The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of fact 1) The victim D’s transfer of one million won to the I’s account on March 29, 2018 does not constitute a case where the victim D received money in return for legal counseling or preparation of legal documents because it was paid irrespective of the Defendant. 2) On April 8, 2018, the victim D borrowed KRW 500,000 from the victim D to receive money in return for legal counseling or preparation of legal documents. Thus, it does not constitute a case where the victim received money in return for legal counseling or preparation

3) On June 26, 2018, KRW 22,00,00 delivered as of June 26, 2018 was received under the pretext of investing in online shopping mall, and the victim D also knew that he/she invested in online shopping mall, and thus, fraud is not established. Thus, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is not established, since the victim D also knew that he/she invested in online shopping mall.

'No fact exists in the vicinity of a water source inspection around May 29, 2018, and D also acknowledges such fact, the facts charged cannot be deemed to be specified.

"," is argued to the effect that it is a mistake of fact.

In August 2018, the prosecutor argued that he/she recognized this part of the facts charged because he/she deceiving or forcibly investigated the defendant by taking the recorded files into account around August 2018.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, additional collection of ten thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment by changing the part of the facts charged "in the vicinity of the Suwon-si Suwon-si District Prosecutors' Office, 120 World Cups" to "in the vicinity of the Suwon-si District Prosecutors' Office, the Seoul Dongjak-gu Office," and it is subject to the judgment by this court by deciding to grant permission.