208Gohap294 Occupational Embezzlement, Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant, Director General of the Office of Attorney

Residence and Reference domicile Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Gu")

nan

Attorney Park Do-young

October 14, 2008

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

One day of detention before this judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

19,200,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Facts of crime

From Sep. 2006 to Feb. 2, 2007, the Defendant served as the secretary of the office of safe○○ Attorneys-at-law located in Incheon Nam-gu (hereinafter omitted), and from Feb. 1, 2007 to Feb. 2007, the Defendant served as the secretary of the office of Seo○○ Attorneys-at-law in the same Dong.

1. Occupational embezzlement;

On October 13, 2006, the Defendant introduced Kim○, who operated a speculative game site in Bupyeong, from ○○○, which was a branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch, and

The defendant, as the chief secretary of the office of an attorney-at-law, received advisory fees, etc. from the above advisory lawyer under the above advisory lawyer appointment contract, was responsible for the duties to deposit them into the office of an attorney-at-law. However, on October 13, 2006, the above advisory lawyer's office at the above advisory lawyer's office at the above advisory lawyer's office, and only one million won for monthly advisory fee received around November 2006. The defendant embezzled the advisory fee of KRW 7 million for a total of seven times as shown in the annexed crime list, and embezzled the advisory fee of KRW 7 million for a total of seven times as shown in the annexed crime list from around July 2007.

2. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

On October 2006, the Defendant continued to meet Kim ○, after the conclusion of the contract for the appointment of the advisory lawyer at issue, and had been in charge of Incheon City on the part of him. The Defendant continued to see his own ability and connection to the effect that “The director general of Bupyeong-gu Office, the director general of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the director general of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, known that there are many employees in charge of the order system of the Bupyeong Police Station, as well as the police officers in the Incheon area, the Incheon area, the Incheon area, the inspection of the site, and the employees of the Seocheon-gu Office, the Defendant would be responsible in advance, and the game room will not be subject to crackdown. If the Defendant was subject to the control, the Defendant would have been able to smoothly handle the case even if he was subject to the control.”

On November 2006, the Defendant issued KRW 100,000,000 from October 13, 2006 to July 2007, 14 as shown in the List of Crimes (2) to the police officer, etc., under the pretext of the cooperation with public officials such as a police officer, etc., in contact with the police officer, etc. in charge, who was subject to the control of a game room by the police officer, and received KRW 10,000,00,000 from the Kim○, under the pretext of cooperation with the police officer, etc. in connection with the control of a game room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of ○○○ by a witness Kim-○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Dozoo, Jin-○ and each part of the protocol;

1. The prosecutor's protocol of statement and each protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect (including the part concerning Kim○○'s statement);

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Kim○-○, Do○-○, Do-○, Do-○, Kim○-○, Do-○, Do-○, Do-○, and Do-○; 1. The written statement of Kim○-○;

1. Seizure records;

1. A copy of each statement of consent to the provision of financial transaction information, etc., inquiry sheet of request for the details of transactions, etc., copy of the protocol of transactions, passbook in the name of ○○○;

1. Each investigation report (including a copy of each attached meeting book, a copy of each written agreement on commission of an advising attorney-at-law, a receipt, and a copy of each deposit);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Code (including embezzlement of duties, and comprehensive coverage of each victim), Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act) and each choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment as provided in Articles 38(1)2 and 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment as provided in Articles of Incorporation)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

On October 23, 2006, the defendant and his defense counsel received 5 million won as a security deposit for advisory contract from the Kim○○○○ on and around October 23, 2006 and deposited 1 million won as a monthly advisory fee to the attorney-at-law office on or around November 2006, and deposited 6 million won in the office of the attorney-at-law. Except for the above 6 million won, the defendant did not receive money in connection with the contract for advisory attorney-at-law appointment. Other money received from the Kim○○ on or around April 2, 2007 from the commencement of the case for provisional disposition of the suspension of the suspension of the business of the game place on or around April 11, 2007, 3 million won as a security deposit for the revocation of the disposition of the suspension of the business on or around April 11, 207, 3 million won as a security deposit for his criminal case for his illegal disposal of ○○'s game room business.

12. On May 12, 12. Around 100, he received 3 million won from ○○○○ in a criminal case related to the illegal game room business for Kim○, and deposited it into the attorney’s office. A separate payment of 1 million won per month advisory fee was made by Kim○○ on February 2, 2007, and he directly paid 1 million won per month to ○○○○○○○○, and he denies all of the crimes in this case by asserting that he did not receive 3 million won from ○○○, as described in the attached list of crimes (1) or (2).

2. Determination

A. However, as seen below, the Defendant, who received money from 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 2-month testimony and received money from 0 2-2-month testimony at the time of deposit of the Defendant’s office and received money from 0 - 3-month testimony and received money from 0 - 2- monthly testimony and received money from 0 - 2- monthly testimony and received money from 0 - 2- monthly testimony and received money from 0 - 3-month testimony and received money from 0-2-month testimony and received money from 0-6-month testimony and received money from 100,000 won from 0-6-month office, and then received money from 100,000 won from 1-6-month testimony and received money from 3-month office. However, the Defendant did not receive money from 1-6-month adviser for investigation.

(3) Third, around December 5, 2007, the defendant, who received the above 00,000 won of attorney fee of 300,000 won and contingent fee of 300,000 won from the prosecutor's office, stated that he was detained as an illegal game room business case on November 9, 2007 and received 3 million won from 10,000 won from 20,000 won at the defendant's office's expense (233 pages of the investigation record of the defendant's prosecutor's office record). However, on December 5, 2007, the defendant again received 30,000 won of attorney fee of 30,000 won and 300,000 won of attorney fee of 20,000 won from the prosecutor's office fee of 30,000 won and 300,000 won of attorney fee of 20,000 won.

