A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A: fine of KRW 15 million, Defendant B, C, D, and E: each fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is likely to cause damage to the intent of the Attorney-at-Law Act to maintain a sound trade order in the legal market by blocking various corruptions through the mediation of this case. In particular, Defendant A committed the crime of this case for the purpose of economic interest with the view to defending fundamental human rights and realizing social justice, and thus, the possibility of criticism is very high.

However, the Defendants were indicted of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the Defendants were indicted of having demanded the provision of money and valuables in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. However, in full view of the Defendants’ actual receipt of money and valuables, or the fact that the Defendants did not obtain economic benefits through the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments, including the Defendants’ previous conviction, age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, it is not deemed that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.