The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have made a de facto solicitation to the criminal department in charge of the D narcotics, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant, in the instant case on October 18, 2017, sentenced one year to imprisonment and two years of suspended execution as a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), was finalized on October 26, 2017. As such, inasmuch as the crime of the lower judgment, which became final and conclusive on October 26, 2017, is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment shall be determined after concurrently rendering a judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into account the equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment, and in this respect, the lower judgment cannot be maintained

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is established by receiving money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for a case dealt with by a public official in charge of judgment of mistake of facts, did not have an actual idea of solicitation by the recipient

Even if the receipt of money and valuables under such solicitation is for his own gain, it does not affect the establishment of the crime if it is for his own gain.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do436 delivered on March 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9387 delivered on March 10, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4518 delivered on October 12, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows: (a) the Defendant was a criminal and currency in charge of narcotics at the seat of D and C; (b) the Defendant was sent to D through scopic phone, and (c) the Defendant was sent to D through scopic phone.