The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1-A of the decision of the court below on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

In regard to Paragraph E, the Defendant was present at the Labor Relations Commission on behalf of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission for the case No. 2010 Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission and was paid KRW 500,000 as compensation for transportation expenses, etc., which does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

No. 1-b. of the judgment of the court below

The judgment below which found the F guilty of the above part of the facts charged did not contain any money or valuables from E with respect to the processing of the F’s legal affairs related to provisional attachment against E-owned real estate.

B. The lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement out of the instant facts charged is unlawful by misunderstanding the fact, even though there was a settlement agreement that the Defendant, around the end of April 201, transferred his claim against the victim E with respect to his own L, thereby substituting the payment of the obligation due to the embezzlement as indicated in the judgment against the victim.

2. Determination

A. Article 109 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the act of receiving or promising money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits shall be punished for violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act." The "interest" under the above provision shall be interpreted to be limited to the economic interest exceeding the compensation for actual expenses in light of the legislative intent of the above law that prohibits non-legal practitioners from handling the legal affairs. If it is merely merely receiving compensation for actual expenses, it shall not be deemed a crime even in handling the legal affairs under the above law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7481 delivered on April 28, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 95Do3120 delivered on May 10, 1996, etc.). First of all, facts constituting an offense set forth in the judgment below are as follows.

As to the part of this paragraph, E is clean for the case of request for unfair dismissal from the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.