According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant can be found to be guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the calculation of additional collection charges is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out. The representation in the litigation case under Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not necessarily mean only a proxy who performs the litigation under the name of the attorney-at-law with the delegation of the litigation, but also includes a case where a person other than a lawyer handles the litigation case under the name of the attorney-at-law on behalf of the principal on behalf of the principal. As determined by the court below, the defendant, even though he is not a lawyer, prepares various litigation documents, such as a complaint, preparation of legal brief, evidence application, etc., and sent them to the court while identifying the progress of the lawsuit and sending them to the court, which constitutes a violation of Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)