The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Attorney-at-Law Act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant introduced G attorney-at-law to F, provided that he/she did not act as an agent in the litigation while promising F to receive money and valuables from G attorney-at-law.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "an act of acting as an intermediary in connection with a case, etc. in which a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives or promises to receive money or goods, etc., shall be punished." The subject of punishment here includes not only "an act of acting as an intermediary after receiving or promising to receive money or goods, etc., but also "an act of receiving or promising to receive money or goods, etc.," and "an act of assisting another person to receive or promising to receive money or goods, etc., later or in return for such act after arranging representation, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7050, Apr. 14, 2006; 200Do5069, Jul. 24, 201).

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do74 delivered on April 12, 1991). (2) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the defendant introduced G attorney-at-law to F.