The judgment below

Among them, the part that collected KRW 41,400,000 from the defendant shall be reversed.

From the defendant 38,100.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the facts of the lower judgment’s crime 1, the amount that the Defendant received from H is divided into the attorney’s basic appointment fee and the court’s fee. Thus, the amount of KRW 3.3 million used as the attorney’s basic appointment fee and KRW 10 million used as the court deposit cannot be said to have been received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public official.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 1,41,400,00) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant received money or goods under the pretext of handling legal affairs, such as legal counseling, in relation to the crime on January 2016. However, in light of the defendant's statement and the statement of this case and the remittance details of this case, the defendant may provide legal counseling in connection with I's criminal cases and recognize the fact that the defendant received money or goods in return. As in this case, if money or goods received under the pretext of soliciting public officials are indivisible in combination with money or goods in consideration of legal affairs, such as legal counseling, there is a relationship between the crime of violation of the law on defense due to the number of money or goods on the pretext of solicitation and the crime of violation of the law on the pretext of handling legal affairs

Despite the fact that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. (1) Whether to accept the attorney fees in favor of the Defendant and H may be recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court and the lower court. In other words, ① the Defendant and H shall appoint an attorney-at-law and the court in respect of the I criminal case before receiving the funds.