The case shall be remanded to the Masan District Court Panel Division.

The court of first instance affirmed by the court below: (a) as the defendant delayed the payment of compensation from Gohap-gun on 72 pieces of land owned by non-indicted 67 and non-indicted 5,456, which was owned by Gohap-gun on February 1, 1985, the defendant received 10 percent of the amount of compensation from 10,000 won from Gohap-gun on December 1, 1988; (b) as the result of the request from some of the owners of the above 72 pieces of land in order to make the sum of the compensation to 30,000,000 won, the defendant received 10,000 won from Gohap-gun-gun on February 1, 1989; (c) as the necessary expenses at the time of the strike and solicitation to accomplish the receipt of compensation, 20,000 won from Gohap-gun-gun on February 1, 1989 to 10,000 won from Gohap-gun-gun-gun-gun Agricultural Cooperative; (d)

However, in recognizing the above facts, the evidence employed by the court of first instance (in particular, witness at first instance and Kim Dong-dong testimony) is recorded and compared with the above circumstances, and if the defendant received the above money, the authorities established roads 6.6 kilometers from the end of a given period to the Jeoncheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and forcedly incorporated the land into the site of the road. Since Gohap-gun was managing the road, Gohap-gun was 68 owners including the defendant at the end of February 1985, 70, Gohap-gun was able to register the ownership of the above land under the name of the previous owners for the purpose of the promotion of the development of the road's compensation under the name of the said 7th owners, including the above 7th owners of the land. But the defendant was able to receive the compensation under the name of the above 7th owners of the above land for the purpose of the promotion of the development of the new road's compensation under the name of the owners of the above 7th owners of the land. It is still registered under the name of the previous owners of the land.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which judged that the above act of the defendant constitutes the above legal provision. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

2. Determination on the above grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

If the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can sufficiently recognize the defendant's crime of embezzlement and attempted fraud of this case, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law of misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit in the court below, and therefore there is no reason for all arguments.

3. The court below held that there is no reason to hold an appeal on the remaining criminal facts except for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the criminal facts committed by the defendant. However, since one of these crimes and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, was imposed concurrently on one of the charges, the court below's whole decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination,

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)