beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the compensation order for G, which is an application for compensation, is revoked.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, No. 1-2013 high-ranking217
In relation to the list of crimes (Violation of Attorney-at-Law) and the list of crimes (Fraud) attached to paragraph (2) (hereinafter in this case, it shall be specified only by the number of years in the list of crimes (violation of Attorney-at-Law) and, in the case of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and fraud, the number of years in the list of crimes (Fraud) shall be indicated in the list of crimes (Fraud)
5. AS (Fraud No. 4.) : The preparation of a petition of appeal to AS is around 2007 for which the statute of limitations has already expired, and around May 2008, the case was requested by AF through AF and the appointment of an attorney should be made; thus, the introduction of a fake attorney and the transfer of 5 million won to that attorney as it was, and the defendant did not gain any profit.
Sheshes No. 10. AT (Fraud No. 8.): 275,00 won are received only.
Fidelity 14. A. Q has already been punished as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus a judgment of acquittal must be rendered.
Applicant No. 22. AU, No. 32. AO (Fraud No. 29.) made and provided a document without receiving money, and in the case of AK (Fraud No. 32. A. 35. A. 51. A. 51. AL (Fraud No. 48.), it was not a party to a contract with the defendant, but the other party to the lawsuit.
(v)in relation to the calculation of the surcharge, 1,00,000 won received from A Q, was disbursed in all costs related to the litigation, and 2,00,000 won was paid at the trustee’s expense in case of AV on the same 56. AV on the same 64. AW used 1,70,000 won at the auction expense in case of AW on the same 74. AG and 75. AJ on the same 75. As such, this part must be deducted.
(other than that, the prosecutor accepted the contents of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and did not make a judgment on the changes in indictment as of November 12, 2013 as follows).
B. The lower court’s decision is unreasonable.