The judgment below

Of them, parts other than the concealment of evidence against computers and Nowon-gu shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (section (A) embezzlement of service costs, which led to an agreement between the Defendant and I to vest the remaining service costs in the Defendant according to the service cost-sharing agreement with regard to the purchase of TResearch Institutes. At least I delegated the Defendant with the authority to dispose of the remaining service costs, so embezzlement cannot be established.

(B) The evidence concealment of accounting books and sales-related documents is not included in the accounting books or sales-related documents among the materials that the Defendant had left at the I’s place of residence. Even if the materials are included in the Defendant’s home affairs, as such, there is a risk of the Defendant’s disciplinary cases and criminal cases being initiated. Therefore, the crime of concealing evidence cannot be established because the evidence was destroyed in relation to the Defendant’s criminal or disciplinary cases.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (a) received money and valuables from the Defendant on December 13, 2007 in return for the Defendant’s legal assistance such as the compilation of a document from I, which had been demanded from I to live together with I, such as receiving mobile phone gifts. A living together with I is conducted by using I’s fluences in criminal procedure, and the living together with I can be deemed as a consideration for the Defendant’s legal assistance. Whether the Defendant promised to pay the price in advance is irrelevant to the recognition of a quid pro quo. Thus, a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established.

(B) On February 2010, when there was no awareness that the Defendant had been involved in the Defendant’s criminal or disciplinary cases, while concealing evidence against the Nowon-gu and computers, the Defendant had no awareness that the aforementioned Nowon-gu and the computer were involved in the Defendant’s criminal or disciplinary cases, and therefore, concealing the Nowon-gu and the computer as a concern about the occurrence of his criminal or disciplinary cases.