The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) should collect the remainder of the money received by Defendant in relation to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, excluding the portion paid as actual expenses.

However, the judgment of the court below that collected the full amount of 98,300,818 won by the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the collection of additional charges.

(2) In light of the fact that the Defendant is against the Defendant and the amount of embezzlement has been partially recovered, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, additional collection of KRW 98,300,818) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the nature of the crime and the scale of the crime committed by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with respect to the facts charged as stated below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, even if the above reasons for ex officio reversal exist, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In light of the legislative intent of Article 109, Item 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act which prohibits non-legal practitioners from handling legal affairs, the "interest" of Article 109, Item 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act shall be interpreted to be limited to the economic interest exceeding the compensation for actual expenses, and when merely receiving compensation for actual expenses, it shall not be deemed a crime even if legal affairs under the above law are handled.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3120 delivered on May 10, 1996, etc.). Since Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act aims to prevent a person who violated the provisions of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act from holding illegal profits acquired by such violation, only the part of the economic benefits exceeding the compensation for actual expenses should be collected.