[2] Whether a crime of violation of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established in a case where money and valuables are received without the intention of actual solicitation for a case handled by a public official (affirmative)

[3] The relationship between fraud and the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in a case where a public official deceives him/her that he/she will make a solicitation or mediation in spite of his/her intent and ability to make such solicitation or mediation and received money or other valuables

[4] The applicable sentence in a case where the lowest limit of a serious crime is less than the lowest sentence under other laws in the ordinary concurrent crimes

[5] The case affirming the court below's measures that were additionally collected pursuant to Articles 116 and 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act concerning necessary confiscation and additional collection while the punishment for a crime of fraud and a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law, which are in a commercial concurrent relationship, is to be imposed more severe fraud

[2] If a public official receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging for a case or affairs handled by a public official, or promises to give or promise to give them to a third party, the crime of violation of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established by receiving or promising to receive the above money and valuables. Even if the recipient of the above money and valuables did not actually think that they would make a solicitation, if he would receive the above money and valuables for his own benefit, the establishment of the crime is not affected.

[3] In a case where a public official deceives him/her that he/she will make a solicitation or mediation in spite of his/her intent and ability to make such solicitation or mediation and received money or other valuables, the crime of fraud and the Attorney-at-Law is in a mutually competitive relationship

[4] In a case where a single act stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Code constitutes several crimes, the phrase “a punishment specified in the serious crime shall be imposed” shall include the purport that the punishment shall be imposed pursuant to the provisions of the law which provides the most severe punishment among the names of such several crimes, and that the punishment cannot be imposed less somewhat than the lowest punishment under the provisions of other Acts. In other words, it shall include that the punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the more severe penalty than the highest one under the provisions of each law.

[5] The case affirming the decision of the court below that imposed punishment on a crime of fraud and a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law which are in a commercial concurrence with each other more severe fraud, but additionally collected the amount equivalent to money and valuables received as a solicitation under Articles 116 and 111 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act concerning necessary confiscation and collection

1. As to the assertion that there is no statement about the elements of fraud

The argument in the grounds of appeal on the premise that the crime of Paragraph (1) in the original adjudication is against the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and is not against the crime of fraud is against the crime of fraud cannot be accepted.

2. As to the assertion that there is no reinforced evidence

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient when it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can only be admitted that the confession of the defendant is true, not processed, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1066 delivered on May 14, 2004).

The defendant has received money and valuables from the victim under the pretext of offering information related to the public auction of the old military building site, which is the suspension of military headquarters, under the request of the defendant to receive a successful bid for the site for the public auction of the old military building site, under the pretext of providing information on the introduction of a person in charge of the public auction and the public auction, under the pretext of providing information on the public auction." In the summary of the judgment of the court below, the defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, and if the victim's statement contains "(the defendant) 50 million won first, it would be used as a down payment when the successful bid is made later." Thus, it includes the statement of the victim, which includes the statement of the victim is sufficient evidence to recognize that the confession of the defendant is true. Therefore, the court below's conviction is justified, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the rules of confession as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the assertion that a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not established separately

Article 111 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 7357 of Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) is established by accepting or promising to receive money and valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or mediation for cases or affairs handled by a public official, and if the delivery of money and valuables to a third party to a third party to a third party to a third party to receive or promise to receive such money and valuables, the crime of violation of Article 111 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 7357 of Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) is established. Even if the delivery of money and valuables did not think of the actual solicitation, if the receipt of the above money and valuables is for his own gain, the establishment of such crime does not affect (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Do1547, Feb.

In the same purport, the court below decided that the defendant's act of deceiving a public official to make a solicitation or mediation in spite of his/her intent and ability to make a solicitation or mediation, and the act of receiving money from the victim for the so-called street funds constitutes Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 111 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and that such crime of fraud and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act are in a commercial concurrent relationship. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, contrary

4. As to the assertion that the pronouncement of collection is illegal

In a case where a single act stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act constitutes several crimes, the purport that “the punishment specified for a serious crime shall be imposed” is that the punishment shall not be imposed pursuant to Article 40 of the Act which provides for the most severe punishment among the names of such several crimes, and that the punishment shall not be imposed less somewhat than the lowest punishment under other Acts, namely, that the punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the severe severe punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do3160, Feb. 28, 1984).

In the same purport, while the court below decided to punish the punishment for the crime of fraud and the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act which are more severe crimes, it cannot be confiscated since the money and valuables in the judgment were received under the pretext of solicitation as to the cases handled by the public officials. Therefore, it is proper to additionally collect an amount equivalent to the money and valuables in accordance with Articles 116 and 111 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the treatment of the commercial concurrent crimes, as

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)