The judgment below

The parts concerning Defendant C and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant act committed by the misunderstanding of the legal principles by Defendant A1 does not fall under Article 109 subparag. 1(a) of the Defense Act, which is a tax specialist who helps the attorney-at-law to provide services and consulted with the victims of illegal multi-stage abuse.

In addition, Defendant A’s remuneration to be received from the victims of illegal multi-stage conflicts reached the dispute transmission phase and the attorney-at-law in charge was committed in an unspecified state. The above remuneration is not a compensation for the appointment of an attorney-at-law, but a compensation for the duties actually in charge by Defendant A. Thus, Defendant A’s act of this case does not constitute any violation of each subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Defense Act.

Furthermore, Defendant A's act of this case for the recovery of damages suffered by illegal multi-stage victims constitutes a justifiable act, and Defendant A believed D, an attorney-at-law from the chief prosecutor, and the illegality of this case is dismissed.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1’s misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine are merely a 45% amount of profit in return for raising funds by having D invest KRW 200 million in accordance with a self-agreement with A on February 21, 2013, and there was no fact that Defendant B committed an act of violation of defensive justice in collusion with A.

In addition, since the agreement between the defendant B and D is about the assistance of the defendant B to the business after the acceptance of the case of this case, there is no fact that the defendant B promised to receive money, etc. in advance as to the acceptance of the case of law case and mediates the person concerned to D.

further, Defendant B was known as a certified tax accountant;

A and the chief prosecutor believe D as an attorney-at-law and did the act in this case, and the defendant B's act does not constitute a crime.

There was a justifiable reason to believe that such a trust has been believed.

2) Punishments sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (one hundred months of imprisonment).