A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

8,000,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

A. As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of November 28, 2013 and January 7, 2014 by the prosecutor (the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court of first instance), this part of the facts charged is indivisible with the remainder of the facts charged by the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the facts charged should be determined as “the payment of money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for cases or affairs handled by public officials.”

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of appointing an attorney-at-law.

B. Defendant 2’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor's argument of misapprehension of the legal principles is characterized by providing labor or convenience in connection with the case or business handled by public officials and offering money and receiving money and valuables in an indivisible manner under the pretext of soliciting the legal principles as stated in Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do514 Decided April 29, 2005, 2005Do771 Decided December 22, 2005, and Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3044 Decided April 10, 2008, and the first instance court's judgment should be applied to the case or business handled by public officials in an indivisible manner.