A. The prosecutor (unfairness) that the court below sentenced the defendants as to each punishment (in the case of defendant A: one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution and fine of 8 million won; two years of suspended execution in the case of defendant B; two years of suspended execution in the case of defendant C; two years of suspended execution in the case of August; two years of suspended execution in the case of defendant C; and two years of suspended execution in the case of defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor in October) are too una

B. Defendants A, B, C1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (in particular, the Defendants’ act falls under the elements of Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, even if the Defendants’ act formally constitutes the elements of establishment under Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the act is within the scope of legitimate work due to the need of a new socioeconomic necessity.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A, B, and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter “instant penal provision”).

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent the closure of a suit, mediation, settlement or other means by regulating the evasion of law, preventing harm to the interests of the people in legal life, and ensuring the fair and smooth operation of the civil judicial system, and by prohibiting a person specified in the law from taking over another person's rights at a cost or without compensation and executing it with or without compensation, by using the court.

(b).