A. Whether a crime under Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is committed where a person who received money or valuables under the name of a solicitation fails to make a request in fact

(b) Where a defendant returned money or goods received under the name of solicitation to the person requesting solicitation again, the collection shall be additionally collected. Where an appeal by the defendant is dismissed, whether part of the number of days pending trial may not be included in the principal sentence;

A. Article 78 Subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be exempted, regardless of whether or not the defendant has actually made a solicitation, where the defendant received money or valuables in the name of solicitation.

B. Since money and valuables received under the name of solicitation should be confiscated by the State, even if the Defendant returned the money to the person who requested the solicitation, it cannot be exempted from the collection.

(c) Where an appeal (or appeal) by a defendant is dismissed, the court may choose not to include part of the number of days pending trial in the principal sentence.

A. Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 82 of the Attorney-at-Law Act); Article 57 of the Criminal Act; Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 87No67 delivered on April 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The fifteen days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the fact that the defendant received money and valuables as stated in its judgment in the name of solicitation to the relevant public officials. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as erroneous selection of evidence, etc.

In the end, it is not reasonable to criticize the fact-finding of the lower court, which is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

As determined by the court below, as long as the defendant received money by the name of solicitation, it cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime under Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act regardless of the fact that there was no actual solicitation. Therefore, the court below did not conduct an investigation on this point and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the above Article, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

Since money and valuables received as solicitation items should be confiscated by the state, even if the defendant returned it to the victim, it is not possible to exempt the collection.

If an appeal (or appeal) by a defendant is dismissed, the court may choose not to include part of the number of days pending trial in the original sentence.

In addition, the argument that the court below's imposition of heavy punishment without considering the defendant's circumstances cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)