Examining the evidence admitted by the court of first instance in comparison with the records, it is justifiable for the court below to find the defendant guilty of committing the crime, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. in this case, and it cannot be deemed that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. There

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, by applying Article 94 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the court below collected 2,600,000 won from the defendant.

The purpose of Article 94 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is to prevent a person who violates the provisions of Article 27 of the same Act or commits an offense under subparagraph 1 or 2 of Article 90 or Article 92 of the same Act, or who is aware of the fact that he is deprived of the money, valuables and other benefits received by a third party and thus makes it impossible to hold illegal profits. Thus, in case where there are several persons jointly distribute money and valuables received under the pretext of solicitation for cases or affairs handled by a public official, only the money and valuables actually received shall be individually confiscated or collected additionally (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1569 delivered on December 28, 1993).

According to the records, not only KRW 2,00,000, but also also KRW 300,000 among the amounts that the defendant received from the victim Kim Jong-Gyeong for solicitation, was distributed to the co-defendant of the court below, who is an accomplice. Thus, by applying Article 94 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the amount that the defendant can collect from the defendant is deducted KRW 300,000,000, which is the remainder after deducting the amount that the defendant delivered to the above co-defendant of the court below from the above co-defendant of the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below collected 2,600,000 won from the defendant. Thus, the court below erred in finding facts against the rules of evidence or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to additional collection, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the part of the judgment below which collected 2,60,000 won from the defendant cannot be reversed.

3. However, according to the records, since this case is deemed sufficient to be directly decided by a party member, the part of the judgment below which collected 2,600,000 won from the defendant among the original judgment shall be reversed and directly decided pursuant to Articles 391 and 396 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. As seen earlier, the defendant received 2,00,000 won from the victim Kim Jong-Gyeong under the pretext of solicitation, and then distributed 300,000 won among them to the co-defendant who is an accomplice, the defendant shall be additionally collected 1,70,000 won from the defendant by applying Article 94 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the appeal on the remaining part of the defendant shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)