All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Of the guilty portion of the lower judgment, Defendant (1) can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received KRW 2 million as part of the loans to K, not in the name of solicitation, from E, with respect to the violation of the Act by attorneys-at-law. ② As to each auction interference, it may be known that the Defendant did not engage in any act interfering with auction and did not intend to commit an auction interference. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the relevant part of the facts charged.

(2) Even if not, in light of the fact that the amount received by the defendant as a solicitation is not so big, and that there is no profit gained from each auction obstruction crime, the sentence (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the judgment below and one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 2 in the judgment below) of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the Defendant’s act of issuing a promissory note on the part of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment is deemed null and void as an abuse of the power of representation in violation of his duties as the representative director of the company or an act of unauthorized representation after being dismissed from the representative director. ② As to embezzlement, the Defendant arbitrarily used KRW 40 million with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

Although it is reasonable to see it, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to the conviction of the lower judgment, the above sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the defendant's mistake of facts

A. As to the violation of the law of attorney and interference with each auction, the lower court shall sufficiently prove the fact that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from E by avoiding the solicitation of the judicial assistant in charge of the auction case in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence presented by the lower court.