Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “Money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by a public official.” Thus, it does not include simply providing labor or convenience in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official and receiving money, etc. in consideration thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3145, Sept. 24, 2004). However, in cases where money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting the case or affairs handled by a public official by a public official by providing labor or convenience in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official, and the nature of consideration is indivisible and received by combining it with the case or affairs handled by a public official, the whole inseparably has the nature of solicitation as to the case or affairs handled by the public official.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2794, Jul. 24, 2008). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant received a total of KRW 100 million on two occasions under the pretext of solicitation or intermediation to police officers, such as the facts constituting a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and was exempted from liability exceeding KRW 15 million.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the defendant is allowed.