beta
Text
The judgment below
We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.
74,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
The judgment of the court below.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant paid 29 million won out of the initial amount of criminal facts No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below to D attorneys at the time of receiving the initial amount of money.
Therefore, 29 million won should be deducted from the amount received by the defendant as the criminal facts of this case (20 million won in total, No. 1 (50 million won in the judgment, No. 2 of the judgment, and 42.6 million won in total).
Furthermore, the above KRW 29 million falls under the crimes listed in No. 1-8 and No. 10 of the List 1-10 of the Crimes in Annex 2 of the judgment of the court below, and even according to the list of crimes in the above crimes, it is confirmed that the defendant paid KRW 20 million as attorney's fees.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles since it deemed that the total amount of KRW 13.1 million was paid to D attorneys among the money paid by G, etc.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence of recognition and the records of this case, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles (the amount of additional collection)
① From Oct. 21, 201 to Nov. 2, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 50 million in total from G, etc. from G, etc. with the pretext of “an attorney-at-law and a police contact (an act of violating the law of defense due to the receipt of money and valuables on the ground of solicitation as indicated in the judgment below)” ( ② The Defendant introduced the instant case to C, D, and F on 29 occasions in total from Apr. 13, 2010 to Aug. 10, 2016, and, in return, received KRW 42.6 million in total from the said attorneys (a) as indicated in the judgment below, and received KRW 42.6 million in total from the said attorneys to Nov. 2, 2011 (a) introduction of legal cases under paragraph (2) of the same Article, and thereafter, a violation of the law of defense due to the receipt of money and valuables). ③ The Defendant introduced D to G, etc. for civil consultation with G, “an advisory case of KRW 18 million.”