Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(2).

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles against Defendant A) sentenced Defendant A with a judgment of acquittal for the part of the violation of the defense justice from October 1, 2007 to April 1, 2009, on the ground that the res judicata effect of the summary order against Defendant A on April 1, 2009, as an inclusive crime of violation of the Act by the attorney-at-law of this case, extends to the crime prior to the issuance time of the above summary order.

However, considering ① the necessity of strict association for the crime of violation of the law by attorneys and the unique characteristics of legal affairs that cannot be seen as the same as the act of business, it is reasonable to apply this to concurrent crimes. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and ② even if the court below is considered a single comprehensive crime of household affairs, the office was transferred to July 1, 2008, and thus the criminal intent was renewed as of that point.

In light of the circumstances that can be seen, even though the effect of res judicata of the above summary order on the crime after July 1, 2008 does not extend to the crime, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the court below erred in holding that res judicata effect.

B. Defendants 1) In fact, the subject of responsibility and calculation with respect to the operation of the legal office of this case is the defense-related private person B. Defendant A is the head of the legal office of this case, and only dealt with legal affairs under the direction and supervision of Defendant B. Thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2) The guilty of an unfair Sentencing

Even if the defendants were to be sentenced to the punishment of the court below (Defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of 1 year and 1 year of suspended execution, 2 year of suspended execution, community service work 280 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to acquittal part against Defendant A by the prosecutor is not an attorney-at-law, and receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits.