A. In light of the fact that Defendant A’s mistake was divided and reflected by Defendant A, and there is little substantial benefit from the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (the penalty of August, additional collection of KRW 177,510,615) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In the course of committing the instant crime, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) had managed personal rehabilitation fees and office operating expenses using the account in the name of Defendant B. The said account was deposited with the Defendant B’s civil and criminal case 4 fees that are entirely irrelevant to the instant crime.

A remitted part of the fees for personal rehabilitation cases to the personal account used by Defendant B as benefits (on the other hand, it refers to the fees for lending the name). At the same time, A transferred 15,000,000 won, excluding the value-added tax out of the said four acceptance fees.

Therefore, the calculation of the additional collection amount for Defendant B should be based on the method of deducting the above KRW 15,000,000, which is irrelevant to the instant crime, from the total amount of money remitted from A to the said personal account.

Nevertheless, without considering such circumstances, the judgment of the court below that calculated the total amount of the benefits received by Defendant B as KRW 32,300,000 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2) In light of the fact that: (a) Defendant B’s wrongful sentencing committed by Defendant B was divided into and reflected in his mistake; and (b) the acceptance of part of his personal rehabilitation case conducted in the name of Defendant B was revoked; (c) the sentence that the lower court sentenced Defendant B to the punishment (hereinafter “criminal penalty”) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to Defendant B, Defendant B was allowed to use A’s office only by lending the name of attorney, and around that time, the lessee under the lease contract for the above office was changed to Defendant B, and value added to the case of personal rehabilitation.