The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not act as an agent or an agent with respect to the auction of real estate as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and only provided consultation to the extent that it does not violate the law.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. No person, other than an attorney-at-law, shall handle or arrange legal affairs, such as representation for legal cases, legal counseling services, preparation of legal documents, etc. with respect to legal cases, such as non-litigation cases, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 3, 2016, the Defendant received the request of E from the office of D Co., Ltd. established by himself, and analyzed the auction goods of the F real estate auction at the Daegu District Court Branch of Port Branch of the Daegu District Court, and decided the bid price, etc., and led all auction procedures, and received the above real estate bid price by E, and received KRW 3 million in total as the fee.

As a result, the defendant was not a lawyer and represented for auction bidding.

B. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below also includes cases where the "representative" under Article 109 (1) 1 of the Defense Act does not take the form of agency and actually causes the same effect as the agency is performed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2725, Nov. 13, 2002). According to the evidence of the court below, the defendant takes the lead in the process of all auction except where the defendant does not explain the matters about the auction real estate to E and submits the bid price list, such as the determination of the bid price and the preparation of the bid list, without specifying the matters on the auction real estate, and it can be recognized that he received money under the pretext of the commission.