Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 6,00,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a certified judicial scrivener who has worked as a secretary in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” and Defendant B is a certified judicial scrivener who operates the above “D”.

No person, other than an attorney-at-law, shall handle legal affairs in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits.

Defendant

A leased the name of a certified judicial scrivener in the name of Defendant B to pay KRW 2 million in the number of each month on condition that he/she handled the case, such as individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy. Defendant B, despite being aware of the fact that Defendant A received a commission from the clients of the case, such as individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy, and actually handled a series of affairs related to the case, such as individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy, on behalf of the clients, agreed to handle the case, including individual rehabilitation, using the name of the certified judicial scrivener B, and receive a self-payment in return.

Defendant

A around June 22, 2015, after receiving fees of KRW 1.5 million from the clients in the case of individual rehabilitation from the clients in the case of individual rehabilitation, accepted the case of individual rehabilitation, and then lent the name of B certified judicial scrivener in the name of B to prepare and submit various documents, document correction, service, application for prohibition or suspension order, provisional cancellation of attachment, cancellation of credit, cancellation of registration, etc. A performed on behalf of the clients. From that time until September 7, 2015, the case of individual rehabilitation, bankruptcy, etc., including 60 individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy, etc., including the case of acceptance fees of KRW 106,40,000, which was paid from September 7, 2015. Defendant B used the above office to Defendant A, and allowed Defendant B to deal with the case of individual rehabilitation, etc. by using the name of B certified judicial scrivener.

As a result, even though Defendants were not attorneys-at-law in collusion, they dealt with legal affairs concerning non-contentious cases such as personal rehabilitation and bankruptcy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. In the investigation report (in addition to data on details of loan of commission fees to the suspect A), one copy of the current status of loan of commission fees to the D office.