변호사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the nature of solicitation as to the cases or affairs handled by the public officials, and where money and valuables are received by simply providing labor or convenience in connection with the cases or affairs handled by the public officials, and the nature of consideration is indivisiblely combined, it constitutes a confession as to the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office that "the defendant received money and the construction cost not separately from the price and the construction cost upon requesting the change of the use of the public officials" constitutes confession as to the facts charged in this case, and although E's statements in investigation agency and court of the court below support the defendant's conviction, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment by adding "Fraud" to the name of the crime, "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the Act, and "alternative facts charged" under paragraph (3) below to the facts charged, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.
Therefore, without having to determine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the premise of the facts charged before the amendment of indictment, the judgment of the court below based on the initial facts charged cannot be maintained as it is.
3. On around 2003, the Defendant: (a) sold the land owned by the Defendant to the Victim E; (b) the victim extended the store of a farm household, which was constructed on the said land (miscellaneous land) to the office of the competent government office and to use it as a freezing and freezing warehouse; and (c) around 2008, the Defendant sold the land to the Victim E.