A. misunderstanding of facts does not violate the Attorney-at-law Act by stipulating that the Defendants agreed to commission fees and act as an agent for auction, and in particular, Defendant B entered that the registered real estate agent office of the Defendants has been registered as the agent for the request for purchase in the statement of grounds of appeal. However, according to the records, only Defendant B is recognized as having registered as the agent for the request for purchase as a licensed real estate agent (the licensed real estate agent office operated by the Defendant is not a broker, and Defendant A is not a licensed real estate agent, and there is no qualification for each request for purchase as the agent for the request for purchase. See Article 5

It is only a legitimate representation act as an agent.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million and a fine of KRW 1,595,980, and a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the purport of Article 109, subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which intends to maintain the lawyer system by prohibiting a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from participating in the handling of legal affairs with respect to the assertion that there was no violation of the Attorney-at-law Act, the term "agent" under the above Article 109, includes not only the legal representative dealing with legal affairs in the name of his/her agent, but also the act necessary for using legal knowledge on behalf of his/her agent, or the case where he/she seeks to generate the same effect as the case where he/she actually conducts the handling of the case on behalf of his/her own with the absence of legal knowledge or without the external form by leading the handling of the case on behalf of his/her own (see Supreme Court Decision 2008.