All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) On the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant did not intend to acquire money from the victim.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. On the second instance judgment, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and the appellate court decided that the appellate case against the judgment of the court of first and second instance will be consolidated and examined.

However, the crime of fraud in the judgment of the court of first instance is a concurrent crime between the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of occupational embezzlement in the judgment of the court of first instance which became final and conclusive on October 31, 2013, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the judgment of the court of second instance is an offense committed after October 31, 2013, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be punished by a single sentence. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be reversed ex officio despite the aforementioned consolidated trial decision.

(1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below on the grounds of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance and received 7 million won from the victim as the retainer money can be sufficiently recognized.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

① On August 20, 2013, the Defendant, who was an attorney-at-law, entered into a delegation contract with the victim on the part of August 20, 2013. At the time, the Defendant filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court of Incheon District Court to suspend the execution of imprisonment with prison labor (hereinafter “instant judgment”) for the crime of occupational embezzlement, and the final appeal was continued, and the registration of the Defendant was revoked as necessary following a resolution of the Registration Review Committee under the Attorney-at-Law Act.