1. The part of the judgment below of the first instance is reversed.

500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

For the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The part of the judgment of the court below of the first instance is that the Defendant received 3.3 million won as an employee of the law firm AG from the Y to the law firm AG, and delivered it to the law firm AG under the pretext of appointing an attorney-at-law. Since the Defendant spent more than 5.0 million won in the name of the activity activity expenses, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of violation of the defense law. The above 3.3 million won cannot be collected from the Defendant.

The defendant only claims that 3.3 million won received from Y in the statement of reasons for appeal was delivered to AG to Y, but it seems to include misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection.

B) Of the judgment of the court below of the third instance, the Defendant was guilty with monetary claims of KRW 30 million against E, and the Defendant prepared power of attorney and promissory notes with legitimate delegation from E and received authentication.

2) Illegal sentencing (as to the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the third instance court), the first instance court and the third instance court’s punishment (i.e., the first instance court: the fine of KRW 3 million; (ii) the additional collection of KRW 3.8 million; and (iii) the third instance court: the imprisonment of one year; and (iv) the suspension of execution of two years) are too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant, at the lower judgment, forged a letter of confirmation in the name of E, a private document pertaining to fact-finding for the purpose of exercising the right, and submitted it to the Seoul Central District Court 2012Ga group 75619, as evidence of the instant case.

B) Of the judgment of the court below in the third instance, the Defendant was aware that the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below was clearly false when the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim E (Seoul Central District Court 2013Ga group 148996) against the victim E.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) No. 3 is too unhuable and unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court in part of the judgment of the court below.