A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not act as an agent for an auction case, and merely provided consultation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the purport of Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act that prohibits a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from participating in the conduct of legal affairs by prohibiting him/her from participating in the conduct of legal affairs, the "agent" under the above Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act means not only the act of dealing with legal affairs in the name of his/her agent, but also the act of using legal knowledge on behalf of his/her agent, or the act of using legal knowledge on behalf of his/her own as if he/she directly deals with the case for the person who has no legal knowledge or lacks in fact, but also the case where he/she intends to generate the same effect as the act of representation. It constitutes an "agent" under Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act where he/she actually represents an auction by participating in all auction process except for submission of a bid name on behalf of his/her client, such as preparing a bid list.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do790 delivered on April 13, 2001, etc.). According to the records, E states that the defendant was led to the auction procedure, and the bid price decision was also made by the defendant, etc., and the defendant also states that he was represented by the auction act, such as the defendant's act, on-site investigation, on-site analysis of rights, and on-site decision