The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two months of imprisonment and eight hundred and five million won of surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in this case, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant at least 8,50,000 won on two occasions under the pretext that the defendant would reduce the number of days of business suspension in solicitation of the relevant public official who was subject to the disposition of business suspension. In light of the background and content of the crime, the amount of the crime, etc., the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not easy to be committed, and the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is serious to the social harm by damaging the social trust about the fairness and the misappropriation of public service, and the defendant was well aware of the high-ranking public official, and demands money and valuables by soliciting them to solve the problem of business suspension.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime; (b) there is no criminal history of the same kind; (c) the Defendant returned the entire amount of KRW 8.5 million to the money and valuables provider in the first instance trial; and (d) the Defendant’s health condition is not good due to aftermathing, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; (b) the means and methods of committing the instant crime; (c) the motive and background of the instant crime; (d) the circumstances after committing the crime; and (e) the family relationship, etc., the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment for

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are criminal facts and evidence.