The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too heavy or unreasonable;

2. To examine ex officio prior to a judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides, “Any person, other than an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits or who provides or promises to provide such things to a third party, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, in respect of the litigation case, etc., or who deals with or arranges such act.” Article 116 of the same Act provides, “A person, other than an attorney-at-law, may be punished by a fine and a fine not exceeding 50 million won.” Article 116 of the same Act provides, “In cases where a person who has violated Article 34 or committed an offense under subparagraph 1 of Article 109, Article 110, Article 111 or 114 of the Act, or a third party who has knowledge of such fact, has received money, valuables or other benefits, shall be collected as an amount equivalent thereto.”

However, even if the Defendant was not an attorney-at-law, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime that he received KRW 1,538,000 from F to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on or around September 26, 2013, under consideration for the arbitration of a civil criminal agreement between E and D, even though he was not an attorney-at-law, but did not confiscate or collect the above money. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on necessary confiscation and additional collection under the Attorney-at-Law Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In this regard, the lower judgment cannot be upheld.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is examined above.