변호사법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant stated that L had made the registration of ownership transfer first completed the registration of ownership transfer without receiving all the purchase price of land, and received a promissory note with a balance of KRW 270 million from L after about six years, which goes against common sense, but if taxes are reduced more than the amount paid to the Defendant, a large amount of money would not be paid. Although L and F’s statement conforms to the facts charged, the lower court rejected all of them and acquitted the Defendant. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment
In relation to paragraph (2) of the facts charged, even though there is testimony of L/F corresponding to the facts charged that the defendant was given KRW 70 million as a solicitation expense for tax officials, the defendant did not file a complaint with the defendant prior to L.
(1) The judgment below which rejected the above L, etc.'s statement without credibility on the ground of the incidental circumstances, such as the fact that it is doubtful that it was paid KRW 50,000 as KRW 50,00 because it was not less than two months after the issuance of the new right of KRW 50,00,000, is also erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) opened a real estate brokerage office in the name of Kuri-si, a real estate agent E in the name of Kuri-si; (b) operated real estate brokerage business by employing F and G, etc. as an employee; (c) purchased from K around April 2002 the area of 767 square meters prior to H in Guri-si, Guri-si, and (d) sold the said two lots of land to L around that time; (b) on April 2008, the Defendant sold the said two lots of land to M Co., Ltd. and left capital gains by selling the said two lots of land to F, which was an employee of the Defendant; and (d) received money and valuables under the pretext of granting capital gains tax reduction or exemption from L’s office (i) around June 2008, 208; and (e) around June 2008, 2008 to L.