A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) received the request from K to protect N, and the Defendant did not conduct legal affairs in collusion with A, B, and V, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Defendant received KRW 20 million from V in return for providing the above security services. Since the Defendant did not receive in return for providing legal affairs, the court below ordered additional collection of KRW 20 million in the above amount of money, it did not err in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The penalty sentenced by the court below (the penalty of two years of suspended execution in eight months of imprisonment, community service, 120 hours, 20 million won is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is deemed to have the nature of consideration for handling or arranging legal affairs under Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act in its entirety indivisible in cases where the nature of consideration in the course of dealing with an investigation case and other general legal cases, which are handled by the litigation and investigation agency, or for arranging such acts, or where money and valuables of the nature not so, are received inseparably combined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4391, Aug. 20, 2009; 2010Do8819, Oct. 14, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the entire amount is subject to additional collection under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. 2)