All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of ten thousand won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first judgment of misunderstanding of facts) 1: (a) merely received KRW 500,00 as a document document preparation fee related to the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener, and there is no receipt of KRW 1,00,000 in return for the referral of a proxy by an attorney-at-law; (b) The second judgment of 2) only prepared relevant documents and shared the office only by the defendant, and did not engage in credit business in collusion with D.

B. The sentence sentenced by the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first judgment: the fine of KRW 5,00,000 and the penalty of KRW 1,000,000, and the second judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor of KRW 2 years, a fine of KRW 10,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the court of first and second trials decided to concurrently examine the case of appeal by the court of first and second trials against the defendant. Each of the crimes of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In light of the difference between the method of assessing the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, it is obvious that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance court’s ruling and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, or that of the evidence examination conducted by the time of the closing of arguments in the first instance.