The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant, as a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, returned to the victims all of the KRW 20 million received under the pretext of a solicitation, the additional collection is unfair.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one month of imprisonment, one additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Article 116 of the Act provides that an attorney-at-law shall confiscate money and valuables or other benefits received by a person who committed an offense under Article 111 of the same Act, and shall additionally collect the value thereof if it is impossible to confiscate it. Thus, if the defendant did not return the money received from the injured party due to an offense committed in violation of the Attorney-at-law's law, but once again consumed the money and returned the amount equivalent to the money received, the money itself shall not be confiscated and the amount equivalent to the money shall be collected from the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do14167, Dec. 22, 201; 90Do170, Oct. 30, 190). According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant shall not return the money deposited in the account under the name of the defendant, which is 400,000 won, 700,000 won.

Therefore, the court below is just to order the defendant to collect a reasonable amount of money from the victims, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant recognized and reflected his mistake, repaid the amount of damages, and agreed with the victims in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.