The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A sum of KRW 18 million shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: Sentencing (the original court shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and the additional collection by 18 million won);

2. Ex officio determination

A. On August 17, 2018, the Defendant with respect to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud in the Mayang Branch of the District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 15, 2019.

As above, the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of fraud shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The judgment of the court below as to the number of crimes and concurrent crimes related to the facts charged in this case is unlawful. The facts charged in this case is that "the defendant was promised by B under the pretext of obtaining the consent of military unit development, and received KRW 18 million out of the starting fee of KRW 30 million received by B, which was delivered by C. The court below determined that the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitutes multiple crimes of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The court below decided that the defendant's punishment against each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act was imposed by aggravated punishment under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act provides that "the person who received or promised to receive money, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or good offices for the case or affairs dealt with by the public official," and that the act of receiving money, entertainment, or other benefits in this case is subject to punishment in succession.

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do970 Decided March 15, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do970 Decided March 15, 2002