1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Since the above defendant appealed only on the ground of unfair sentencing against the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing, the judgment below which dismissed the appeal cannot be asserted as the ground of appeal.

The above defendant's grounds of appeal are without merit.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

A. The statute of limitations runs from the time when the criminal act has been completed (Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

According to the records, Defendant 1 and 2 promised to receive 50% of the winning interest and arranged it to Defendant 3 upon receiving a request from the Nonindicted Party for the conciliation of the case on the instant land from the Nonindicted Party. Accordingly, Defendant 3 received the letter of delegation of the lawsuit from the Nonindicted Party and filed a lawsuit against the State for the confirmation of land ownership on behalf of the State on March 2003 and withdrawn the lawsuit. After consultation with Defendant 1 and 2 on January 27, 2004, Defendant 1 and 2 filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of land ownership on behalf of the State.

Thus, Defendant 2, etc.'s act of mediating the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership and the lawsuit for confirmation of deposit withdrawal to Defendant 3 as above constitutes a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply). Thus, the starting point of the statute of limitations for this case is January 27, 2004, which is the point of time when the crime was completed. Since the prosecution of this case was filed on July 21, 2008, which was five years before it was completed, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not the time when the statute of limitations expires.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the indictment of this case is lawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations or the violation of the rules of evidence

B. In this case where a sentence of imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years is rendered, the grounds that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. As to Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the grounds of appeal filed after the lapse of the submission period)

A. In light of the legislative intent of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, the term "mediation" under the latter part of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act refers to the act of mediating or facilitating the conclusion of delegation contracts, etc. on legal cases or legal affairs bilaterally between the parties to a legal case and the other party dealing with legal affairs, such as acting as an agent, etc. As such, it may not be concluded in reality even if delegation contracts, etc. are not established, and it includes not only the person who requested the referral of the remuneration, but also the case where the non-legal counsel receives the remuneration from the other party or both parties, but also constitutes a case where the non-legal counsel mediates the representation of the legal case to other non-legal attorneys-at-law, and this legal principle does not change on the ground that there is a separate provision punishing the attorney for the act of receiving money in return (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697, Jun. 1

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below, in the same purport, ordered Defendant 2, etc. to receive a certain benefit from the Nonindicted Party and assisted Defendant 3 to act as proxy on the case of this case as stated in Paragraph 2. A of the above adopted evidence, and acknowledged the fact that Defendant 3 was aware of the fact, and decided Defendant 3 as an offense of violation of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the

B. Where the existence of the principal act is not proven, an ex post facto act may be punished independently, and as long as the court determined that the Defendants’ fraud was not established, and that determination is justified as follows, it cannot be viewed that part of the money gained from the act is an ex post facto act of fraud which Defendant 3 uses at will and is not punishable.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding Defendant 3 guilty of this part of the crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

4. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of fraud against the Defendants on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the number of days of detention after each appeal by Defendants 1 and 2 is to be included in the court (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Do807, Jun. 20, 2002). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)