A. In spite of the fact that the Defendant did not engage in the act of exercising the right as “business” and the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act contrary to the legislative intent of Article 112 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant

B. In light of the fact that the defendant in an unreasonable sentencing violates his own mistake in depth and does not run the debt collection business again, and that the defendant constantly endeavored to develop the local community, etc., the sentence of the court below imposing a fine of KRW 3,000,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Article 112 Subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter “instant penal provision”) of the same Act regulates evasion of law, prevent harm to the people’s interests in legal life, and ensure the fair and smooth operation of the civil judicial system. The legislative purpose of the same is to prevent the abolition of a lawsuit by prohibiting a person, who is stipulated in the law, from taking a lawsuit, conciliation, settlement, or other means by using the court to acquire another’s right at a cost or without compensation, and to enforce the same by acquiring another’s right at a cost or without compensation.

In addition, the purpose of the instant penal provision is to achieve significant public interest by prohibiting a person not authorized as having expertise and objective reliability necessary for handling legal affairs from acquiring rights from another person, and from continuously performing another person’s legal affairs in substance through lending the form of exercising such rights. Thus, even though a certain act formally constitutes a constituent element of the instant penal provision, it is practically legitimate duties due to a new socioeconomic needs.