The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A sum of KRW 140 million shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The fact that the Defendant received KRW 70 million, including KRW 30,000,000,000 per annum No. 1 to KRW 5,000,000,000 from H in relation to the bail case of I was not received, or the remainder of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 including KRW 30,000,000 per annum of the crime list was not received. The name of the receipt of money was not the price for exercising influence by the current legal professionals, but the name of the receipt of money was not the price for exercising influence by the current legal professionals, and actually delivered the full amount of KRW 70,00,000 to the O. 2) the above money was not received from H in fact.

3) The receipt of KRW 30 million from H in relation to the J case, which is 70,000,000,000 from H as an attorney fee, is not received KRW 30,000,000 in return for soliciting the incumbent prosecutor, etc. (4) in relation to the case on which I received KRW 30,000,000 from H in relation to the case on which he was additionally prosecuted, not to receive KRW 9,11,000 in relation to the crime list 9 through 11, but to exercise influence through incumbent legal professionals, but to receive KRW 30,00,00 in relation to the case on which I received KRW 30,000 from H, and was actually received as an attorney fee, and all of them were delivered to AE.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, additional collection charges of KRW 147 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio pursuant to the addition of the selective charges, we examine ex officio the following facts charged in the instant case at the trial.

Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act applies for the modification of a bill of indictment, which is selectively added to the facts charged, and the scope of the trial is changed by this court's permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons, the defendant is not the defendant.