2. The judgment of the court below is a favorable circumstance that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case while committing the crime of this case, and there is no record of criminal punishment for the same crime. However, the crime of this case is against the legislative intent of the defensive justice that prevents a person who is not an attorney-at-law from causing any disadvantage to the people's legal life by strictly prohibiting the act of handling the legal affairs in return for consideration, and thus, it is necessary to punish the defendant as well as most damage to the victim through Internet blogs or knowledgeIN answers, and receives money as proxy for legal counseling or legal affairs for an unspecified person during a considerable period of time, and in the process of taking money from the victims as proxy for legal counseling or legal affairs, taking into account the period and frequency of the crime, the method of crime, and the amount of fraud. In particular, the crime of this case goes against the legislative intent of the defensive justice that prevents a person who is not an attorney-at-law from being treated as a legal affairs, and there is no reason for the court below's decision to punish the crime of this case as well.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the term “the beginning of December 2, 2012” in the first sentence of Article 25(1) of the judgment below as “the first sentence of December 1, 2012 patrol officer” is corrected as being “the first sentence of November 2012”).