beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
142,339,500 won from the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing
A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the collection of 172,339,500 won from the defendant, although all of the crimes of this case against the defendant were recognized as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, since the defendant did not have profit to the defendant, and thus, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall not be established or collected.
1) As the Defendant used 50 million won out of the 70 million won received from J and returned the remainder to J, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act because it was not the money received in the name of solicitation or mediation, but the money received for the Defendant’s interest, and even if a crime is constituted, it was erroneous to impose a penalty on the Defendant as it was delivered to U et al. according to the purport of J. The Defendant’s remaining KRW 20 million was not attributable to the Defendant, and thus, it was erroneous to impose a penalty on the Defendant as a penalty. 2) The Defendant did not receive KRW 23 million out of the 50 million received from M as expenses, not as the pretext of solicitation or mediation, but as the remainder was not the money received for the Defendant’s interest, it was not the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it was erroneous to impose a penalty surcharge even if the crime was established.
Since the remainder of KRW 27 million was delivered as a brokerage fund to U, etc. according to the intention of M, it is erroneous that the defendant was sentenced to additional collection because the benefit is not attributable to the defendant.
3. Of the 10 million won that the defendant received from theO, 5 million won is paid as a brokerage fee, and it is not a money received for the defendant's interest, so the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not established, and even if the crime is constituted, the above 5 million won is established.