If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

No attorney-at-law shall allow any person who intends to handle legal affairs without qualification as an attorney-at-law to use his/her name.

Nevertheless, around April 2010, the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, had C and D, who is not an attorney-at-law, handle personal rehabilitation law affairs in the name of the Defendant, using the name of the attorney-at-law in Seocho-gu Seoul, and receive 1,000,000 won from the clients of personal rehabilitation cases, using the name of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law. From that time to October 201, the Defendant, as shown in attached Table 1, up to October 201, he had C and D handle the case of personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and 85 times in total by using the name of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law, and received 38,00,000,000 won in return for the loan from the name of the said C and D (2,00,000 won in the name of the Defendant).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C to the prosecution;

1. Article 109 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 109 subparagraph 2 and 34 (3) of the Act ( comprehensively referred to as an attorney-at-law in charge) and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The latter part of Article 116 of the Additional Collection Attorney Act: Provided, That since the defendant did not directly receive KRW 2 million each month from C or D, the above amount is not subject to additional collection.

The argument is asserted.

However, the Defendant had C and D borrow the name of the Defendant in a separate space and accepted the case of personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and liability. Although C and D paid rent for a separate space, as alleged by the Defendant, C and D directly paid it to the lessor.

Even if the parties to a lease contract were the parties to the contract and the defendant were the parties to the contract, and the defendant would be merely to allow C and D to pay rent directly to the lessor without going through the defendant (if the rent is in arrears, it is clear that the defendant had the legal responsibility to pay rent).