A. The judgment of the court below that recognized all of the facts charged of this case is unlawful, even though the complainant received a complaint directly with the Seoul Administrative Court, not the defendant of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the fine of three million won, the additional collection of 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the fact that even according to the defendant's statement of the court of first instance on the defendant's argument of mistake of facts, the defendant prepared a complaint with the complainant, and the Seoul Administrative Court was next to the complainant's receipt of the complaint. Whether the defendant prepared a complaint which is a legal document and received it directly even if the defendant is not an attorney-at-law, is not an important matter in determining whether the defendant violated the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the defendant made a statement at the prosecutor's office to the effect that he was acting on behalf of the court, such as the complainant (Evidence No. 107, 108 of the evidence record), and the court below made a statement that all the facts charged of this case were recognized (Evidence No. 107, 108 of the evidence record), the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this case is just, and the defendant

B. Even when considering the fact that the complainant himself/herself appears to have found the defendant, and the defendant returned one million won of the money received from the complainant, the crime of this case violates the Attorney-at-Law Act prepared to secure the public nature and reliability of the judicial system by allowing only attorneys with certain qualifications, expertise, etc. to handle legal affairs, thereby preventing harm caused by the handling of legal affairs by those who failed to meet such qualifications, expertise, etc., and the liability for such crime is not somewhat weak, and the defendant is liable to the complainant.