(b) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(c) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(e) Abetting an offender;

2. (c) d. B

Law Firm Fence (for Defendant B)

Attorney Lee Dong-sung

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”), among the charges against Defendant A, on November 2014. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegally collected evidence, “the act of fraud or other unlawful act” as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and “the act of fraud or other unlawful act” as stipulated

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegally collected evidence.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. The part against Defendant A

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, among the facts charged against Defendant A, has determined as follows: Police Officer on December 2, 2013, and 2013.

12. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting a criminal attempt, on August 2016.

B. The part concerning Defendant B

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted Defendant B on the part of the charge of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (receiveed materials). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo