The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A summary of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant was engaged in the business of a licensed administrative agent and performed the work of preparing documents for application for refugee status in E, the defendant was engaged in the business of licensed administrative agent.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case cannot be seen, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the judgment.

Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was a person of Bangladesh, who had entered the Republic of Korea in 2002 and had acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea in 2004, was operating a restaurant in Yangju City C, who received certain fees from those who were subject to refugee visa applicants and arranged the procedures and documents concerning refugee visa applications.

E, in Bangladesh, is a foreigner of his nationality who has been issued a visa application visa as of April 19, 2016 after the expiration of the current period of stay.

No person, other than a licensed administrative agent, shall engage in the business of preparing documents concerning preparation of documents, rights and obligations, or verification of facts submitted to an administrative agency.

On April 8, 2016, at around 16:00, the Defendant: (a) received a request for the assistance of refugee applications from E, who is Liberia, for the purpose of engaging in administrative affairs, even though he/she is not a licensed administrative agent; (b) prepared a refugee integration application as if he/she was aware that the above E does not constitute a ground for refugee status, and then received KRW 400,000 in return for the request from the above E, and carried out administrative affairs without any justifiable qualification.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and the lower court’s judgment asserted that, under the circumstance that E has already prepared refugee application documents, the Defendant merely provided translation and advice on the said documents, and that E merely provided money to the auditor with the meaning of the audit, and that there was no possibility of engaging in the business of administrative agency.

The lower court: