beta
Text
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant E, F, and G shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
E shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, 18,881,050 won overlapping with the amount of KRW 28,467,698, which was paid by the Defendant in return for the handling of legal affairs, should be excluded. As such, the fees actually received are KRW 1,042,120,281.
② Of the crime sight table (1), the number 211 and 217 are all the cases in which the client is a AP, and the same case is entered in duplicate.
③ Of the crime sight table (1), No. 702 No. 3,800,000 won is indicated in the amount column, but this is a clerical error of KRW 380,000.
④ Although the clients No. 286 No. 286 from the list of crimes (1) merely received 1,250,000 won as the fee among women, the clients No. 305 from the No. 286 from the client Q and the No. 305, respectively, was erroneous in stating that each amount was received 2,500,000 won in each column.
⑤ Since the client No. 63 No. 63 of the crime sight table (1) entered into an agreement for acceptance of case with the attorney G, he/she is irrelevant to the defendant.
④ In the calculation of additional collection charges, KRW 260,530,070, the sum of the fee for delivery of the stamp tax (i.e., the actual fee x 25%) that was paid to Defendant B and R, etc. as above, KRW 331,528,310, the sum of the fee for the service of the stamp tax that was paid to Defendant B and R, and KRW 505,931,822, KRW 43,92,00,000, and KRW 19,30,000,00 shall be additionally collected from Defendant G.
2) The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the penalty of 2 years and six months, 786, 702, 182) for sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. In calculating a surcharge for misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s salary of KRW 10,000,000 paid to employees AT, AU, and AV and the Defendant’s so-called “the upper limit” (the clients paid the Defendant’s fee upon receiving a loan from the lending company, but thereafter, paid the principal and interest of the lending company.