A. Under the below, the defendant uses the title "the defendant" only for the defendant who falls under each item, and the remaining defendants shall state only their names.

E, A, and AM1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A/ II original judgment)

Although the defendant received KRW 60 million from D on February 24, 2014, he/she returned the amount of KRW 10 million, the above amount was not distributed part of KRW 140 million, which was received from E, but rather borrowed KRW 50 million from D, regardless of this case. Therefore, the above KRW 50 million should be excluded from additional collection. Nevertheless, the court below deemed to have received part of the proceeds from the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which was received from E on December 24, 2014, the sum of KRW 50 million, including KRW 50 million, and KRW 88 million, including this part of imprisonment: Defendant 1,000, KRW 168,000,000,000, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the sentencing of KRW 16,00,000,000,000.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the Prosecutor (Defendant E) sentenced the first instance court to the Defendants (Defendant E: one year of imprisonment / ten years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service) are deemed to be too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Of the first judgment of ex officio determination on Defendant A and AM, the part against Defendant A and the second judgment of the lower court were appealed by Defendant A, and this court decided to conduct a consolidated trial on the above two appeals. The first judgment is the first judgment.