The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30,000,000.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the imprisonment of six months, the suspended sentence of two years, the community service order of 120 hours, the additional collection of 130 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the charge of additional collection or collected 57 million won, which the Defendant lent and accepted under the attorney’s name, from the above amount of additional collection, the amount equivalent to KRW 25 million for the office portion used by A in relation to the handling of his legal affairs, and the amount equivalent to KRW 10 million for additional value paid by the Defendant on behalf of A should be deducted.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and additional collection of KRW 57 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant's judgment on the appeal by the defendant A is contrary to his or her acknowledgement of his or her mistake, and that the defendant is the first offender.

However, the crime of this case is committed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law to handle legal affairs, thereby impairing the social trust in the system of attorney-at-law, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak in light of the period, scale, frequency, etc. of the crime, and there is no special change in circumstances after the judgment of the court below was rendered. In full view of the defendant's age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable even if considering the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, even if it is considered as favorable to

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s appeal 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the collection of the rent and management fee, first of all, the health team paid a certain amount monthly in return for a loan under the name of the Defendant, and did not specify which amount of the rent or management fee between the Defendant and the Defendant.