1. Defendant B among the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

Defendant .

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of 116 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of 200 million won, Defendant C: imprisonment of one year and one year and six months, one year and one year of execution of one year and two years of suspended execution) are too uneasable and unfair.

Defendant

A The sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

Defendant

Since Defendant B stored KRW 35 million among the money received by Defendant B as it was and returned to N, the lower court erred in failing to deduct the above amount when it was collected from Defendant B.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

The purpose of necessary confiscation or collection under the Attorney-at-Law Act is to prevent a person, etc. who committed a crime under the above Act from possessing unjust profits by depriving him of his money, valuables, or other benefits from them. Thus, even if the crime was committed, if the person who did not hold unjust profits, he cannot confiscate or collect the money, valuables, or other benefits from him (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4313, Mar. 9, 199). If the money and valuables received are kept in custody without consuming it, and the money and valuables are returned to the provider of money and valuables, the amount equivalent to the returned amount shall not be collected.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1770, Oct. 30, 1990; 2001Do4513, Jan. 11, 2002; 2001Do4513, Apr. 7, 2006).

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13802, Jan. 29, 2015). Gamba, Defendant B, who received from N, 400 million won.