The judgment below

Of the above, the part of collection against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B 18,936,320 won shall be collected.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part of the lower judgment) by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A handled the application for collective registration by using the name of the defense-related private person under the name of Defendant B in 2017, and received money and valuables in return. Defendant B can fully recognize the fact that Defendant A had Defendant A use his attorney’s name.

Even so, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The punishment of the lower court (the suspended execution of four years and additional collection of one year and one year and six months, and the suspended execution of two years and additional collection of one year and six months, in the case of Defendant A), which is unfair in sentencing, is too unfluent and unfair.

2) Defendant A’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant B ① misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (guilty part of the lower judgment) Defendant B directly borne the operating fund of the office by using the Mapo-gu passbook opened at the request of Defendant A (hereinafter “office exclusive account”) in 2014-2015.

In 2016, the instant office changed its organization into T law firm’s branch.

Therefore, Defendant A handled legal affairs on his responsibility and account without subject to Defendant B’s direction and supervision.

No assessment may be conducted.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

② Inasmuch as 92,405,120 won received by Defendant B related to criminal proceeds in 2014-2015 from January 1, 2014 to December 2015, 2015 is below KRW 96,941,243, which is the accumulated debt amount of the exclusive account of the office that occurred during the said period, Defendant B actually gained profits equivalent to the said money.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The amount of KRW 28 million received by Defendant B related to the criminal proceeds in 2016 from January 2016 to July 2016, 2016, is the earnings from transmission, and it is the fee paid to Defendant A in the name of lending.