beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error 1) According to the statement of the sales contract and the power of delegation made between the Defendant and D on July 31, 2006, prepared by D, June 22, 2009, the Defendant is the land of 12 lots, including C river 25 square meters, at the time of Namyang-si as indicated in the instant facts charged, from D on July 31, 2006 (hereinafter “instant land”).
(B) purchase of 1/2 shares in the amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “the first sales contract”)
(2) After this, on June 20, 2009, the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be deemed to be the land of this case, which is the land of this case, and shall be deemed to be the land of this case.
(B) purchase of the remaining 1/2 shares in the purchase price of KRW 130 million (hereinafter “the second sale contract”)
The facts can be acknowledged, and the above contract and power of attorney cannot be easily dismissed by a disposal document. As such, the defendant handled legal affairs regarding “the search for land” as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and did not have received the payment from D. 2) Even if there was a profit agreement between the defendant and D, at the time of the conclusion of the first sale contract, that the defendant would receive 1/2 shares of the instant 12 lots of land from D in return for the recovery of the instant 12 lots of land, the defendant received 858,293,250 won from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation around July 12, 2010, since it was merely a receipt of compensation from the person who actually acquired the entire land of this case in accordance with the second sale contract, it cannot be deemed as a receipt of money and valuables pursuant to the above profit agreement, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by accepting money and valuables is not established.
In addition, in the case of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act under the promise to receive money, the statute of limitations against the defendant was expired since the prosecution of this case was instituted five years after the first sales contract, which was the time of the promise.
3. The defendant was found guilty on the ground that the profit agreement of this case was recognized.