A. Com-markets based on the database of purchase history through media, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, are one of the universal marketing methods used in the field of rehabilitation, etc., and their structure differs from the two issues of the hub of the case regulated by the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, it is not necessary to regulate, and rather is structurally identical to advertisements regulated by the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, Defendant’s act does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, since it does not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Even if not, the defendant did not understand that attracting activities using tele-market companies violate the Attorney-at-Law Act, and did not know that the costs paid to tele-market companies are mere marketing costs, but did not know that it was paid in return for mediating acceptance of legal cases.

B. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service, which the court below sentenced to the defendant, is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Attorney-at-Law Act applicable prohibits an attorney-at-law or his/her office staff from providing money and other valuables in return for introducing, arranging or inducing the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs.

(Article 34(2). In this case, the term "mediation" means the act of mediating or promoting the conclusion of delegation or contract, etc. with respect to legal cases or legal affairs bilaterally between a party to a legal case and the other party who deals with legal affairs, such as representation, etc. in the case.

In addition, the intention, which is a subjective element of the elements of crime composition necessary to punish the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, is money and valuables in return for the mediation of the case.