, C, A, and C received property from industrial accident hub D over several times, and as a result, introduced patients to D so that D can carry on business against the patient. In particular, Defendant A received money exceeding KRW 30 million for a period exceeding four years from D, and Defendant B committed an act of receiving industrial accident compensation insurance money by fraud from Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service by filing a false application for industrial accident compensation benefits in collusion with D.

However, Defendants A, B, and C did not seem to have actively demanded money and valuables to D, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime. Although Defendants A, B, and C reached the illegal process of introducing patients to D in relation to flood, it is difficult to view it as a violation of the principal duties of the director of the division of the hospital headquarters. Defendants A and B were first offenders who did not receive any criminal punishment, and only Defendant C was subject to two times fines. Defendants are also limited to the two times fines. Defendants are family members to support each crime, and they are seriously against their mistakes while making a confession. Defendant B is endeavoring to recover damage caused by the fraud of the industrial accident insurance proceeds, such as returning the amount exceeding KRW 15 million to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, Defendant A shall be subject to the scope of the above recommended sentence and shall be subject to the same sentence as the disposition.

B. Defendant D

It is recognized that there is a family member to support the defendant, and that there is no criminal record other than the second-time fine.

However, the Defendant, while working in the industrial accident hub, actively provided money and valuables with solicitation to the chief of the headquarters of the industrial accident designated hospital, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s advisory doctor, and the public officials belonging to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. The sum of money and valuables given as such exceeds 77 million won. As seen above, the Defendant committed an offense, such as having discovered the illegal handling of such money and valuables, and having engaged in the business of a certified public labor attorney without the qualification of attorney-at-law and certified public labor attorney, and obtaining profits exceeding 60 million won in total while dealing with such legal affairs. The Defendant’s business crime accompanied with giving property in breach of trust and offering of bribe, etc. is likely to undermine the fairness and reliability of the industrial accident compensation system, and thus, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with severe social harm and injury.

Other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by comprehensive consideration.

presiding judge, judges, vibration

Judges Lee Jae-py

Power of Judge

1) With respect to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set, the lower limit shall be based on the lower limit of the scope of sentence according to the sentencing criteria for the crimes for