A. The summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1 of the facts charged is set forth in the judgment of the court below.

As stated in the subsection, F’s statement is as follows. F’s statement is likely to refuse to receive an audit opinion from an external auditor, and it is eventually refused to receive an audit opinion despite entering into a service contract with the Defendant and payment of KRW 20,000,000 to H accounting firm, and the Defendant subsequently refused to pay the audit opinion, and the Defendant was given KRW 200,000 to the Korea Exchange’s officers and employees. At the time of transfer to the H accounting firm, D and F remitted KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant’s personal account in addition to the transfer of the amount to the account of H accounting firm; D issued a tax invoice of KRW 120,000,000 to the Defendant’s personal account; even if the H accounting firm failed to receive all the service fees, the amount of service fees of KRW 20,000,000 from the Korea Exchange is to be delivered to the Defendant and the accounting firm, and KRW 30,000,000,000.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected F's statement and acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of March 23, 2011, in light of the fact that F did not demand the return of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant even after D was delisting, and that F did not demand the return of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant even after D was delisting, and that F did not exclude the possibility of being a legitimate service payment for the prevention of delisting. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion

B. (1) Determination is made according to Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Certified Public Accountant Act.