1. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant A’s acquittal

A. An attorney-at-law who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or who provides or promises to provide it to a third party, and dealing with legal affairs concerning legal cases, such as appraisal, representation, arbitration, settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, preparation of legal documents, and other legal affairs, or acts in violation of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act, which conflict with the parties in a violation of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act, are separate acts. Thus, each crime committed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law (hereinafter referred to as "non-law") in violation of the Attorney-at-law Act is not a comprehensive crime, unless there are special circumstances.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3072 delivered on August 18, 2000).

Of the facts charged in this case, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that the part of the charges in this case that Defendant A received 2163 legal services as stated in the corresponding column Nos. 1 through 2163 from Oct. 1, 2007 to Apr. 1, 2009, and received 629,736,959 won in return for handling 2163 legal services, thereby engaging in a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by providing legal services without attorneys-at-law. The part that Defendant A committed a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving 629,736,959 won from Oct. 1, 2007 to Oct. 1, 2007 is related to the crime of summary order which was issued and confirmed by Sungnam branch of the Suwon District Court on Apr. 1, 200

C. However, in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is difficult to accept such determination by the lower court.

According to the records, the above facts charged or the defendant A dealt with the facts constituting the above summary order.