2. The fact that the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime in the first instance and against all of the judgment, and that the Defendant was discharged by remitting KRW 5.3 million to the victim around September 20, 2013.

However, the crime of this case is likely to be committed by deceiving the victim, deceiving him about KRW 50 million, processing the legal case without lawyers, and providing a total of KRW 670 million in return, and the crime of this case is very poor.

In particular, in the case of violation of the defense judicial system, the legislative branch prohibits non-legal affairs from being introduced by the attorney-at-law system, which is not qualified as an attorney-at-law, and neglecting to intervene in other persons' legal cases in order to gain profit, such as money and valuables, the interests of the parties or other interested persons, disrupt the fairness of legal life, interfere with smooth operation of legal affairs, and disrupt the legal order. As such, the crime of this case not only damages the foundation of the attorney-at-law system, but also damages the legal order by distorted the legal market, thereby impairing the rights and interests of the people, and thus, the issue is not easy, but also its size is reasonable.

In most cases, fraud damage has not been recovered.

In addition, the lower court determined the punishment in consideration of equity in the case of judgment at the same time with the case of fraud for which judgment has already become final and conclusive.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theory.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.