The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 1,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from A.

The judgment below

(2).

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, there was an agreement between accomplices B and the Defendant on the use of criminal proceeds, and accordingly distributing or using them jointly, it is necessary to collect the penalty equally. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. B The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where several persons jointly distribute money and valuables received under the pretext of solicitation in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official, each person shall individually confiscate or collect the money and valuables actually distributed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2490, Nov. 29, 1996). In a case where multiple persons jointly and jointly commit a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and receive money and valuables, if it is impossible for the co-offender to know the amount actually received from the co-offenders on the grounds of a difference in the contents of statements between the co-offenders, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do15538 Decided December 22, 2017, etc.). According to the evidence of the lower judgment, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 3 million from the account under the name of Defendant B according to the direction of Defendant B, but in light of the place of use of the said money (deposit, document preparation cost, and deposit to Defendant B), etc., it is difficult to determine the specific amount of distribution among the Defendants. Therefore, criminal proceeds from the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act ought to be collected equally from Defendant B and the Defendant.

Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of additional collection for the defendant as 1.5 million won (=3 million won ± 2).

Nevertheless, the court below ordered one of the accomplices to collect the full amount of criminal proceeds from the defendant, and the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.