The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

4,312,50,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) received a large amount of money above general appointment fees from I due to the violation of the law of an attorney-at-law related to I. However, the Defendant did not receive money on the pretext that he merely received reasonable commission fees from I for the present and future cases, and that he did not receive money on the ground that he did not make it to be distributed to the full bench in a pro rata relationship or made a solicitation to associate with the full bench.

B) As to the amount of money received from J in violation of the law, ① the amount received by the Defendant around June 26, 2015 is KRW 1 billion, not KRW 2 billion, and the amount received around October 30, 2015 is KRW 200 million, not KRW 1 billion.

(2) The Defendant does not receive any money from J on the pretext of making a request for an educational system to the full bench.

around June 26, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 1 billion as a result of a comprehensive advisory contract with respect to a company operated by J. A. 2 billion received from September 2, 2015 to September 10, 2015 as a deposit for “CN agreement amount,” and the Defendant received KRW 1.7 billion out of which was returned to J. 2, and the amount of KRW 200 million received around October 30, 2015 is the cost of forming a defense counsel for “P case.”

③ The O did not participate in the decision-making of the money that the Defendant received from J, and did not divide the money that the Defendant received.

Therefore, the defendant and the O did not receive money in collusion for the purpose of a teaching system solicitation.

2) In relation to each defense violation portion ① applicable law, Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act regulates only money and valuables falling under the name of “providing” or “interstation” separate from the attorney’s fees, compared to Article 110 subparag. 2 of the same Act, while Article 111 of the same Act regulates money and valuables as consideration for solicitation or good offices, and the amount of such act differs.

However, among the facts charged of this case.