A. (1) As to the facts charged No. 1, Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law No. 112 of the Act prohibits a person, who is not authorized, from another person, with expertise and objective credibility necessary for handling legal affairs, from acquiring rights from another person; and from performing another person’s legal affairs continuously and continuously by lending the form of exercising such rights.

However, Defendant A purchased F. F. F. 618 square meters and G. 16 square meters (hereinafter “each of the of the instant W roads”) from E for permanent residence, and filed a lawsuit to claim the return of unfair benefits against the permanent residents occupying each of the instant W roads, and received unfair benefits based on the winning judgment, Defendant A received such unfair benefits. As such, Defendant A’s performance of one’s duties does not deal with other’s legal affairs, but rather carried out as “business.”

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) Even if Defendant A’s act of asserting that the statute of limitations has expired violates Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Defense Acquisition Program Act, the crime was terminated on January 23, 2008, which was the date on which the judgment on the claim for the return of unfair benefit that Defendant A brought against permanent residents, was rendered. Since the instant public prosecution was instituted on December 26, 2014, five years after the lapse of the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations expired.

B. (1) As to Article 2 of the facts charged, Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B would purchase five lots of land, other than H road 360 square meters, at permanent residence from E (hereinafter “the instant H”), provided litigation costs to E in order to secure a purchaser’s right, and prepared litigation documents. Thus, this is an act related to one’s own business and does not act as a proxy in return for receiving money and valuables from E.

(2) Defendant A’s assertion violates Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Defense Act.