The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

491,750,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The remainder of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 65,400,000 won and 207,300,000 won and 65,400,000 won in total used as essential expenses, such as fees, delivery fees, and advance payment, which have been returned by the misunderstanding of the legal principles upon cancelling the delegation of the case, should be excluded from the additional collection charge.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which calculated the surcharge without recognizing it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the court below which is unfair in sentencing (the punishment of 1 year, additional collection of 57,150,000 won) is too unreasonable for each crime set forth in the table of crime Nos. 1 through 198 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the punishment of 1 year, additional collection of 57,150,000 won for each crime set forth in the table of crime No. 1 to 198.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the portion of the fees that the client had cancelled and refunded, where the client acquired by committing a violation of the Attorney-at-law Act, the expenses incurred in the course of the crime are merely incidental expenses incurred in acquiring the relevant money and valuables, and confiscation is the money and valuables acquired by committing a crime of violation of the law under the Defense Act. Thus, if the money and valuables acquired by the client have already been disposed of, the above expenses cannot be deducted from the value of the money and valuables when calculating the amount of additional collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6944, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, the refund of the fees paid for the reason that the individual rehabilitation application was dismissed or withdrawn is merely a method of consuming the profits already reverted to him/her at his/her own choice, and it does not constitute a deduction from the amount of additional collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7161, Sept. 9, 2010).

Even if the defendant uses the benefit already reverted to him after the conclusion of the contract with the client, it is merely a method of consuming the benefit by his own choice.