logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.09 2014고단1619
변호사법위반등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

60,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

(b) the defendant;

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 10, 2010, the Defendant violated the Attorney-at-Law Act related to E and F called “E” at the He first floor restaurant located in Hanam G, which called “I military candidate J and I military officials to make sure that F will not be forced to accommodate the land in the vicinity of K owned by the I military,” and received KRW 3 million from E under the pretext of solicitation from February 10, 2012, from that time to February 10, 2012, the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation by receiving KRW 56 million in total from E and F for 11 times under the same name as written in the list of crimes.

2. On October 2013, the Defendant violated the Attorney-at-Law Act: L-at-law at a mutually cafeteriaed restaurant with the name of N in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. The Defendant received L and the aboveO upon request of L and the aboveO to the effect that “it would be good if the O had a mother live together with Muss, and her mother would have been able to work at the nearest IO military office in the house due to a serious emulsion,” and that L and the aboveO received money and valuables from a public official who received money and valuables under the pretext of a request from the BOO to the IO military office. It would be possible forO to transfer 5 million won from PO on the request of the chairman of the IO and the chairman of the Congress of the IO military council to the IO military office. On the pretext of solicitation, the Defendant received money and valuables from POO on the one hand, a public official who received money and valuables from POO around the same day.

3. Although those violating the Labor Standards Act intervenes in the employment of others for profit or did not gain profits as intermediary, the Defendant, upon request by S on March 3, 2013 to U who is the Secretary General, does not comply with the Act.

arrow