The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant received KRW 20 million from E is true, but this is merely referred to as "work expenses (the cost for securing public services to inform and arrest other narcotics-related offenders)" and does not have been paid to investigation agencies as the pretext of soliciting E. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the public official receives money, goods, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs dealt with by the public official" refers to the case or affairs dealt with by the public official under the pretext of mediating between the public official and the client. It does not include the case where the public official simply provides labor or convenience in connection with the case or affairs dealt with, and receives money, etc. in consideration thereof. However, the nature of the public official simply provides labor or convenience in relation to the case or affairs dealt with by the public official, and the nature of the consideration for such solicitation is indivisiblely combined, and in case where the money and valuables are received in consideration of the indivisible nature of the case or affairs dealt with by the public.

Therefore, if an investigation agency receives money on the pretext of solicitation of a narcotic offender, even if some of the money was in the name of information and arrest expenses for other narcotics offenders for the above solicitation, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is committed on the whole money.