Even in cases where an offender consumeds money and valuables received from a victim and returned money and valuables equivalent thereto, the offender shall be additionally collected from the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do812, Apr. 12, 1983; 2012Do8264, Sept. 13, 2012). As such, the lower court’s decision is justifiable in imposing additional collection in accordance with the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

In addition, under 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 grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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