Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant knew that O sold the pre-material P at KRW 120,00,000,00 in early August 2009, and received a cash of KRW 3,000,000 from O for the expenses of O in the dwelling area of Q located in Q at Singu around August 2009, the Defendant stated that “I would know that there are many employees of Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Gun

Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the acts, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for the affairs handled by the public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witnessO;

1. Investigative report (Submission of Victim Evidence Materials), tax notice for local income tax, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a receipt;

1. Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act applicable to facts constituting an offense and Article 111 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Although the decision on the additional collection of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment was made by the prosecutor, it was omitted to apply the provision on additional collection when the prosecutor applied for modification of indictment which adds alternatively the facts charged in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as stated in the decision, but the additional collection was not applied by the prosecutor as a kind

the court shall apply it ex officio.

(See Supreme Court Decision 78Do1033 Decided June 13, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 88Do2211 Decided February 14, 1989, etc.). Criminal facts in the judgment are crimes falling under Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and money and valuables received by the defendant under Article 116 of the same Act are essential subject to confiscation or collection.

However, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to an additional collection as an alternative disposition for confiscation, and it should be evaluated as equivalent to the punishment for confiscation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4888, Nov. 9, 2006). This case also applies to the defendant.