beta
Text
All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B, taking advantage of the pro rata with Q attorney-at-law, prepared a written opinion to enable the existing company to continue the work, and thus, Defendant B received the request for an act of fact and received the payment for it. In particular, Defendant B provided money and valuables to Defendant B in return for introducing the acceptance of legal affairs in light of the fact that “legal affairs” under the Attorney-at-Law Act are not all the legal affairs but only the legal services provided with legal expertise.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.
(c)
In light of the following facts: (a) a prosecutor (not guilty part of Defendant A); (b) a prosecutor misleads Defendant A of the facts (not guilty part of the reasoning) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”); (c) a person who transferred the name of the deposit holder to an account in the name of N, a borrowed account, on August 27, 2015, to E on December 29, 2015; (d) an additional one million won was paid to E after about 20 days from the date the judgment of suspended execution was rendered in the appellate court of the case to be introduced; and (e) a person who made a confession of the above one million won from his/her own trial to the above one million won and a final and conclusive judgment of conviction was rendered; and (e) a person who remitted to E on December 19, 2015, paid KRW 1 million in return for the introduction of a legal case.
I seem to appear.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below against the defendant A erred by misconception of facts.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Defendant B’s mistake and mistake.