The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the defendant received 500,000 won from C by proxy for the auction procedure, and that the defendant received 50% of the profits from the sale of real estate from C is a compensation for the affairs not prohibited by the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the court below which recognized the defendant's violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion as to the grounds for appeal of this case, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the contract concluded with C is not only a contract that includes the selection of real estate at auction, profitability analysis, bidding agency, successful bid, lease, and re-sale, but also merely KRW 500,000 of the tender agency’s price cannot be easily paid. Thus, it is reasonable to view that 50% of the revenue includes the price for bidding agency. The Defendant’s 500,000 won received from C does not receive reimbursement by clarifying its details, but also was paid as expenses for activities at the time of the contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount received as compensation

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant, as the representative of J, entered into an auction investment group contract with C on March 15, 2008. According to the above contract, the Defendant selected the auction real estate having investment value by receiving the investment money from C, was awarded the auction procedure in the name of C, and subsequently leased and sold the real estate again, and the Defendant and C distributed the real estate to 50:50 if the property was leased or sold, and ② the employees of J Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant investigate the type of real estate, relationship of rights, etc.