Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the 10 million won that the defendant received from E is not paid as the F agency deposit of the victim company, but as the lease deposit money for apartment buildings in the name of the defendant's wife N.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “A person who commits a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor, which has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, within three years after the execution of the sentence is terminated or exempted, shall be punished as a repeated crime.” Here, “a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor” refers to a crime corresponding to a case where a person is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for a high term or for a limited term, and thus, a repeated crime may not

The first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on repeated crimes by applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act while selecting a fine to the defendant and applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the first instance judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected the argument in detail under the title of "reason of guilt" in the judgment, stating the judgment in detail.

Further to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment is justifiable (Provided, That each “I” as stated in the grounds for conviction Nos. 1, 2, and 4 is a clerical error of “E” and thus correct). The Defendant’s misconception of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine are with merit.