Return and Confiscation of Money received;

If the defendant does not return the amount received from the victim as it is, but the amount received by the victim is returned, the amount received shall be additionally collected if it cannot be confiscated.

Article 56 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 77No8924 delivered on March 23, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, a person who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by a public official, or promises to give or promise to give them to a third party, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years. According to Article 56 of the same Act, a person who violates the provisions of Article 17 (4) or 48, a person who commits an offense under Article 54 or 55, or a third party who is aware of the fact shall confiscate money, valuables or other benefits received by the person who commits an offense under Article 54 of the same Act. If it is impossible to confiscate it, the value of the money and valuables received by the person who commits an offense under Article 56 of the same Act shall be collected in accordance with Article 56 of the same Act, and if it is impossible to confiscate it, the value of the money and valuables should be collected in accordance with the same, and even if a prosecutor institutes a public prosecution, the court below's application of Article 56 of the illegal Provisions, ex officio, is justified and justified.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, since it is clear that the defendant used the money received from the victim and returned the money received from the victim, it is necessary to confiscate the amount equivalent to 50,000 won if it cannot be confiscated without returning the money as it is. Thus, the court below is just to order the collection of 50,000 won from the defendant, and there is no possibility of violation of the law such as the theory of lawsuit. This issue is without merit.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

In light of the records, we examine the argument of the theory, as pointed out, the argument does not appear to the purport of denying the charges of this case against the defendant himself, rather than claiming the grounds for rejection of illegality, and there is no reason to point out that the court below did not render a judgment on the premise that it is the ground for rejection of illegality.

Therefore, the appeal is therefore groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)