The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

The defendant's KRW 130 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 1.8 months, 130 million, which has been imposed by imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below) account books related to the records of the progress of the case (No. 2, No. 807-904 of the evidence record) were continuously prepared at that time when the defendant handled the case at the time of the crime of this case and continuously recorded the records of the process of handling the case. The defendant stated that "undeposit," and "undeposit," in the above account book where the defendant did not receive the fees on the agreed date. Thus, the part without such entries in the account book was excluded from the facts charged, and the personal rehabilitation case, etc. took place for a considerable period of time, and the defendant

In light of the fact that it is difficult to view it in light of the empirical rule, the fact that the Defendant received full fees from the clients as stated in the instant facts charged can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without reasonable doubt, proven that the Defendant was actually paid the remainder of the fee of KRW 370,022,662, which the Defendant received through the lending company.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

2) misunderstanding of the legal principles (guilty part of the judgment of the court below) the crime of this case is one comprehensive crime, since several acts constituting the same crime are independently and continuously conducted under the same criminal intent, and the damaged legal interests are also the same.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's crime of this case was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and that the client C and D were acquitted on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor's mistake;