A. The crime list in the judgment of the court of first instance includes a case in which the defendant, while working in each attorney-at-law, certified judicial scrivener office, and the attorney-at-law and certified judicial scrivener entrusted the defendant with the handling of affairs (total of 42 cases, total of 17,457,300 won). Thus, the part does not constitute a defense violation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which pronounced guilty of the whole facts charged, including the part, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the defendant, the prosecutor), the defendant asserts that the above punishment is too unafford and unfair, while the above punishment is too unafford. The prosecutor is too unafford. The above punishment is too unafford.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court convicted the Defendant of all the charges of this case by taking into account the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated. A thorough examination by comparing the first instance judgment with the evidence, the first instance court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the Defendant.

The defendant cannot be seen (other than the supporting materials that the defendant is classified in accordance with his memory and prepared, the defendant stated that there is no objective evidence proving that the defendant is delegated to him/her for personal treatment after he/she himself/herself at an attorney-at-law or a certified judicial scrivener office where he/she was in office or where he/she was in office. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. We also examine the unfair sentencing argument of the defendant and the prosecutor about the unfair sentencing.

The defendant is the first offender, etc.