All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal and Defendant B’s ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 112 Subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter “instant penal provision”) which punishs “a person who has engaged in the business of exercising his/her right by means of lawsuit, conciliation, reconciliation or other means by acquiring another person’s right or pretending to take over another person’s right by transfer, which basically aims to prevent the termination of a lawsuit by prohibiting a person whose right is specified in law from taking any lawsuit, conciliation, settlement or other means through a court to take over another person’s right at a cost or without compensation and implement it.

(2) Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law or a person who takes over another person’s right,” and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law, shall take over another person’s right, and exercises another person’s right by taking over another person’s right from another person,” and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law,” and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law,” and “a person who takes over another person’s right,” as well as a person who is also a person who is not an attorney-at-law, shall not be construed as

Therefore, taking over another person's right is merely a form of taking over another person's right, and the exercise of that right is substantially evaluated as dealing with another person's legal affairs, and even if the acquisition of rights is practically done and exercises that person's right, it shall continue to take over another person's right and mediate and compromise.