변호사법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
43,050,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the charges of violation of the law of this case, among the charges of violation of the law of this case, the defendant was paid the money to the Corporation with several consulting costs for corporate acquisition from the Corporation in Busan, and there was no request from the Corporation in charge of a lien report or legal consultation from the Corporation in charge of a lien report, and there was no fact that the defendant received the money in return for this.
Although the Defendant entered into a contract for the purchase of non-performing loans and the auction of factories with the Development Bank Co., Ltd., the Defendant did not perform the business affairs under the above service contract after entering into the contract, and there is no fact that he has received the service expenses under the above service contract.
Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 43,050,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the health team: (a) the prosecutor’s time and amount of fees listed in attached Table 8 of the daily list of crimes in the instant facts charged at the trial at each instance; (b) “The amount of KRW 3 million on November 25, 2014; (c) the amount of KRW 200,000 on January 16, 2015; and (d) the amount of KRW 24 million on February 2, 2015; and (c) the legal affairs “Dong Dong” in charge as “tender bid agency”; and (d) the legal affairs “Dong Dong” in the list of crimes No. 9 were modified to “seven times”, and thus, the court below’s application for changes to the contents of the amendment to the Act, which became ineligible for the judgment.
B. Although there is a ground to reverse the above ex officio as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the modified facts charged.
The judgment of the court below and.