beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실오인 ㈎ D에 대한 2010. 11. 17.자 변호사법위반의 점(원심 범죄사실 제1항) 피고인이 교제비를 요구한 것이 아니라, D의 요청에 따라 변호사 선임을 위한 비용으로 3,000만 원을 교부받은 것에 불과하다.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.
㈏ E에 대한 변호사법위반의 점(원심 범죄사실 제2항) 피고인이 E에게 임목 매수대금으로 5,200만 원을 빌려주었다가 2,000만 원만 반환받았으므로 나머지 3,200만 원의 변제를 독촉한 것일 뿐, 교제비를 요구하여 그 승낙을 받은 것이 아니다.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution, three years of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) of the court below on the ground that the sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence of erroneous determination of facts (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of November 12, 2010 against D), the court below found that D, who is a public official, was delivered KRW 60 million to the bank account in the name of H, the Defendant’s wife, as a teaching expense, while stating that D, who was subject to investigation due to the charge of acceptance of bribe, was willing to resolve the fact, and received a delivery of KRW 60 million from D under the pretext of teaching expense. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
Dob. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On November 12, 2011, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 1 of the crime in the judgment of the court below) against D, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the court below. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under Paragraph 1 of the “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” among the reasons for the judgment. A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below compared with the evidential materials, the Defendant decided in the court below.