However, even though this part is not only a large amount of money received, but also a relatively recent one, the statement of ○○○○○○○○ was reversed without any justifiable reason, and then ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ brought about KRW 6 million later, but ○○○○○○○○○○○ was lent to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which supports the fact that other materials, such as a copy of the passbook in the name of ○○○○, which supports the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○’s loan from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, were presented, and 3 million won out of 6 million won was paid by the Defendant on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, who was sentenced to the first instance court on January 2, 208, it was difficult for the Defendant to have paid 000 won of the bar’s deposit instead of referring to the fact that ○○○○○’s was paid.

B. On the other hand, on October 13, 2006, when entering into a contract for the appointment of an advisory lawyer with the defendant on October 13, 2006, the Kim○○ entered into the contract for the appointment of the legal adviser, the deposit amount of KRW 5 million in cash in the passbook, KRW 5 million in the passbook, and KRW 1 million in the office, KRW 1 million in the first place in the office, and stated the circumstances leading up to the delivery of approximately KRW 2 million in sum to KRW 3 million in the monthly advisory fees and teaching expenses until July 2007, as stated in the criminal facts, and the situation before and after the issuance by the investigative agency up to this court. Moreover, the fact that Kim○○ withdrawn KRW 1 million in cash on October 13, 2006 by adding it to KRW 6 million in the copy of the passbook (a copy of the investigation records) is confirmed as also.

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant continued to pay the Defendant a monthly advisory fee and the school expenses in the absence of monthly payment due to the lack of operating expenses of the game room, insofar as the game room did not make a speech or resistance that 10 times more than 10 times and even after being investigated, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not make a frank with the Defendant that ○○○ or ○○○○○○ was flick, since her flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel made a false statement for the purpose of retaliation against the defect even before the sentence was sentenced due to the operation of the illegal game room, and for the purpose of returning the amount equivalent to the normal cost of the attorney-at-law paid to ○○○ or ○○○○ lawyer, even though Kim○ entered into a contract for the appointment of an advisory lawyer as the defendant's intermediary.

However, in light of the fact that Kim○-○ directly filed a complaint with or filed a petition to an investigative agency, and that when Kim○-○ is detained and confined to the detention house, the interview book was recorded in which the number of school expenses was expressed among the interviewed contents with the visitors, and the prosecution started its internal intent as the proviso. In addition, the defendant sent two times a letter to the defendant during the detention house, and the defendant sent two times a letter to the defendant, which contains the intention to the effect that he had already been able to do so before the commencement of the internal investigation of this case, and then sent it again to the defendant (No. 1 of the evidence submission of the counsel). In light of the fact that Kim○-○○ was investigated as a witness by the prosecutor, it does not seem that Kim○-○○ did not actively interfere with the fact that he had never been examined as a witness.

C. In addition, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○ was involved in the operation of the above game 20 times in one month, there was a fact that ○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○ operated by the above Kim○○○○○○○ operated by the defendant, whenever he was controlled by the Kim○○○○○○○○○, requested the police officer in charge of personnel investigation to conclude the investigation, and at least 5 million won per day for operating the game 200,000 won, and 200,000 won, which was written by the above Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 200,000 won, which was written at the last 20,000 won, and that the Defendant’s last 20,000 won, which was written at the 200,000.

D. In addition, upon the introduction of the defendant, the defendant and Kim ○○ made a meal twice with the police officers belonging to the Incheon Regional Police Agency, the police officers belonging to the Bupyeong Police Station, and police officers belonging to the Bupyeong Police Station, and all food expenses up to a hundred thousand won. The defendant introduced the defendant to Kim ○, and according to the statement by ○○○○ in close relation to the two heads and the statement by ○○○○○○, which was made by the defendant, the above food expenses merely appear to have been paid for the money that the defendant received as school expenses each month from Kim○○ as above, and unlike others, it is difficult to find reasons for the defendant to bear the expenses for school expenses each time even if there is no money received from Kim○○ for the client Kim○, who is a public official for the purpose of teaching Kim○, even though there is no money received in advance from Kim○, the reason for raising the credibility of the above Kim○'s statement constitutes grounds for raising the credibility of the above Kim○'s statement.

E. In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant, who received a monthly advisory fee from Kim○○○ as shown in the annexed List of Crimes (1) and received it, can be sufficiently recognized that he arbitrarily embezzled and received money from Kim○○○ as shown in the annexed List of Crimes (2) under the pretext that he associates with police officers and other public officials in relation to the control of game sites. Accordingly, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable.

The crime of this case for the reason of both punishment is that the defendant, as the head of the office of the attorney-at-law office, embezzled the sum of KRW 7 million per month advisory fee to be deposited in the attorney-at-law office seven times, and received a total of KRW 19.2 million from the game room operator on 14 occasions under the pretext of teaching the public officials, etc., and it is not only for a considerable period of time, but also for the amount received under the pretext of embezzlement and teaching the amount. In particular, the violation of the Attorney-at-law Act is detrimental to the trust of the public public officials, and it is not very good that the crime is committed. Nevertheless, the defendant does not seem to be completely contradictory while denying the fact of his crime until the end, and there is no strict punishment corresponding thereto due to the lack of proper measures such as return of the amount of embezzlement.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc., that the Defendant has no particular history of punishment, relatively old, and Kim○○ does not want to criminal punishment of the Defendant, and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence, etc.

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Judges