1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was appointed as a defense counsel in the Suwon District Court Decision 2012No1306 decided on the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant criminal trial”).

Although the defendant was not likely to be released by innocence or fine due to a crime committed by the court of first instance during the period of suspension of execution, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the plaintiff in the criminal trial of this case on account of neglecting his/her duties, the defendant demanded that the plaintiff's wife C, who was not in law, produce the plaintiff to the court of first instance, and entered into an appointment contract of KRW 15 million, which is not under contract, and additionally received the request that C, which is a witness who is an important witness to clarify the non-guilty of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 15 million, which is calculated by deducting the appointment fee of KRW 5 million from the unduly excessive appointment fee of KRW 15 million, and the damages amounting to KRW 10 million, which the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment due to the Defendant’s breach of duty, and KRW 20 million, which is calculated by the Defendant’s breach of duty.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 to 19, and the purport of the witness C’s partial testimony and pleading as a whole.

① On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act on one year and six months. From June 18, 2010 during the suspended sentence period to June 28, 2010, D served as an intermediate manager in the game site, and was indicted on suspicion that D provided game products of different contents and arranged exchange of points acquired through the game.

② In the first instance trial against the Plaintiff, E was an employee of the game room, and the Plaintiff is an employee of the game room at any time, and the method of implementation and settlement of the game for the said employee.