A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the embezzlement is recognized.

A. Defendant 1) In order to fall under subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, part of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the judgment of the court below) (Article 109, Paragraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act), money, entertainment, or other benefits promised in return for handling legal affairs, etc. should exceed the economic benefits of the reimbursement of actual expenses. Whether it goes beyond the benefits

In this case, it was difficult to think that the defendant had already reported the right of retention amounting to KRW 5.3 billion to the hospital building of this case in excess of the standard amount of the service contract and KRW 5.3 billion. In addition, the defendant was able to take a separate benefit sufficiently through the finishing construction of the hospital building of this case, which was concluded after it was not a service contract related to the resolution of the above right of retention, since it was determined that the defendant could take a separate benefit sufficiently through the finishing construction of the hospital building of this case, which was concluded after it was not a service contract related to the resolution of the above right of retention.

It is difficult to see that legal affairs were performed in return for promising the amount exceeding the benefit of compensation for actual expenses.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts affecting the judgment.

B) The part of embezzlement (the first instance judgment) (the amount of KRW 176,363,367 specified as the Defendant’s embezzlement in the facts charged in the instant case is based on the false tax invoice issued by Thai World Co., Ltd.).