Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

from the defendant.

Around January 15, 2009, the Defendant was aware that the victim K purchased the right to move into the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan L Commercial Building, but the resale was restricted, and thus it is possible to solve this problem. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was not an attorney-at-law, the Defendant introduced himself/herself as an attorney-at-law in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and issued a name stating himself/herself as an attorney-at-law to the victim, and there is no ground for restriction on resale in the case of a commercial building. However, in the case of a commercial building, the restriction on resale is reasonable, but there is no ground for restriction on resale in the case of a commercial building. The Defendant submitted a written application against the relevant administrative agencies and SH Corporation, and filed a dispute against the seller, and submitted an application for restriction on resale to four institutions such as SH Corporation and the Prime Minister.

As a result, although the defendant is not an attorney-at-law, he received money, handled legal counseling and other legal affairs concerning litigation cases, and by deceiving the victim as if he were an attorney-at-law.

The Defendant is not an attorney-at-law, and is in charge of legal affairs by creating a name stating “Attorney A” of M Co., Ltd.

1. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

(a) No one, other than an attorney-at-law, shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or provide or promise to provide such things to a third party, in connection with a litigation case, shall deal with appraisal, representation, arbitration, reconciliation, solicitation, legal consultation or preparation of legal documents or other legal affairs;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, however, is in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government PO beauty room operated by N around April 2012.