All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants were regular employees who entered into an employment contract with L law firms and received allowances (in return for incentives) according to their performance of duties, and did not arrange the application for registration as legal affairs or receive the relevant fees. Thus, the Defendants violated Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Although it is recognized that the Defendants were guilty of domestic affairs, the amount that the Defendants received from the law firm should be excluded from the amount equivalent to the Defendants’ basic wages.

(c)

The sentencing unfair sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (one year of the suspended sentence in June; one year of the suspended sentence in May; one year of the suspended sentence in April; two years of the suspended sentence in August; two years of the suspended sentence in Defendant E; four years of the suspended sentence in Defendant F; four million won of fine in Defendant F; and three million won of fine in Defendant G) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "alone" as referred to in Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Defense Act refers to the act of mediating or facilitating the conclusion of delegation contracts, etc. concerning legal cases or legal affairs between the parties to a legal case and the other party who deals with legal affairs, such as representation, in connection with the case, between the parties to the case and the other party. The case includes not only the person who requested the mediation of remuneration but also the person who received the payment from the other party or both parties, and the case constitutes not only the case where the non-legal representative acts as an attorney-at-law, but also the case where the non-legal representative acts as an attorney-at-law as a broker to the other non-legal representative (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2253, Sept. 29, 200). The same applies to the case where the staff of the legal office acts as a substitute for the litigation case and received money in return therefor (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do5069, Jul. 24, 2001).