The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

142,50,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The part of the charge of violation of the Attorney-at-Law No. 1 of the facts stated in the judgment below is merely paid KRW 120 million as the lease deposit for the operation of the whole store in Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, which the Defendant purchased from I, and the Defendant did not receive the above amount as the fee for non-transmission of the above new shares issued survey, etc. as stated in paragraph (1) of the above criminal facts. The Defendant did not perform legal affairs by taking charge of non-transmission of the above new shares issued and investigated, etc.

2) As stated in the above facts of the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not receive KRW 22.5 million from J as a fund for solicitation of court employees, as stated in the above facts of the crime No. 2 of the crime.

The Defendant, at the request of I, lent KRW 22.5 million to I by means of remitting money to the S deposit account known by I to I and only received KRW 2.5 million from I.

3) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violating the defense law, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Reviewing the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for an attempted crime at the Busan District Court on May 12, 2017, and on August 23, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 23, 2017.

Therefore, each crime in the judgment of the court below is the same as the above attempted crime of fraud, for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and it is equitable with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39 (1)