2. Where money and valuables are acquired through the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the expenses paid in the course of the crime are merely incidental expenses to acquire the money and valuables, and the confiscation to be made is itself the money and valuables acquired through the crime of violation of the law. Thus, in calculating the money to be collected as a result of the already disposed of and collected, the above expenses cannot be deducted from the value of the money and valuables (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6944, Oct. 9, 2008). The court below sentenced the above punishment by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the crime of this case requires extremely poor and strict degree of punishment; (b) the fact that the defendants led to the confession of and reflect against the crime; (c) the defendants did not have the same criminal record; and (d) the fact that the money and valuables acquired in the course of the crime of this case should be considered together with the case where the judgment was rendered.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the lower court, Defendant B returned money received from the P on January 15, 2018, and considering the favorable circumstances in which P was unable to punish Defendant B.

In addition, in full view of the legal principles regarding the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means and result, degree of participation in the crime, scale of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, each punishment sentenced by the court below is deemed appropriate, and the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of the same as it is deemed unfair (Supreme Court Decision 2007 July 2015).