The method of collection in cases where it is impossible to know the value of money and valuables received or received among his/her accomplices under the pretext of solicitation for a case handled by public officials jointly or jointly by many persons (=equitable collection)

Article 111(1) and Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh Jeong-sik et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1962 delivered on December 15, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. 65 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. If money and valuables are received under the pretext of solicitation for a case handled by a public official through public offering or collaboration, if it is impossible to know the amount actually received among the accomplices because the contents of statements among the accomplices are inconsistent, etc., it shall be collected equally.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)