A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the portion of the additional collection: (a) collected all of the money that the Defendant received as a system user fee and rent for an office office from the head of the F, Inc., the accomplice; (b) but among them, received as an office rent (i.e., KRW 98,200,272.5 (i.e., KRW 196,400,545) ± (ii) should be excluded

B. In light of the fact that the illegal defendant recognized the error of sentencing, the fact that the defendant was working in the financial industry, such as banks, etc. for more than 30 years, the fact that the case committed the crime and did not commit the crime for personal interest, and the fact that the defendant was paid money under the name of the FF system user fee and office rent of the company, and most of the office managers such as K did not actually acquire profits, and the defendant did not repeat the same crime after 2013, and the defendant did not repeat the same crime. In light of the fact that the defendant was aged and there was no history of criminal punishment, it is unfair that the court below sentenced two years of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the misapprehension of legal principles (1) Article 109 Subparag. 1 of the Act provides for penal provisions as to the act of legal affairs in which a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits. The mere fact that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, received or promises to receive reimbursement for actual expenses

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the above Article aims to prohibit a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from engaging in legal affairs for a fee, and thus, considering various circumstances such as the content, details and scale of expenses, and the process of giving and receiving profits, the reimbursement for actual expenses shall be made in consideration of legal affairs.