변호사법위반등
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
B In 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 7.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants: Error of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing 1) Inasmuch as it is not necessary to record the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act separately, each Defendant’s name is referred to as “Defendant” without indicating the Defendant’s name in the applicable item, and the remaining Defendant is referred to as “Defendant”.
() The Defendant did not agree to make a solicitation in connection with the criminal case against I, and the F did not have made such a request to the Defendant. Although the Defendant received the sum of KRW 14 million from his own G G deposit account, the said money is only paid in advance by F, and it does not have been paid as a solicitation in relation to the criminal case against I. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts (2) as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) (the Defendant) on May 25, 2013, since Defendant A did not bear any obligation against L victim at the time when he received a receipt from the victims, there is no property benefits acquired by Defendant A.
In addition, while Defendant A was under continuous intimidation, such as the victims' intention to make a bomb from the victims, Defendant A only delivered victims with Defendant B to resist them, and the Defendants did not have threatened victims.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts.
3) Each sentence of the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and collection of 14 million won, Defendant B: fine of 7 million won, and Defendant C: fine of 5 million won is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentencing sentence on the Defendants is too excessive.